LPS SQUIRMING TO FIND A DEFENSE TO NEVADA AG SUIT

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Nevada Attorney General Sues LPS – LPS Response to Nevada AG Complaint – Hogwash!

http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/12/lps-response-to-nevada-ag-complaint-hogwash/

Lender Processing Services is the largest provider of mortgage default services in the United States, processing more than 50% of all foreclosures in America. Today, the Nevada Attorney General sued LPS, alleging it:
http://ag.state.nv.us/newsroom/press/2011/lpspressrelease.pdf

1. Engaged in a pattern and practice of falsifying, forging, and/or fraudulently executing foreclosure related documents, resulting in countless foreclosures that were predicated on deficient information;

2. Required employees to execute and/or notarize up to 4,000 foreclosure related documents every day;

3. Fraudulently notarized documents without ensuring that the notary did so in the presence of the person signing the document;

4. Implemented a widespread scheme to forge signatures on key documents, to ensure that volume and speed quotas were met;

5. Concealed the scope and severity of the document execution fraud by misrepresenting that the problems were limited to clerical errors;

6. Improperly directed and/or controlled the work of foreclosure attorneys by imposing inappropriate and arbitrary deadlines that forced attorneys to churn through foreclosures at a rate that sacrificed accuracy for speed;

7. Improperly obstructed communication between foreclosure attorneys and their clients; and

8. Demanded a kickback/referral fee from foreclosure firms for each case referred to the firm by LPS and allowed this fee to be misrepresented as “attorneys’ fees” passed on to Nevada consumers and/or submitted to Nevada courts.

These allegations are so powerful I see no need to elaborate. Instead, I’ll ask you this … if these things happened in Nevada, what are the chances they didn’t happen in Florida and every other state?

LPS Response to Nevada AG Complaint – Hogwash!
Posted on December 19th, 2011 by Mark Stopa

Suppose someone found thousands of terminally ill, cancer ridden patients and systematically killed them. Do you think he/she would avoid criminal prosecution for murder by arguing they were going to die anyway?

That sounds bizarre, I realize. But take a look at the statement issued today by Lender Processing Services in response to the Complaint filed by the Nevada Attorney General. The part that stuck out to me:
http://www.lpsvcs.com/LPSCorporateInformation/NewsRoom/Pages/20111216.aspx

the company is not aware of any person who was wrongfully foreclosed upon as a result of a potential error in the processes used by its employees.

Apparently, in the eyes of LPS, the end always justifies the means, so I’d love to ask LPS:

Do you think you could commit murder without penalty if the victims were terminally ill?

Mark Stopa Esq.

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

43 Responses

  1. looks like the attorneys for the fruadsters would become worried about 18USC 2, 3, &4, and Breach of their oath of office and not take a bank or debt collector nor fruadster foreclosure mill as a client. To much liablity and the fraudsters are loosing to much right now. Maybe these guys will get the same treatment the homeowners have gotten.in most states, sorry dont dare help ya. When can only hope! Hope a lot they dont get any help!

  2. tnharry,
    I can’t seem to find ‘state action’ anywhere in the 5th and 14th Amendments, so effectively, your argument does not apply.

  3. of course carie. but none of it matters because there were no loans anyway, right?

  4. tnharry,
    You said:
    “…the trustee for the trust would own the loans for the benefit of the investors.”
    You are talking about “security investors”—right? Which are never the creditor or the lender….and not beneficiary.
    The “trustee” has no beneficial interest in the “loans”.
    The “servicer” has no beneficial interest in the “loans”.
    A “payoff check” would be made out to the “debt collector”.

    The scam is so obvious…and yet the foreclosure mills keep on truckin’…

  5. @hman As those of you who follow this website know, New Century, which was one of the larger California securitization origination “lenders”, filed for Bankruptcy in 2007. However, thereafter and to this day, MERS continues to execute foreclosure documents, including assignments, as “nominee” of New Century.

    The big problem for MERS and those using such assignments is that they are absolutely fraudulent, as New Century repudiated its contract with MERS as part of its Bankruptcy, and there is no evidence of any grant of authority from the New Century Bankruptcy Court which would permit MERS to execute such assignments in the first place. This issue has come to the fore in several of our cases in different states.

    Further, the separate company which purchased the New Century brand out of bankruptcy has made it clear on its “Legal” page that the company has no connection to or power over the old company’s loans. As such, any “new” assignments by the “new” New Century are also most likely fraudulent

  6. hman and dee – if you’re having trouble finding your mortgage company following dissolution, sometimes this website helps.
    http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main_bankfind.asp
    when it works, it’s great. when it doesn’t, you’re no worse off

  7. @TNHarney Thanks for the feedback. I’ll keep thinking.

    @Dee. I have the same situation. My “lender” on my DOT is “Dissolved”. I do not know if this means they have filed BK. If a company is dissolved can they still own assests?

    I would research agency relationship in your state. I think this is a new angle going around. If the “nominal” lender is out of business the agency relationship between MERS and Lender XYZ are terminated. Therefore they are no longer an “agent” of the lender and can not assign or transfer.

    My servicers attorney stated pretty much the same thing. I was aware of MERS and authorized the process when I signed my DOT.

    Good luck

  8. @tnharry If Lender XYZ filed for Bankuptcy May 21, 2006 however, our Assignment of Note and Deed of Trust effective date was April 1, 2008. The Assignment was not notarize until September 3, 2008. Therefore, did Lender XYZ Bankruptcy Court grant Mers authority to execute such assignments. Bank A attorney stated
    ( MERS was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust for Lender XYZ and its
    successors and assigns, which includes Bank A. Bank A was authorized to
    act under the Deed of Trust to enforce Plaintiff’s indebtedness.) Bank A attorney is alledging Mers had authority from Lender XYZ to assigned our Note and Deed of Trust to Bank A. I would like your thoughts.

  9. @hman – the first thing i thought of was how hard it’s going to be to get past that first hurdle of buying a share. the next issue is that assuming everything was done correctly (a big assumption), the trustee for the trust would own the loans for the benefit of the investors. this would mean that you don’t have title to the loan or loans that would provide you the right to file the liens you speak of. if everything wasn’t done correctly, then you still don’t have anything upon which to base your lien. either way, i think you’re looking at fraudulent conveyance issues. it’s a novel concept for sure…

  10. Hello Everyone,

    I’d like to thank everyone for their input frequently on helping everyone beat foreclosure. In light of the recent AZ supreme court decession in Vasquez versus Saxon I have a theory.

    It is really outside the box and I welcome everyone feedback. Like I said it’s only a theory and open to critism and feedback.

    Step one would be to have my LLC purchase a certificate of the MBS my home is in. I do not even know if this can be done. I do not even know where to begin to research if and where I would go to do this so if anyone has any insight please share. This theory can go no further if I can’t get passed step 1.

    Purchasing the certificate/bond would make me an “investor” with a “fractional” interest in the property. I could then record an assignment of Deed trust to my LLC to preserve my interest. My position is that My LLC is preserving it’s interest not preventing foreclosure. I do not see this as being a fradulent conveyance being I would have a tiny interest in the property. (and all other properties in the pool for that matter).

    I could then pay my LLC , or modify my loan, or issue a lien release, whatever. I could also do a substitution of Trustee. I know someone that would qualify under AZ law as a “trustee”. Any tax implication about this I do not know the answer. I’d have to ask my CPA.

    If Aurora argued the transfer took place after the lender on the DOT was defunct I have other properties that were foreclosed on that Aurora transferred the properties on after the “lender” foreclosed. I have cerfied copies of this from the recorder.

    I think Aurora would than sue the LLC? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I know it’s really out there but I concocuted this up last night when I couldn’t sleep. I’m sure It would need some revision if it would even fly at all.

    As always thank you!

  11. i swear some of you guys only read every 3rd word and then go on a rant. i wasn’t saying BoA’s a victim at all. I was criticizing the class action against LPS and it’s faulty logic. It blames the whole mess on LPS, essentially setting up BoA and the others to claim that they didn’t know LPS was doing these things. Poorly drafted by class action lawyers who I suspect know more about class action litigation that mortgage litigation.

    @dyingtruth – due process arguments don’t work as well in non-judicial states due to the fact that in most of them there lacks the necessary component of “state action”. when the entire sale is conducted without any involvement of the state or the court, then there isn’t the requisite state action to trigger due process. in some nonjudicial states they still have to have the sale “confirmed” by an administrator, so you could likely make it stick in those jurisdictions.

    @gary h – I am always skeptical of a google answer or wikipedia article but don’t find fault with that one.

  12. The only victims in this whole mess is the person that is needed to monetize the debt in the first place. That is the home owner. For without them none of this could go any where. BofA can not be a victim because they can not monetize anything unless a person signs the document. All BofA can do is put insurance in place to get ready for snowball effect to start.

    A wise man once said “poor people buys things, wealthy people just holds the poor peoples stuff and charges them fees”.

    Now read this saying and think about it real hard, and now say who is the victim.

  13. hman and TN you may want to read this…..effectively it applies to most non-judicial States…..all is Not lost.

    http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/164168.html

    First think why an assignment of your mortgage was made and recorded…..then think, can that recorded assignment be “disregarded”, e.g. an assignment is Not required in “X” State? But Dang, it was made in “X” State and recorded…..so what was the need for recording?

  14. Defend Your Foreclosure – Before It’s Too Late

    Posted on December 21st, 2011 by Mark Stopa

    I’ve written a few blogs recently containing some very favorable decisions from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, including here http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/11/happy-thanksgiving-from-floridas-fourth-district/ and here.http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/12/not-just-standing-standing-at-inception/ Today, this same court issued a ruling in Vilvar v. Deutsche Bank http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Dec%202011/12-21-11/4D11-457.op.pdf which, to most homeowners, probably appears quite unfavorable. In its decision, the Fourth District explains at length why a homeowner’s 1.540 motion was appropriately denied by the trial court judge because the homeowner did not show the bank committed fraud in obtaining a Final Judgment of Foreclosure. The court even went so far as to chastise the homeowner’s attorney for filing the appeal, intimating it could have sanctioned him if it so desired.

    Has the Fourth District suddenly had a change of heart? Why the drastically different outcomes?

    The obvious distinction between Vilvar and other, recent cases I’ve discussed is purely a procedural one. In Vilvar, the homeowner tried challenging the foreclosure lawsuit after the case was already over, after the foreclosure judgment had already been granted. By contrast, the homeowners in the cases which had favorable rulings brought their arguments/objections prior to the foreclosure judgment being entered.

    This may seem like an immaterial distinction, but it’s not. Florida law is very clear – the circumstances in which a foreclosure judgment will be vacated, after the case is over, are quite limited. In fact, arguments that would defeat entry of a foreclosure judgment if made while the case is pending are often insufficient to vacate the foreclosure judgment after it’s already been entered. To illustrate, here’s how the Fourth District explained itself in this regard:

    We likewise find no merit to Vilvar’s claim that Cross’s affidavit did not contain admissible evidence and that failure to attach any sworn or certified copies of the records upon which she relied should have made the affidavit insufficient under 1.510(e). Vilvar’s failure to timely object to the sufficiency of Cross’s affidavit when it was presented on motion for summary judgment is fatal to this claim. (citing cases)

    What’s telling about this part of the ruling is that deficiencies with the bank’s affidavits supporting summary judgment are precisely the sort of thing the Florida courts have been giving as a reason a foreclosure judgment should not be entered. But making that same argument after the case is already over? Too late, argument waived, motion denied.

    This is an excellent illustration of how homeowners can waive legitimate defenses in foreclosure lawsuits if they’re not timely and appropriately raised. Please don’t make the same mistake Ms. Vilvar did. Don’t wait to defend your foreclosure until it’s too late.
    Mark Stopa Esq.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  15. Hi everyone, my home is in foreclosure w/ a sale date for 2/18/12 i have an original loan w/ world savings in 2006. as i am sure you all know this, Wachovia/Wells Fargo purchased World for 25 billion so the corrupt banks would down the road (short road) get all those foreclosures.what a set up. I have been fighting my foreclosure w/ the Common Law approach. I ask wachovia to produce the wet-ink promissory note along w/ the Deed of Trust and wachovia’s reply was that i needed to make an appointment to fly to San Antonio, TX. to view the Note under glass, and no copies could be made of the Note. By the way, I live in Fresno, California. The Regional.Trustee Services Corp. in Seattle, Washington. Why do they not keep everything in Ca.? What are they hiding? Soon i will be filing a NOI (Notice of Intent), and a couple other docs. and a trespassing warning recorded and then i can relax for a while, maybe.I don’t know what the hell I am doing but i understand that I am to take a affirmative position, as it is all a “mind-set. I wish to God I would have never got into this predatory loan, it has tore up my life. Any input is appreciated. mk

  16. everyone please watch on you tube the zeigeist addenedum it tells the story of the federal reserve and that the united states has been bankrupt since 1933, there is no actual money lent by baanks but when we sign a mortgage note, or credit card application the banks collect the money from the federal reserve but not actually money but an electronic , the only real money the banks make is intrest, late fees and ect fees’s.

    also its important to understand our lives are all bonded too.. please google. birth cerificate / federal reserve

    when every does these 2 things you can all get mad at how betrayed you feel.

    if you also watch the inside job all the heads od the insurance comapanies that faied are all in congress in some capacity. talk about feeling sick. its enough to make you want to leave your house and barf

    just kidding no PLEASE no one leave your house fight fight fight we can all win. wells fargo hs done bad things to me. i bothered the heck out of marco rubios office. so wells fargo did a fraud investigation on my loan and in writing i have they put me in a stated income loan even though i had 19 years of verifiable income. stated income loans are predatory for people self employed, dont make enough money and want to lie to buy the house so they can sell it, for people who work and make money they dont claim. me i am a RN i have worked in hospitals since 1987. so for a mortgage broker to go a lie and add 700$ so i will pass underwriting makes me queasy and today is my 2nd anniversary
    fighting this scam. i found these websites 2 years ago today.

    i am grateful to everyone, neil, mat weidner, mark stopa, and all my foreclosure hamlet friends whom opened my eyes to this incredible highjack of our wealth and feeling of security

    i wish at this point i understood why they did this to us. how government regulation allow brokers to have so much say. these mortgage applications were never filled out by homeowners they were only initialed at closing so we would not ask questions it was done very quick so we would not look. they counted on us not picking up the discrepancy between what we realy earned and what they wrote on the application. of course wells fargo trying to act bi they sent me a copy of the application i initialed at closing. they slipped it in so quickly so that we would not stop and examine it.

    closing were so fast. i want a show of hands how many people actually read every document word for word put in front of them at closing the tilte company lawyer or whomever speeded along
    so to blame the homeowner is hog wash. there was no way for us to see this and even if we did the closing papers were already sign.

    i wonder whom will the judge beleive…..me n RN for 25 years with a perfect practice record or wells fargo bank????

    the answer depends on how well , wells fargo funds the judge sitting on my case. only time will tell people.

  17. Not terminally ill, more like being force-fed poison.

    Any foreclosure, not followed through procedurally in accordance the Law (starting with when a transaction for the extension of credit was entered) and maintained in compliance with the Law every step of the way to the end is an act resulting in wrongful foreclosure. For the Constitution guarantees that no such deprivation of property shall occur without the “Due Process of Law” in a Court of Law not a due process of expediancy by a sweatshop assembly line of fraud.

    LPS’ simplicit way of thinking can just as easily be mirrored back at them. We can assure that no payment from any homeowner has gone unpaid, because the servicers advance any and all monthly payments to whoever they claim to be due, and as such having been satisfied on acceptance of full payment of all debt are owed nothing.

  18. Why fight the rules, they created them,

    We just need to change the rules.

  19. We, the people need to change the rules.

  20. Who owns my loan, my promise to pay?

  21. TnHarry for President

  22. This worth repeating,,,,,,,,,,and Judge Shack is a true human being———-

    “The moment the idea is admitted into Society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
    Property must be secured, or Liberty cannot exist.”
    President John adams

    ————–

    Jesus Christ already———–courts and judges are confused about Securization of debt————-OMG.

    What is that all about?

    Why are Judges confused?

    Why are people confused about debt, and legal tender laws, and money in general…………..OMG.

    Jeepers, so you file for BK7 or BK13 and you must now take a course in credit and debts.

    Lets now talk about education—————OMG.

  23. “Property must be secured, or Liberty cannot exist”

    Thank you very much our paid for hire by the big banks so called elected Representatives in Congress. And Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve SYSTEM OF BANKS was passed by paid hacks in Congress in 1913.

    You are all hereby given the condition of Treason—–betrayal after trust.

  24. “I am only one.
    I can not do everything, but I can something.
    And because I can do something, I will not refuse to do something I can do.
    What I can do, I should do.
    And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.”

    Edward Evett Hale

    —————————–

    I applaud all those here that post and are doing something. Even you TN harry and Soliman.

  25. We are still fighting the fight of private or public wall st banks. enter in all your rules of money, all your rules of UCC, consumer protection agencies, on and on…………..

    Protection from who is the question?

    Why do we need protection from money issuance?

    Why do we need protection from banks, from lending of money, from debt collectors,,,,,,,,,,,,,really silly…………..protection…..from who and why,,,,,,,,,,,,is it not legal tender?

    I am laughing my ass offffff.

  26. “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violet means possible to maintain there control over Governments by controlling money and its issuance.”

    President James Madison

  27. “Mow what Liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?”

    Samuel Adams

  28. “The moment the idea is admitted into Society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

    Property must be secured, or Liberty cannot exist.”

    President John adams

  29. “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government. So let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution. So the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. tnharry……B of A a victim? Oh my, I am ROTFL and if I had a beard and was a few dozen pounds overweight, I would make for a jolly old St. Nick!

    Give me a break. B of A is as evil and aware as ANYONE who perpetuated this whole mess. Just look at their little bed partner, CoreLogic. They robosign to this day. They have employees who claim they are CoreLogic employees, MERS employees, and B of A employees all at the same time. What a joke!

    Merry Christmas!

  31. Now I know why Newt Gingrigh was talking about arresting Federal Judges if necessary watch the video.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/bill-oreilly-newt-gingric-supreme-court_n_1162596.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2Fmedia+(Media+on+The+Huffington+Post)

    NEVER AGAIN

    A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR A BANKSTER

  32. Apparently, even the good guys have a hard time with honesty and ethics…

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/12/doj-arrests-attorney-mitchell-stein-at-lax-a-mass-clusterfk/

  33. that suit is logically inaccurate. LPS isn’t foreclosing on anything – its clients are. using the theories and logic propounded by the plaintiffs, BoA is as much a victim of LPS as the homeowners are. it’s misguided and they obviously rushed to be the first ones just for the press

  34. http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/21/nevada-homeowners-file-class-action-lawsuit-over-f/

    homeowner lawsuit filed against lps yesterday

  35. that’s an intriguing extension of the outcome hman. to be honest, i find it to be a real condemnation of this site that Neil talked this case up during the time leading up to the argument and has been silent on the outcome. extolling victories, even of otherwise insignificant motions, while burying negative results results in a lack of journalistic integrity. but that’s obviously just my opinion

  36. NY Supreme Court – EMC Mtge. Corp. v Carlo | NYSC Vacates Foreclosure Sale, Plaintiff has not demonstrated ownership of the mortgage and note prior to commence foreclosure action

    – 2011-12-21 00:02:52-05

    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.:103571/08 COUNTY OF RICHMOND EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff against FRED J. CARLO, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DEBMOR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS OF DEBMOR ESTATES CONDOMINIUM III, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF […]
    Read more at
    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/12/21/emc-mtge-corp-v-carlo-nysc-vacates-foreclosure-sale-plaintiff-has-not-demonstrated-ownership-of-the-mortgage-and-note-prior-to-commence-foreclosure-action/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29

  37. @ TN Harney I found the link accidently. I don’t know why there hasn’t been much press on it. O & heres my favorite part.

    While the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision provides
    finality to a narrow legal issue, it will probably have
    little effect stemming the tide of mortgage default-
    fueled litigation. Attempting to block or unwind
    trustee’s sales, borrowers often point to defects in
    the notice of assignment itself, or perceived
    inconsistencies between assignment notices and the
    notice of substitution of trustee and notice of sale, as
    they attempt to secure judicial scrutiny over what
    was intended to be an inexpensive and expeditious
    nonjudicial process. In addition to endorsing a strict
    statutory construction analysis, perhaps the import
    of Vasquez will be that lenders and their trustees will
    cease the practice of recording assignments, thus
    depriving borrowers the opportunity to use these
    perceived discrepancies as a basis to block or unwind
    valid and lawful trustee sales.

    I think myself and anyone else living in AZ is screwed in a QT case. The trustee/lender doesn’t have to record an assignment. WTF? How can you even defend? Need to meet with my attorney soon and see in light of this recent verdict if it’s worth it to fight. Up until now I was certain it was.

    Any ideas please share. Thanks everyone!

  38. that’s interesting hman. i remember Neil giving a lot of press to the case while it was pending, but I don’t recall further articles after it was decided.

  39. I want to shot myself today. Lenders not required to record trust deed assignment is the title of the article. It’s the AZ supreme court recent ruling.

    Even our attorney general was in favor of the plantiff, however the AZ supreme court did not see it that way.

    http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e5442f52-1719-49d9-abe1-c38caad96657

  40. Do you think you could commit murder without penalty if the victims were terminally ill?

    My guess for LPS’s answer to that question: “Why, yes, yes we do.”

  41. Once again, to me, it is good news: we don’t want a deal. We want prosecutions, dismantlement of the banks, firing of the heads and hard jail time for the whole bunch.

    So, if Miller talks from both sides of his mouth, he is only representing a shrinking number of AGs willing to go along. A number of states will hold elections in 2012 for AGs (I’m looking at which ones as we speak) and I expect those who push for settlement will not be reelected.

    Put pressure on them and don’t release it. According to Bill Black, without 7 AGs among whom major states with high populations (CA, NY), no settlement will be reached.

  42. Everyone getting caught up in all the lying. Now Miller.

    BY NAKED CAPITALISM

    Tom Miller Can’t Even Lie Well Anymore: Not Only No Deal By Christmas, As Promised, But Banks Upping Demands Even As Attorneys General Leave Table

    Posted: 20 Dec 2011 02:11 PM PST

    We’ve commented previously on Tom Miller as the contemporary exemplar of what in the 1960s was called a credibility gap. Readers no doubt know that he is the lead negotiator on behalf of the state attorneys general in what was formerly called the 50 state attorney general [mortgage] settlement. (Notice separately how the state AGs are providing cover for several Federal banking regulators, HUD and the Department of Justice, which are also parties to this deal).
    A partial recap: Miller started by promising criminal prosecutions, then reneged. He has refused to do investigations, then had the temerity to try to claim they took place). He said there would not be a big waiver on mortgage liability, when as we discussed, that was the only thing Miller & Co. could offer that would get a deal to the numbers he had unwisely committed himself to (north of $20 billion). And several state attorneys general have walked from the deal precisely because they object to the plan in motion: a big release for an impressive-sounding number, when they have an inadequate idea of how much questionable activity is being forgiven.
    But the truly absurd part is the continued pretense by Miller that a deal will get done. He’s been saying every few weeks that a deal is weeks away for over a year. In early August, a deal was supposed to be inked by Labor Day. Earlier this month, Miller said a deal would be done by Christmas.
    Today we learn (quelle surprise!) that there will be no pact in Santa’s bag. But even more telling, as far as Miller’s veracity is concerned, is another revelation in the report from National Mortgage News. Note that this piece can be characterized as optimistic (or clueless). It keeps up the party line that California attorney general Kamala Harris might rejoin the talks. While she is perceived to be more opportunistic than most state prosecutors, she has been moving further and further away from the settlements. She has teamed up with the most aggressive attorney general, Catherine Masto of Nevada, to investigate mortgage abuses.
    So look at the little revelation towards the end of the article:
    But a new wrinkle emerged last week when reports surfaced that the banks were also seeking assurances from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that it would release them from liability related to mortgage origination.
    The agency dropped out of any talks on the settlement in the spring, after documents revealed that CFPB officials had spoken with state officials about the settlement. The industry accused Elizabeth Warren and the bureau of meddling in the negotiations — they suggested it was CFPB that proposed the initial $20 billion settlement amount — and Republicans blasted it for acting without any legal authority. Warren insisted that she merely gave advice to the state AGs when asked.
    Since then, the CFPB has not been involved in any settlement negotiations, save for an occasional briefing from federal officials.
    So get this: we don’t have a deal and the teeny odds of getting one done keep shrinking. The biggest items to be negotiated, the release (this deal is scope of release v. cash, the rest is decoration) is still unresolved (as in the two sides are really far apart, as confirmed by how long this charade has continued). AGs have walked over the concessions Miller made. And the banks keep upping their demands. The bank strategy is negotiating in bad faith, and even talks that are faring well will start coming apart with that sort of conduct.
    News leaks on the settlement talks continue confirms that when Miller conveys information to the press, you are more likely to be right if you assume what he says to be untrue.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: