FANNIE MAE KNEW IN 2003 OF ATTORNEY ABUSES IN FORECLOSURES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: EVERYONE KNEW if they were involved in the mortgage and foreclosure process that the system was going down the wrong the track, that the country would be hurt, that homeowners were being tricked, that investors were being deceived in much the same ways as homeowners. I was on Wall Street and had many dealings with major firms for decades. Wall Street is like a cesspool of rumors and information.

It is not possible that thousands of analysts could have missed the obvious: the mortgages were deadbeat proposals arising out of a scam on investors and that it would blow up in the face of homeowners, the nation and the whole financial system.sham trustees — both at the level of pools of investments and the level of trustees on deeds of trust.

Since Fannie MAe was designated the “trustee” of many asset backed pools that turned out to be empty, it would seem that the fiduciary responsibilities of the SHAM TRUSTEE were breached, just as they were with other sham trustees up and down the line of the nonexistent securitization chain.

The original trustees breached  their responsibilities imposed by state law on handling their duties as fiduciaries for borrowers and lenders on Deeds of Trust. And the “substitute trustees” were nothing of the sort being merely sham vehicle for the pretender lenders to appoint themselves as “Trustees.”

Fannie Mae Knew Early of Abuses, Report Says

By

Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms’ practices, according to a report issued Tuesday.

Only after news reports in mid-2010 began to describe the dubious practices, like the routine filing of false pleadings in bankruptcy courts, did Fannie Mae’s overseer start to scrutinize the conduct. The report was critical of that overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and was prepared by the agency’s inspector general.

In one notable lapse, even after the agency reported problems to Fannie Mae in late 2010 about some of the approved law firms, it did not request a response from the company, the report said.

“American homeowners have been struggling with the effects of the housing finance crisis for several years, and they shouldn’t have to worry whether they will be victims of foreclosure abuse,” said Steve Linick, inspector general of the finance agency. “Increased oversight by F.H.F.A. could help to prevent these abuses.”

The report is the second in two weeks in which the inspector general has outlined lapses at both the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the companies it oversees — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agency has acted as conservator for the companies since they were taken over by the government in 2008. Its duty is to ensure that their operations do not pose additional risk to the taxpayers who now own them. The companies have tapped the taxpayers to cover mortgage losses totaling about $160 billion.

Elijah E. Cummings, the Maryland Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and who requested the inspector general’s report, said in a statement, “As a member of Congress and an attorney, I find the systemic failures by F.H.F.A. and Fannie Mae to adequately oversee these foreclosure law firms to be a breach of the public trust and an assault on the integrity of our justice system.”

The new report from the inspector general tracks Fannie Mae’s dealings with the law firms handling its foreclosures from 1997, when the company created its so-called retained attorney network. At the time, Fannie Mae was a highly profitable and powerful institution, and it devised the legal network to ensure that borrower defaults would be resolved with efficiency and speed.

The law firms in the network agreed to a flat-rate fee structure and pricing model based on the volume of foreclosures they completed. The companies that serviced the loans for Fannie Mae, were supposed to monitor the law firms’ performance and practices, the report noted

After receiving information from a shareholder in 2003 about foreclosure abuses by its law firms, Fannie Mae assigned its outside counsel to investigate, according to the report. That law firm concluded in a 2006 analysis that “foreclosure attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits,” and that the practice could be occurring elsewhere. “It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped,” the law firm said.

The inspector general’s report said that it could not be determined whether Fannie Mae had alerted its regulator, then the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, to the legal improprieties identified by its internal investigation.

Amy Bonitatibus, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, declined to comment on the inspector general’s report, but said that the 2006 legal analysis identified a specific issue with the practice of filing lost-note affidavits, which the company immediately addressed.

The inspector general said that both Fannie Mae and its regulator appear to have ignored other signs of problems in their foreclosure operations. For example, the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not respond to borrower complaints about improper actions taken by law firms in foreclosures received as early as August 2009, even though foreclosure abuse poses operational and financial risks to Fannie Mae.

The report cited a media report from early 2008 detailing foreclosure abuses by law firms doing work for Fannie Mae.

Nevertheless, a few months later and just before its takeover by the government, Fannie Mae began requiring the banks that serviced its loans to use only those law firms that were in its network. By then, 140 law firms in 31 jurisdictions were in the group. Among the largest firms in the network was the David J. Stern firm in Plantation, Fla., which was handling more than 75,000 foreclosure actions a year before Fannie Mae terminated it because of vast problems with its legal work.

Finally last fall, after an outcry over apparently forged foreclosure documents and other improprieties, the Federal Housing Finance Agency began investigating the company’s process. In a report issued early this year, it determined that Fannie Mae’s management of its network of lawyers did not meet safety and soundness standards. Among the reasons: the company’s controls to prevent or detect foreclosure abuses were inadequate, as was the company’s monitoring of the law firms. “If a law firm self-reported no issues as it processed cases,” the inspector general said, “then Fannie Mae presumed the firm was doing a good job.”

The agency is still deciding how to handle the lawyer network, the inspector general said.

Mr. Cummings has asked the federal housing agency to consider terminating the program.

Officials at the housing agency agreed, however, with the recommendations in the inspector general’s report. Corinne Russell, a spokeswoman for F.H.F.A. said the agency was concluding its supervisory work in this area and would direct Fannie Mae to take necessary action when the work was completed.

In a response, the agency said that by Sept. 29, 2012, it would review its existing supervisory practices and act to resolve “deficiencies in the management of risks associated with default-related legal services vendors.”

45 Responses

  1. […] FANNIE MAE KNEW IN 2003 OF ATTORNEY ABUSES IN FORECLOSURES Posted on October 4, 2011 by Neil Garfield […]

  2. […] Like this: Like Be the first to like this post. Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure,foreclosure, foreclosure defense, FORECLOSURE ERRORS, FORECLOSURE MISTAKES,foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, OCC, OCC REVIEW, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization,TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND « FANNIE MAE KNEW IN 2003 OF ATTORNEY ABUSES IN FORECLOSURES […]

  3. […] on October 4, 2011 at 5:29 pm said: Brian, Good for you!! It is just amazing I go back and look at documents and many times see […]

  4. Fannie Mae is corrupt. Whistleblowers come forward.

  5. @carie

    getmoneyout.com

    I just signed.

    All can also get your money out of the big banks and go to a local credit union which are non-profits, double check the Credit Union you are seeking to make sure they are non-profit.

    Why would you bank with a big bank and help contribute to the grossly maligned compensation packages the CEO’s and top management get.

  6. […] View original: Fannie Mae Knew Early of Abuses, Report Says Mouse here forRelated LinksRelated LinksFANNIE MAE KNEW IN 2003 OF ATTORNEY ABUSES IN FORECLOSURES […]

  7. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  8. Jack,
    Post your email. I would love for you to be a Fellow Fannie Fighter.

  9. WALL STREET MOVEMENT FINDING COMMON GROUND—

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#44777334

    MUST WATCH!

    please help: getmoneyout.com

  10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/foreclosure-watchdog-gmac-propublica_n_995066.html

    “Oversight shrouded in secrecy…

    For HAMP’s first two years, the government offered very little public detail about its oversight efforts. It was virtually impossible for the public — or even Congress — to know how well the banks and mortgage servicers were complying with the government’s effort to prevent struggling homeowners from losing their homes. Those years were crucial, because that’s when servicers evaluated the vast majority of homeowners eligible for a modification — about three million.

    The documents obtained by ProPublica show auditors finding serious problems at a major servicer during that time. Instead of publicly revealing the findings, Treasury chose to privately request that GMAC fix the problems.

    “For two years, they’ve known how abysmal servicers were performing, and decided to do nothing,” said Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP or the bank bailout, which provided the money for HAMP.

    “It demonstrates that if you have a set of rules for which compliance is completely voluntary and no meaningful consequences for those who violate them, having all the audits and reviews in the world are not going to make a bit of difference,” he continued. “It’s why the program has been a colossal failure…”

    IT’S ALSO BEEN A COLOSSAL FAILURE BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DON’T WANT TO MODIFY UNSECURED DEBT…THE SERVICERS ARE STRICTLY DEBT COLLECTORS…COMPLICIT IN THE THEFT OF MILLIONS OF HOMES…

  11. and how does the USA Government pay for borrowing from the created year 1913 of the Federal Reserve System, why they borrow from the banks (Federal Reserve System) and Wall St (Federal Reserve System) and charge the US Citizen for this borrowing via Income taxes and Inflation (more money printing).

    If the Government has the power to issue money, why does it need to collect taxes? Or collect money back that it issued?

    If you were king on all money, and you could issue it. Why would you need to get some of it back? You issued it?

  12. It’s pretty simple————–

    The government is bought by Wall Street, and Dylan Radigan has it right, get money out of politics—————–

    and Karl Denninger @ marketticker.org has it right as well but Karl is missing the point as well…………………..

    He states in this clip “the government has to pay for what it spends”……………

    Karl, DUDE, the Government has the authority to issue money. It does not need to borrow,

    dude, KARL, the Government has the power to issue money via tender laws, meaning “you have to accept this piece of paper for all debts, public or private”

    why on Earth does the Government need to borrow……………..

    oh they state ” the full credit of the USA Government”……………

    there’s that word CREDIT = DEBT

    Who created this System, the Federal Reserve ———1913 was the year……………………

  13. Fannie and Freddie have been in cahoots with the rest of these theives all along. So has the FDIC, Fed Reserve, etc.
    THE GOVERNMENT is manipulating this entire Ponzi against the American public. THEY WERE PART OF IT!
    They are all in bed with each other.
    Isn’t it strange that Fannie and Freddie are now part of the govie?
    Fannie and Freddie don’t own shit.
    But with their “kiss” of AAA+ ratings, lots of foreign investors were duped.
    No one “owns” anything. The loans are GONE. Converted into stock. Stock sold to many different investors.
    Have you asked yourself HOW FANNIE AND FREDDIE came to “own” loans that they never would have bought originally? Stated income, stated asset, 80% non owner occupied loans with prepays? 80/20 loans? Hell no, Fannie and Freddie wouldn’t have said they were touching those loans! But somehow now the “own” these?
    How? Why? When?

  14. Brian,

    Good for you!! It is just amazing I go back and look at documents and many times see things I missed I know I have seen your post for a reason and save for when I need it. Thanks for posting and here is praying the judge rules in your favor.

  15. @leapfrog and @zurennarh, I’m ready to take action against Fannie Mae as well. I would love you hear about your cases. We can discuss offline if that works better.

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

  17. You’re welcome, enraged. Have you also visited msfraud.org. There are some good discussions/posts there too. Loansafe.org has a bunch of good discussion folders also.

  18. Leapfrog: that site is phenomenal. Thank you.

  19. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO FORECLOSE ON SOMEBODY BECAUSE OF TAXES ANYHING IN EXCESS, IS GREEDY AND USURIOUS.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST !!! HELLO

    THE GOVERNMENT HAS 2 CHOICES FRAUDCLOSE ON YOU AND COLLECT THE PROCEEDS OR DO THE RIGHT THING BY PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE AND PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS.

    WHICH ONE? DUH.

  20. http://www.scribd.com/doc/67513751/DAVIES-VS-DEUTSCHE-BANK-FABRICATED-DOCUMENTS-CAUGHT-IN-THE-ACTRJN-3-BAP-1221

    I have found some luck. My original grant deed used white out to change marital status. It was done after signing. I just found it in a stack of old documents. Now I know the difference.

  21. Mayor Michael Bloomberg – Your fired !

    OCCUPY WALL STREET – Gaining more volume

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/story/2011-10-04/wall-street-protests/50654534/1

  22. I have posted the following document on Scrib:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/67508709

    (Onewest Bank Gets a Spanking)

    Onewest Bank filed a motion to compel responses to Discovery against me.
    Thanks to the Info on Neils site- I knew Onewest bank was not
    a real party in interest. I refused to respond to their bogus discovery.
    I had to educate my Probate Attorney as to the issues.

    It helped that I obtained t a email FOIA response from the FDIC that indicated their sale of the assests of INDYMAC bank in March 2009 did not
    include the “loan” that has been under litigation now for 25 months.
    Instead of OWB attorneys getting their requested $2,300 in sanctions against me, as the Personal Representative of My 88 year old dads Estate- THe Judge “got it” and sanction them for $750.
    For the record- this California Judge relied on C.C.P 378(A) to based
    his decision to sanction the Onewest Bank “tall building” Attorney(s)

    I hope this info will help others fighting the good fight here in California.

    Stay Strong,

    Steven Mark Rosenberg, MRED
    srosenberg@alumni.usc.edu

  23. Senator Bernie Sanders:

    “Wall Street spent BILLIONS of dollars fighting to deregulate their industry, which led us to the illegal behavior which caused the recession…Wall Street and other large companies are spending HUGE amounts of money influencing politics in America, and the legislative agenda—and of COURSE we’ve got to get that money out of politics…”

    “Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we’re angry…”

    HAS EVERYONE SIGNED THE AMENDMENT PETITION—AND TOLD A FRIEND???

    http://www.getmoneyout.com/

    If we get money OUT of politics—this massive global financial debacle cannot happen again—please help! We have to reach 100,000 signatures by the end of this week—thank you , thank you!!

    AMENDMENT:

    “No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

    To double your impact, send GETMONEYOUT.com to one other person…

  24. “The GSEs could not just sell the Note- on performing loans — this would be securities fraud to the GSE security investors. The Note (and it’s receivable stream) had to be falsely placed in default and charged-of­f in order to sell the “Note” — but, when this happens the Note no longer exists — thus, all that is sold is collection rights to a once existing note.

    Security investors fund the BANK — not the borrowers — there is no direct relationsh­ip between security investors and borrowers. If banks are able to sell their income stream, that is an accounting transactio­n — it is not a “loan” to borrowers. This is why security investors are NEVER NEVER NEVER the CREDITOR.

    Collection rights transfers are NOT funded by borrower transactio­ns (ie fabricated refinance)­. Collection rights are transferre­d by assignment — not NOTES (which is why NOTES are FAKE). When some people talk about Non-Deposi­t “trust” non-member­s — they are referring to derivative transactio­ns — that “SWAP” out collection rights — although the credit enhancers pay cash for collection rights — they use insurance for the purchase of the rights. This is why the subprime was so profitable — the bank debt buyers put up no cash for transactio­n — but, were then able to profit by the “sale” of the receivable pass-throu­ghs to security investors.­. “

  25. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the foreclosure(s) located within the State of Arizona.

  26. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the foreclosure(s) located within the State of California

  27. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the pension fund that belongs to your local police department.

  28. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the pension fund that belongs to your local olice department

  29. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from your 401 K plan
    .

  30. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money that belongs to a medical insurance plan that was to be used to treat a cancer patiant. Authorized by the US Government

  31. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money that belongs to your children’s future and authorized by the US Government .

  32. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the foreclosure(s) located within the State of Florida

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Wb87ntE3U&feature=player_embedded

  33. Occupy Wall Street
    This ATM dispenses stolen money generated from the foreclosure(s) in your neighborhood and authorized by the US Government .

  34. Fannie Mae’s executives have pulled off, aided and abetted a reign of terror. That said, how does one sue an entity in receivership? You can’t sue the Treasury Department.

  35. zurennarh: That’s exactly what I’ve done too!

  36. “In a response, the agency said that by Sept. 29, 2012, it would review its existing supervisory practices and act to resolve “deficiencies in the management of risks associated with default-related legal services vendors.”

    _____

    Sept. 29, 2012??? That’s a long time away. In the meantime, the “improprieties” will continue. How many more homes will be lost between now and then?

    What a crock!

  37. Do what I did–sue Fannie Mae! Make them produce documents and defend their position–once they open their mouths, the untruths are easy to identify and attack.

  38. Maybe this is why one of fannie mae executive committed suicide couple years ago maybe he knew about the theft and fraud. TNA HARRY i took my meds today

  39. SCREAMING FURY! THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FINAL REPORT- How the 1% Gets Away With It
    October 4th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
    Hat tip to Nye Lavalle….not just for this article….but for first reporting the abuses of foreclosure mills as far back as 2003. The truly staggering issues presented by these revelations are just why no one did anything about this. Even more mind blowing by far is the fact that none of the parties who are responsible for this have ever been held accountable. Not even today.

    Not even today, an astonishing eight years after problems were first reported and a full year after the full blown crisis erupted and nothing, not a single thing has happened to these wrongdoers. Not the Florida Bar, not the Florida Attorney General, not the FBI or the feds. No one. Nothing.

    The report itself is so mind blowing because it details so many abuses then admits that even today….nothing. No punishment, no immediate shutdowns or supervisory efforts. And what about the hundreds of thousands of homeowners who suffered under these abuses? And what about the hundreds of thousands who continue to suffer even today? Where is the justice for them? When they examine their experience with “our” court system will they believe they have been treated fairly? Will they believe the scales of justice are balanced fairly? Of course they won’t and with good reason. Just pile this report on to the stack (actually it’s more like a warehouse now) of other reports and evidence of the abuses Americans have suffered at the hands of the 1% and their minions who operate all across this country. And for those struggling to understand what the people in Occupy Wall Street (and Tampa and Miami and Chicago and Seattle) are protesting against, I will suggest to you that they are protesting because of the information that is printed in this report. One of the fundamental issues being protested is the fact that there is no accountability. As detailed in this report, the banks and their law firms have been permitted to abuse homeowners….and desecrate our legal system…with impunity for years. And nothing has been done about it. Even today.

    From the Report:

    In December of 2003, a Fannie Mae shareholder began alerting Fannie Mae to foreclosure abuse allegations, and in 2005 Fannie Mae hired an outside law firm to investigate a variety of allegations regarding purported foreclosure processing abuses. In May 2006, the law firm issued a report of investigation in which it found that:

    [F]oreclosure attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits…. The practice could be occurring elsewhere. It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped. Fannie Mae has not authorized this unlawful conduct. Further, the report observed that Fannie Mae did not take steps to ensure the quality of its foreclosure attorneys’ conduct, the legal positions taken in the attorneys’ pleadings, or the manner in which the attorneys processed foreclosures on the Enterprise’s behalf.

    Also From the Final Report:

    For example, when Fannie Mae terminated the Stern Law Firm, it estimated it would incur approximately $5.5 million in total costs. The costs include $4.6 million in file transfer fees (this estimate represents $200 per transfer for approximately 23,000 loan files). Fannie Mae estimated all other associated costs at approximately $900,000.

    There were indicators prior to August 2010 that could have led FHFA to identify the heightened risk posed by foreclosure processing within Fannie Mae’s RAN. These indicators included significant increases in foreclosures, which accompanied the deterioration of the housing market; consumer complaints alleging improper foreclosures; contemporaneous media reports about foreclosure abuses by Fannie Mae’s law firms; and public court filings in Florida and elsewhere highlighting such abuses. Although FHFA’s management has yet to publish the results of its special review of Fannie Mae’s RAN, the examiners’ preliminary findings confirm that at least one of these indicators – deteriorating industry conditions – should have provided adequate warning of the increased risk associated with default-related legal services.

    FHFA has not developed formal policies to address poor performance by law firms that have relationships – either directly through contract or through its loan servicers – with both of the Enterprises. FHFA-OIG identified instances where Freddie Mac terminated for poor performance law firms that processed foreclosures on its behalf, but Fannie Mae continued to use the firms. FHFA did not specifically review such terminations and, therefore, lacks assurance that law firms with histories of performance deficiencies do not jeopardize the safety and soundness of the Enterprises.

    Federal and state regulators and law enforcement officials subsequently initiated probes into whether banks and foreclosure law firms improperly seized homes using fraudulent or incomplete paperwork. For example, in August 2010, the Florida Attorney General announced that his office had launched investigations into allegations of unfair and deceptive foreclosure practices involving three Florida law firms. The three law firms were part of Fannie Mae’s RAN and included the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (the Stern Law Firm).

    And now the New York Times Article:

    Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms’ practices, according to a report issued Tuesday.

    Only after news reports in mid-2010 began to describe the dubious practices, like the routine filing of false pleadings in bankruptcy courts, did Fannie Mae’s overseer start to scrutinize the conduct. The report was critical of that overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and was prepared by the agency’s inspector general.

    In one notable lapse, even after the agency reported problems to Fannie Mae in late 2010 about some of the approved law firms, it did not request a response from the company, the report said.

    “American homeowners have been struggling with the effects of the housing finance crisis for several years, and they shouldn’t have to worry whether they will be victims of foreclosure abuse,” said Steve Linick, inspector general of the finance agency. “Increased oversight by F.H.F.A. could help to prevent these abuses.” New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/business/fannie-mae-ignored-foreclosure-misdeeds-report-says.html?_r=2&hp

    FHFAAUDIT
    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FHFAAUDIT.pdf

    Share

  40. What really irks me is that, even when they are caught red handed, they all “decline to comment”.

    Waterboarding should help with that “no comment” thing… and come to realize, more damage and more lives were destroyed in America in the name of Money than in the name of Allah!

  41. “For HAMP’s first two years, the government offered very little public detail about its oversight efforts. It was virtually impossible for the public – or even Congress – to know how well the banks and mortgage servicers were complying with the government’s effort to prevent struggling homeowners from losing their homes. Those years were crucial, because that’s when the vast majority of homeowners eligible for a modification – about three million – were evaluated by servicers.

    The documents obtained by ProPublica show auditors finding serious problems at a major servicer during that time. Instead of publicly revealing the findings, Treasury chose to privately request that GMAC fix the problems.

    “For two years, they’ve known how abysmal servicers were performing and decided to do nothing,” said Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP or the bank bailout, which provided the money for HAMP.

    “It demonstrates that if you have a set of rules for which compliance is completely voluntary and no meaningful consequences for those who violate them, having all the audits and reviews in the world are not going to make a bit of difference,” he continued. “It’s why the program has been a colossal failure.”

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/10/04/secret-docs-show-foreclosure-watchdog-doesnt-bark-or-bite/

  42. bytheway,

    I too sent so many letters to Fannie Mae without a response in the past three years that, for a minute there, I even wondered if they existed or if it was some kind of governmental money laundering front…

    The head, I want the heads!!!

  43. 1) Fannie Mae can not Say they own the loans and ignore the facts
    2) The Big Bank Servicer can not say that Fannie Mae owns our loan and not allow us to talk to Fannie Mae
    3) Fannie Mae can not say they own the loans and ignore the borrowers being steam-rolled by the Big Bank Loan servicers.

    I mailed multiple letters to Fannie Mae and ZERO were responded. I told Fannie Mae that our loan servicer was telling us one thing and not following through, and told us to stop making payments to qualify for a loan modification, etc. I requested that Fannie Mae contact us to help us and to get involved as the Servicer was telling us multiple things and not following through with there representations and promises.

    Fannie Mae seems to want plausible deniability

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: