Banks Pushing Homeowners Over Foreclosure Cliff

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

Whether it is force-placed insurance or any other device available, banks and servicers are pushing homeowners, luring homeowners and tricking homeowners into foreclosures. It is the only way they can put distance between them and the collosal corruption of title, the fact that strangers are foreclosing on homes, and claims of predatory, deceptive and fraudulent lending practices.

Most of those five million homes belong back in the hands of the people who lost them in fake foreclosures. And that day is coming.

Foreclosures are good but short- sales are better as those in the real estate Market will tell you. Either way it has someone other than the bank or servicer signing the deed to the ” buyer” and eventually it will all come tumbling down. But what Banks and servicers are betting is that the more chaotic and confused the situation the less likely the blame will fall on them.

Watch out Mr. Banker, you haven’t seen our plan to hold you accountable. You might think you have control of the narrative but that is going to change because the real power is held by the people. Go read the constitution — especially the 9th Amendment.

Look Who’s Pushing Homeowners Off the Foreclosure Cliff

By the Editors

One of the more confounding aspects of the U.S. housing crisis has been the reluctance of lenders to do more to assist troubled borrowers. After all, when homes go into foreclosure, banks lose money.

Now it turns out some lenders haven’t merely been unhelpful; their actions have pushed some borrowers over the foreclosure cliff. Lenders have been imposing exorbitant insurance policies on homeowners whose regular coverage lapses or is deemed insufficient. The policies, standard homeowner’s insurance or extra coverage for wind damage, say, for Florida residents, typically cost five to 10 times what owners were previously paying, tipping many into foreclosure.

The situation has caught the attention of state regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is considering rules to help homeowners avoid unwarranted “force- placed insurance.” The U.S. ought to go further and limit commissions, fine any company that knowingly overcharges a homeowner and require banks to seek competitive bids for force- placed insurance policies. Because insurance is not regulated at the federal level, states also need to play a stronger role in bringing down rates.

All mortgages require homeowners to maintain insurance on their property. Most mortgages also allow the lender to purchase insurance for the home and “force-place” it if a policy lapses or is deemed insufficient. These standard provisions are meant to protect the lender’s collateral — the property — if a calamity occurs.

High-Priced Policies

Here’s how it generally works: Banks and their mortgage servicers strike arrangements — often exclusive — with insurance companies in which the banks agree to buy high-priced policies on behalf of homeowners whose coverage has lapsed. The bank advances the premium to the insurer, and the insurer pays the bank a commission, which is priced into the premium. (Insurers say the commissions compensate banks for expenses like “advancing premiums, billing and collections.”) The homeowner is then billed for the premium, commissions and all.

It’s a lucrative business. Premiums on force-placed insurance exceeded $5.5 billion in 2010, according to the Center for Economic Justice, a group that advocates on behalf of low- income consumers. An investigation by Benjamin Lawsky, who heads New York State’s Department of Financial Services, has found nearly 15 percent of the premiums flow back to the banks.

It doesn’t end there. Lenders often get an additional cut of the profits by reinsuring the force-placed policy through the bank’s insurance subsidiary. That puts the lender in the conflicted position of requiring insurance to protect its collateral but with a financial incentive to never pay out a claim.

Both New York and California regulators have found the loss ratio on these policies — the percentage of premiums paid on claims — to be significantly lower than what insurers told the state they expected to pay out, suggesting that premiums are too high. For instance, most insurers estimate a loss ratio of 55 percent, meaning they’ll have to pay out about 55 cents on the dollar. But actual loss ratios have averaged about 20 percent over the last six years.

It’s worth noting that force-placed policies often provide less protection than cheaper policies available on the open market, a fact often not clearly disclosed. The policies generally protect the lender’s financial interest, not the homeowner’s. If a fire wipes out a house, most force-placed policies would pay only to repair the structure and nothing else.

Lack of Clarity

Homeowners can obviously avoid force-placed insurance by keeping their coverage current. Banks are required to remove the insurance as soon as a homeowner offers proof of other coverage. But the system, as the New York state investigation and countless lawsuits have demonstrated, is defined by a woeful lack of clarity, so much so that Fannie Mae has issued a directive to loan servicers to lower insurance costs and speed up removal times. And it said it would no longer reimburse commissions. The recent settlement with five financial firms over foreclosure abuses also requires banks to limit excessive coverage and ensure policies are purchased “for a commercially reasonable price.”

That’s not enough. Tougher standards should be applied uniformly, regardless of the loan source. Freddie Mac should follow Fannie Mae’s lead and require competitive pricing on the loans it backs. The consumer bureau should require mortgage servicers to reinstate a homeowner’s previous policy whenever possible, or to obtain competitive bids when not.

The bureau should also prevent loan servicers from accepting commissions or, at the very least, prohibit commissions from inflating the premium. It should require servicers to better communicate to borrowers that their policy has lapsed, explain clearly what force-placed insurance will cost and extend a grace period to secure new coverage. Finally, states should follow the example of California, which recently told force-placed insurers to submit lower rates that reflect actual loss ratios.

Many homeowners who experience coverage gaps have severe financial problems that lead them to stop paying their insurance bills. They are already at great risk of foreclosure. Banks and insurers shouldn’t be allowed to add to the likelihood of default by artificially inflating the cost of insurance.

45 Responses

  1. […] even when timely; levying unwarranted penalties by laying on so-called force-placed insurance charges; and, when monthly statements start demanding […]

  2. @miles

    Hate to break it to you…but they don’t care. The people/investors who are buying these illegal foreclosures KNOW, and DON’T CARE. They are just as greedy and selfish as the servicers/banks.

  3. So start a Twitter campaign to tell Americans, especially foreclosure investors, that TITLE is dead, therefore they should not invest in foreclosure properties, because those properties could end up as worthless.
    Once those prices start spiralling downward, then watch true regulation begin, because it’ll affect the banksters’ pockets then!

  4. So let’s start that Twitter campaign to tell the investors and other Americans that title is dead and unreliable for foreclosed properties.

  5. @joann

    Mark Stopa said this…not E.Tolle:

    “I’ve come to realize that servicers are the ones controlling the foreclosure arena, not the plaintiffs who are typically named in those cases (who often don’t even realize those cases are pending).”

    I believe he is talking about the trustee of the mbs when he says plaintiff.

  6. E. Tolle

    I may get things wrong sometimes and that is why I post. I want to understand if I am understanding correctly and hope if I get something wrong someone will point it out….(and I don’t have mers or fannie freddie so sometimes my posting may confuse perhaps but there are plenty in this state like me and essential issues are the same when trusts are involved for any mortgage)

    When you say Plaintiff you are obviously talking about judicial states.

    In non-judicial DOT states there is an assignment to the trust out of the blue. They are not on the DOT and the DOT bankrupt defunct institution is named as beneficiary on the NOD even after the assignment (from successor servicer of the defunct institution to the trust) and the defunct DOT beneficiary is named on the NOTS.

    No mention anywhere of the purported now beneficiary involved in anything to do with the property and yet “beneficiary” is supposed to be the only party who is harmed (skin in the game) therefore the only party who is the real party of interest and the only party with the “Power to enforce the sale” (standing?).

    The trustee bank/trrust isn’t even involved in declaring the default or the sale. It’s as if the assignment is irrelevant. It proceeds automatically without judicial review in as little as 121 days. So if you sue (which you have to do and the burden of proof is on you) who is the Defendant standing up in court? Just try to find the service address for the trustee for the trust (and by the way all BofA trustees are now US Bank NA)….and they still don’t show up – the servicer tells the judge the homeowner is not party to the psa…..irrelevant and the judge buys it.

    Against the law the homeowner does not receive notice of the ADOT from the beneficiary (Violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)) and never even knows they exist in automatic non-judicial process.

    Investors are the ones these days putting the heat on the indentured trustee banks (and now the ag’s to some extent). And the trustee reluctantly sues on their behalf – as has started to happen recently.

    Consider this quote from the recent Bloomberg article

    “Teri Charest, a spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (USB), said the bank isn’t liable and doesn’t know if any party is at fault in the structuring or administration of the transactions. “If there was fault, this unhappy investor is seeking recompense from the wrong party,” she said. “We were not the sponsor, underwriter, custodian, servicer or administrator of this transaction.”

    Read any psa. Liability of the trustee is all buttoned up. That relates to the investors who are up a creek. However…. homeowner is not party to the psa (when it comes to the buying and selling relationship behind the scenes in the minds of the powers that be and incorrectly so but there we are)….. however the state real property laws in all states and the ucc and federal statutes and the consittition have something to say about who holds the lien judicial and or who holds the power of sale non-judicial. Indentured trustee banks cannot escape liability for that because the trust is the purported party who is harmed (skin in the game whether true or not purported) and identified on the sec site before the assignment and in the assignment right before foreclosure.

    Investors and AG’s would be very smart to approach investor issues using state real property law and other trustor/mortgagor homeowner law at this point in their own interest. In fact the psa says the trustee was supposed to inspect and protect “according to the laws of the state in which the property is located…..”

    Time to stop passing the buck to a mindless computerized financially engineered engine. Real people better start speaking up and naming the real people involved with real property.

  7. @joann

    tony said this awhile ago—don’t know if it works in California, but it’s worth a try?

    tony, on October 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm said:

    It is “unsecured” debt protected by smoke and mirrors. What makes it funny is that it isn’t even unsecured debt. Unsecured debt is when you at least owe someone money. These servicers are not even owed any money they just hoping they can get something from you.
    I was at a hearing the another day and the judge asked the “banks” lawyer does the servicer have standing? They said no, then she asked can they join the “real party in interest”? Lawyer said no, the judge shook his head and hoped that the pro se didn’t hear that.
    Of course the pro se did and he said can we end this case now, I think I won on the issue of standing and real party in interest plus lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge said yeah I think you did. Denied the banks (without prejudice of course). Then the judge asked for the so called note that they had. Lawyer said no, you can not get my note, how will I foreclose…he said you know it and I know it that’s not going to happen. Banks lawyer said but we have the note we should be able to move. Judge said you can’t even get past jurisdiction first, much less talk about notes.
    It was a funny case…after the case the judge closed out the rest of the docket he was so mad. So in short always bring up jurisdiction first before you even get to your other areas of defense.

  8. @ Joann

    You are VERY on-target with the issue of STANDING.

    Also, in the standard loan document from my fictitious lender, AWL Corporation, the DOT indicates the LENDER is to do the actual determination of default. Well now, I can not see how the servicer can show any degree of even a consultation with that LENDER.

    Nor is any assignment of this loan valid to put some other entity in place of the original LENDER. Yet the SERVICER is signing MERS documents on behalf of the LENDER that never was a member of MERS.

    Quite a circus of fraudulent actors, no?

  9. E. Tolle

    “servicers are the ones controlling the foreclosure arena, not the plaintiffs who are typically named in those cases (who often don’t even realize those cases are pending).”

    Would love to hear what you have to say about why this is the case. Tempted to weigh in myself but in survival mode today. Can’t post.

    Suffice it to say it is time for AG’s, regulators, congress, courts and homeowners to identify the real party of interest and stop dealing with interlopers. Start dealing directly with the indentured trustees for trusts. Either they are passively looking the other was (for all kinds of nefarious reasons) or the master servicer has them by the ….which needs to be exposed. The reason the last could be possible is look at the case JPM and Deutsche. Deutsche as indentured trustee can’t get discovery – just like homeowners – does not have access to the loan files – court has ordered it and JPM continues to refuse.

    Wheels within wheels though. All these “banks” wear different hats at different times.

    How does this get fixed? Nothing can heal the economy or the health of the citizens until it is fixed. First everyone needs to get it. Elizabeth Warren is calling for JD to step down from the NY fed board. It’s a start in another arena. She needs to go on TV with the NY and DE ag’s and call this bluff. Put the trust administrators squarely in the public eye if not yet in the court’s eye. That is where the real transparency is needed and it is very late.

  10. Ha ha—only if Barney Fife is there, too—love that guy!

  11. @E. Tolle
    Excerpts from your post below:

    “Essentially, I’ve come to realize that servicers are the ones controlling the foreclosure arena, not the plaintiffs who are typically named in those cases (who often don’t even realize those cases are pending). To illustrate, as in my conversation above, it’s clear the servicers are the ones pulling the strings, even when the owner of the Note is named as the plaintiff.

    Servicers are the ones driving the foreclosure train, not Plaintiffs.
    wish foreclosure judges started forcing plaintiffs’ lawyers who appear before them to identify their clients. I’m certain, in most cases, they’d be forced to admit their “client” is a servicer, not the plaintiff identified in the lawsuit.”

    I think this is at the crux of it. Pro se and attorneys need to articulate this to judges. It relates to every step of the foreclosure process from day one until standing before a judge.

    I am still so ignorant about how to use legal terms but first identify the “real party of interest” (standing?) for all considerations seems critical. I believe it relates also to who received homeowner payments – who is doing the modifying – who is declaring a default – who is providing the “accounting” for the amount of the default from who’s records – who is making the assignment to whom – who is named on the notice of trustee’s sale……and who has liability in court.

    How can any lawsuit be heard or determined unless this is crystal clear? Identify who is “standing” up in court and who they represent. If they are not the “real party of interest” throw them out and refuse to hear it until the real party stands up.

  12. Understood carie. And from what I’ve read of your situation, you may find that you’ll end up better off even after all of the stress and such. This Ponzi scheme cannot continue, they never do – never have, and there will have to be atonement one day. I personally don’t believe that this will come without some form of overthrow or nearly so, as the capture and infiltration is way too far along. They’ll do anything to keep their war/debt/usury mechanism in place.

    Best to keep an even frame of mind and realize that we’re all outgunned and out-financed at this moment, but we’ll have them in numbers big time as soon as the rest of the 99% start awakening to the truth around them. When humanity sees that all the housing and all the land is going to a minute portion of the populace, and that life does not have to be lived in debt peonage like they’ve successfully established globally, maybe we’ll get back to Mayberry. I’ll dig the worms if you’ve got the poles?

  13. @E.Tolle

    That article is exactly why I made sure I had lots of answers “in writing” from my servicer in response to all the questions I asked them, like—who owns the loan, who is the real creditor, how is it that you have the right to foreclose, why would the ‘payoff check’ be made out to a debt collector, etc…so when I sue them for all the money I gave them and the fact that they said they were selling my property “on behalf of the securitization”—their lies “in writing” will hopefully kick them in the butt…I’m just trying to figure out what kind of attorney to get to help me frame the lawsuit for damages…?

  14. Servicers and FHA Payoffs: The Root of Foreclosure Evil

    Posted on March 15th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    For years, I’ve been frustrated beyond belief at the common misperception that delays in foreclosure cases are a result of homeowners or their attorneys. Any contention that homeowners are the cause of delay is a complete and utter farce, and, slowly but surely, I’m developing the evidence to prove it. In fact, it’s becoming apparent that servicers are the root of all evil in the foreclosure context.

    To begin, let’s recount a conversation I just had with a plaintiff’s attorney. I presented what I thought was a very reasonable settlement proposal in a foreclosure case when he said he “doubted” that Bank of America would agree to what I was proposing. I looked at the file and responded: “Who said anything about Bank of America? The Plaintiff is Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.” His response? “Bank of America is the servicer, and Bank of America is our client.”


    I’ve lamented this problem previously, coining servicers “the Wizard Behind the Curtain.” Essentially, I’ve come to realize that servicers are the ones controlling the foreclosure arena, not the plaintiffs who are typically named in those cases (who often don’t even realize those cases are pending). To illustrate, as in my conversation above, it’s clear the servicers are the ones pulling the strings, even when the owner of the Note is named as the plaintiff.

    Servicers are the ones driving the foreclosure train, not Plaintiffs.

    I wish foreclosure judges started forcing plaintiffs’ lawyers who appear before them to identify their clients. I’m certain, in most cases, they’d be forced to admit their “client” is a servicer, not the plaintiff identified in the lawsuit.

    As you contemplate the significant role of servicers in the foreclosure arena, let me bring you back to my recent blog titled Banks Want Real Estate. In it, I showed that nearly 90% of the purchasers at foreclosure sales aren’t third-party purchasers, but the “plaintiffs” who prosecuted the foreclosure. In that blog, I openly wondered why that was so. Why would plaintiffs routinely bid far in excess of a property’s fair market value at a foreclosure sale, essentially shutting out every possible third-party purchaser and ensuring title reverts back to the plaintiffs?

    The answer is beginning to unfold, and it’s an awful, awful picture.

    Apparently, the vast majority of mortgages entered during the heyday are insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). So when there’s a foreclosure, and the mortgage isn’t paid, the FHA cuts a check. The bigger the judgment amount, the bigger the check.

    Think about that dynamic.

    The FHA insures these mortgages.

    The bigger the judgment amount, the bigger the check.

    With this in mind, is there really any doubt why servicers are happy to proceed so slowly with foreclosure cases? The longer a case proceeds, the longer the servicer can tack on default interest at 18% to the judgment amount. Of course, this increases the amount of the judgment and increases the amount of the FHA payoff.

    Want to know why foreclosure cases so often have so many garbage fees and costs associated with them (service of process on unnamed tenants when the property is homestead or abandoned, forced place insurance at ridiculously high rates, etc., etc.)? The more junk costs that get added into a file, the greater the judgment amount, the more that gets collected from FHA.

    I’m going to dig more into these problems, and my analysis will start with the documentation from the AG settlement. At this point, it seems that “robo-signing” was nothing more than a distraction and that the real issue in the AG settlement was the banks’ failure to provide clear title to the FHA in exchange for the monies FHA was paying these servicers after foreclosures were finished.

    This is disgusting stuff, and I assure you that I’ll comment more when I can.
    Mark Stopa

  15. @VanEck, 7:35. Very good advice, counselor. I am browbeating my agent to remove the “servicer” from the policy as the “loss payee”.

  16. I learned through HSI trust that one of their foreclosure clients was forced to take private mortgage insurance because their down payment was less than 20% !

    So when a car accident that was not even their fault caused the family to miss work while they healed, the TEMPORARILY fell behind in the mortgage payments, and the bank immediately started foreclosing and would NOT accept their catch up payments!

    Apparently the situation was eventually resolved, but it took public outcry and a petition started by HSI trust at Change dot org to have a successful outcome.

  17. As “Concerned” points out, there are serious irregularities with the representations of so-called “Servicers,” not the least of which is how they are involved in anything, other than by their bald allegations.

    I say again: you buy insurance, and pay the premium, to protect your interests. If you have a house fire, or a tree falls on it and crushes the roof, you need that insurance to get the place repaired. All the “Servicer” wants to do is take the proceeds and evict you. If there is a joint-payee check, and you sign it and send it along to them, why should you be surprised that the pond-scum over there at the “Servicer” simply cashes the check and keeps the proceeds, sending you a “payment receipt” against your paper loan on a Note that they do not even own? And how do you fix your house? With plastic tarps you buy at the local Wal-mart? So the local bats and squirrels can go camp out in what is left of your attic?

    When you put people who are sociopaths, who are inherently evil, who have no moral compass, in charge of your finances, then do not be surprised that they proceed to steal from you. So get smart: you control your own insurance, and you control your own destiny. Hey, it’s your cash. You paid for it.

  18. @Jan van Eck,

    Okay, for those ‘infamous’ loans written naming LENDER as “America’s Wholesale Lender CORPORATION” (a New York Corporation, no less), the DOT always states that:

    “All insurance policies required by Lender and renewals of such policies shall be subject to Lender’s right to disapprove such policies, shall include a standard mortgage clause, and shall name Lender as mortgagee and/or as an additional loss payee and Borrower further agrees to generally assign right to insurance proceeds to the holder of the Note up to the amount of the outstanding loan balance. Lender shall have the right to hold the policies and renewal certificates. If Lender requires, Borrower shall promptly give to Lender all receipts of paid premiums and renewal notices. …”

    Okay, now somehow, Ocwen is claiming THEY should be named as the current LOSS PAYEE. Litton had been the prior servicer, and had forced their way onto the insurance as the Loss Payee when they took over ‘servicing’. Neither is the holder of the note.

    Looking back, I do not believe that AWL Corp was EVER named as the loss payee, but instead the servicers have always been inserting themselves as the loss payee. I believe the most recent version had Litton as the SOLE loss payee, not even as an ‘ADDITIONAL’ loss payee, while the DOT indicates the LENDER is to be an “ADDITIONAL” loss payee.

    Also, it is ALWAYS the SERVICER who has demanded the insurance certificates be mailed to them, never the LENDER.

    The ‘LENDER’ has never been in touch with ANYONE it would seem. Of course, that fits since the named lender was not registered as a CORPORATION in NY until years after the loan closed.

    Obviously, there are questions on how anyone can be the true servicer of a loan that should be considered VOID.

  19. The whole reason we are in this mess is because of cold-hearted sociopathic materialists…they are the bats that come out in the night…humanity is in spiritual and moral darkness—and the bats are in full flight.

  20. Going back to the issue of maintaining your insurance:

    Notwithstanding whatever is written in your Mortgage or anywhere else, I would not have as loss payee on any policy of insurance anyone other than the titled owners of the property: you, and possibly your wife. Forget about the mortgage company or the servicer or anybody else. Maintain that policy and if possible pay the entire year premium in one shot up front. You have the policy and you have the proof of payment: a receipt from the insurer (NOT your cancelled check, that tells people where you have your bank account, none of their business). Against the day that some Servicer tells you to put them on as loss payee, you flatly refuse on the grounds that they have an open and notorious pattern of deceitful behavior and are more likely than not to take the check and keep it for themselves and leave you to rot.

    If they force-place, be ready to instantly sue that insurance carrier that sold the force-place. You have to retain total control over the insurance, or you will be stiffed in the event of a major loss. These bums will simply take the money and run.

    On a final note: if you are sitting in the bankruptcy courts, then be absolutely certain to maintain not only loss insurance but also liability insurance on the property. If it lapses, the Court probably will dismiss your bankruptcy petition, and that defeats the purpose of being there.

  21. @tnharry,

    I rest my case…

  22. @enraged – maybe my mother didn’t hold me enough. i’m sorry, but that comment about a twitter war actually made me laugh out loud. it brought to mind the old adage “wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets full first”.

    twitter, OWS, and online petitions are the “wish hand” for me. either make something happen for yourself or move on. this isn’t an online therapy site, and no one is going to do it for you…

  23. @tn,

    Still, I find you a tad short on compassion and understanding. Keep in mind that not everyone has the means to file suit… although i do agree that action is worth a thousand words and there is no better defense than a good offense. And don’t forget that, in some states (CA for example), defensive action has been rendered next to impossible.

  24. it was very snide, but truthful. twitter, facebook, craigslist, etc are no substitute for actually filing suit. it’s tiresome to see requests for FB groups, blogs, listservs and online petitions here over and over. while those certainly have their own places, there is no substitute for actual litigation. and the facts, while similar, are too unique for mass joinders or class actions. file suit to fight your own battles. let OWS play with Twitter, if they even still have any teeth.

  25. @tnharry,

    That was pretty snide… I wouldn’t discount all the tools at our disposal. After all, one kid was able, just through Facebook, to organize a “Close your bank account day”. Every little bit helps!

  26. still laughing at the suggestion of a twitter campaign to right these wrongs…..

  27. It is time to start a massive Twitter campaign to tell the country, all the foreclosure investors, all the legislators, all the judges, that title is dead in America. Time to stop buying foreclosed homes because the title is dead, lost and strayed on those properties. The major media must be forced to pay attention to a Twitter campaign if it gets big enough. Time to shut down fraudulent sales based upon fraudulent title. Take back our country!

  28. @hman,

    I seem to remember mentioning that the banks are going down very hard. They won’t do it easily and they will take down as many of us as they can and inflict a maximum of damages to make absolutely sure that, should we try to do without them, the correction of this situation becomes nearly impossible. I truly believe that the idea is to try and make sure no one can redress the world economy without their involvement.

    They are doing everything they can to make themselves indispensable. Was it to you that i once was relating a fight i witnesses between two mustangs? And how the losing one, before collapsing, found a burst of sudden energy and inflicted a maximum of wounds to the winner? Anyway, that’s what I am looking at. The true fight between good and evil. On a worldwide scale.

  29. Enraged very interesting info. My friend in the industry did say it is the servicers who request the change in policy. That is why I had my reservations about me the homeowner requesting it and putting him in a bad position. I wasn’t aware of the process.

    The other thing I’ve noticed is they will try and bleed you by asking the judge for you to post a bond. Most homeowners can’t afford the bond even if the judge approves a lower amount.

    I think this is the banks tatic to bleed us. I pay my taxes & insurance directly. I also pay my attorney. If I had forced placed/& or a bond it would be very difficult to continue to fight.

    The tactic is to break your spirit & give up. Make it seem as if it’s not worth fighting for. Sometimes, I think it’s just bricks & sticks. However, I assist taking care of my father who is disabled & my mom who has cancer. My grandma who is 95 & lives across the street from me & who I get groceries for. I think what will happen to my family if I move & I come to realize I have no choice but to fight.

  30. “The insurance company does NOT request any proof or any additional documentation. The letter suffices.”

    Addendum to my previous post: the letter I am referring to (Please be adivsed that so-and-so has taken ovr the servicing of the above referenced mortgage loan. As such, kindly modify the loss payee to reflect the new servicer. Should you have any question, please feel free to contact 1-888-999 9999) is not signed. As usual, it is a form letter, emanating from one of the many divisions of the servicer. Anonymous, as everything else in this goddamn banking industry!

  31. I posted this yesterday and got very little reaction from anyone.

    China is setting camp here. Our debts to our banks will become debts to China banks. Then again, the good thing is: China prosecutes and jails crooked bankers. On the other hand, I wonder what cans of worms are being opened that we don’t know anything and can’t do anything about.

    O well… Live and learn.

    Enraged, on May 9, 2012 at 9:44 pm said:
    Why not? China is already solidly implanted in Africa and Asia. Why not here?

    latest banks and finance

    Fed lets Chinese banks take stakes in US banks

    The Federal Reserve has approved applications by three big Chinese government-controlled banks to set up branches and take stakes in US banks after deciding they were adequately regulated in their home market.

    09 May 2012

  32. @Chris
    I could not find the S.T.O.P website. Do you have a link?
    Thanks, Frank

  33. @Jan van Eck,

    There is one more very important point to consider: Over a certain amount, the insurance company MUST make the repair check out to both the mortgagor and the mortgagee.

    What has happened (a lot) is that a homeowner had a severe loss. He reported it to the insurance carrier who sent an appraiser. Oftentimes, once the damages are appraised, the check is issued and it is up to the homeowner to find the contrctors to do the repairs. The catch is that the check being made out to both mortgagor and mortgagee, it has to be endorsed by both. there are countless stories of banks refusing to release the money and of homeowners finding themselves with a mechanic’s lien on their house for repairs paid by the insurance but, because the funds were held by the bank, the contractors could not be paid.

    It is repulsive, revolting, outrageous and everything else. I almost got into that situation but i fought like hell with my insurer and DEMANDED that the check be made out and sent to me, under threat of going after my agent’s first born. It’s a counstant battle and, quite frankly, at time, it is wearing me thin.

  34. @Ian, Concerned and everyone else:

    I raise the insurance issue a while back. Notwithstanding the fact that most premiums appear to be paid by some outfit (Corelogic) whose relationship with the alleged “mortgagee” is still unclear and blurry as hell, the loss payee does change as transfers of servicing rights occur.

    I requested my entire insurance file a year ago or so and I realized that the insurance company changes the loss payee on the basis of a letter informing it that the servicer has changed and the new one is so-and-so. The insurance company does NOT request any proof or any additional documentation. The letter suffices. Likewise, the county tax collector does NOT require any specific documentation to change the name of the tax payer. Anyone could send a letter to either your insurance company or the tax assessor’s office and have the information in your file modified without your being informed of it.

    Quite interesting, would you say?

    My advice is for everyone to send a RRR request to his/her insurance company and demand the entire copy of your file. Including the underwriting file, by the way…

  35. I will state this, the situation as I continue to delve into this subject matter is this. When companies like countrywide and new century were bought they bought toxic assets, doomed to fail. The merging companies were aware of this. So as a result these banks were forced to try to eliminate the toxic assets, so they assigned most of these loans to the servicing departments. They were more than likely ordered to put people in a default situation to collect proceeds from default insurance. After they have put the loans into default staus they now had the right to foreclose(or they are alleging that, though 85% of the assignments were forged). After they foreclose they are now able to start the process of lending again and eliminate their risk. This does not include the CDS which were purchased, and all the sales of notes that they initially profited from, as they hosed investors, homeowners, taxpayers, and insurance companies. Is it any surprise that AIG is suing BoA? Any surprise that they required government intervention to stay afloat? Hell, the FHA who insures most of the loans to encourage lending from private institutions was weeks from asking for a bailout as well. There are lots of suits being filed on behalf of the insurance companies. All you have to do is look in the court dockets. Here is something interesting as well, I wonder if individuals looked into loans originated after 2008, that over 65% of the loans are still current. This was the banks way of dumping their poor investments on everyone else. When BoA merged with Countrywide they claimed to have $1.5 trillion in servicing rights as well as more loans in their portfolio. They acquired them fro $4 Biliion dollars…..????????? I suggest that this was planned from the beginning back in 1996 or so. Bigger corporations funded the activities with their blessing and as the Countrywides and the New Century’s pumped and dumped the stock ended up with more billions, this was before the bailout. This is so sick. Here’s something to check on. Look up the website S.T.O.P. and check out the article about the 300,000 fraudulent documents in Massachusetts. 85% of which are alleged to be assigned 3 years after the closing of initial trusts.

  36. jan van Eck- great info- my policy is not force-placed, it is a normal policy, but the servicer is listed as the loss payee. They are not the lender, the owner, the holder, the holder in due course, the bendficiary, the bank, the at-risk party, and would have no loss were I to default. So, nationally, what kind of problem is this, to have them listed as the loss payee? Has this been addressed by the courts or in litigation? I haven’t been able to find anything on it. Thanks.

  37. Jan Van Eck

    Can you please explain the wire a little more. I have the original wire from closing but I’m not clear where the money came.

    Does anybody know where to look up a cuspid or EIN/TIN #? I’ve been trying to figure this out. I think if I can get there I’ll be 1 step closer.

  38. I brought this up sometime ago. I would have changed the loss payee on my policy except for the fact that a close friend is my insurance agent and I could jepordise his license.

    Think about it a secound. On one hand you are disputing the loan servicers right to the mortgage & on the other you are listing them as the “lender” on the policy. My thoughts are if you request a loss payee change your agent will most likely contact the servicer. I’m not sure if it can be done withoug their permission.

    Assuming you could change the loss payee than you any forced placed insurance would become unnecessary as you could prove you already have a policy in place. Also, read your DOT where it says something to the effect that you agree to carry a policy in the lenders name.

    I think this would be of some value. In order for the servicer to have the policy put back in their name they would have to prove they are the “lender”. It turns the tables around instead of you proving they are not. Anyway these are just my thoughts on the subject.

  39. There is a perfectly straightforward way to deal with these phony forced-placed insurance contracts. Remember that You are the owner of the property. This outside insurer is an officious intermeddler, insuring some servicer and interfering with your own insurance. file suit against the insurer. When these outfits are buried in thousands of lawsuits, the fun goes out of the game. I can assure you they back-pedal instantly and “cancel flat” the forced-placed policy. [In cancel-flat, the phony insurance is cancelled back to the origination date, and there is zero charges and zero commissions to the servicer].

    Remember this: when an outsider places insurance on your property, and you also have your own insurance, then the total paid out by the insurers together will not exceed the loss costs. As the intermeddling “Servicer” takes the cash and does not repair the property (why should they? It is free money, and those people have no money at risk in your house; somebody else owns the Note, assuming it was not already paid off by a credit-default swap, so who cares about the house?), and that leaves you bereft of any insurance proceeds from your own policy to repair your house, never mind that you paid a premium for that coverage. Just lovely.

    The whole “force-placed” insurance scam only works when the players are not sued for tortious interference with contract – your contract with your insurer to protect your interests. They have not built the costs of being sued – and of losing before an enraged jury – into their scheme. When they start getting buried under lawsuits, you watch how fast the insurance industry gets out of the forced-place business. I whacked an insurer this way and they fled the scene within the week.

    For parallel reasons, I would advise anyone against naming any “mortgage lender” as a loss payee or “named insured.” Insure only yourself. Here’s why: that “mortgage lender” is an interloper with no skin in the game, no money at risk. He never loaned you one thin dime: somebody else did (find out from the closing company who wired the funds to closing; that is the start of the paper trail to point to where the cash came from). The interloper has no incentive to repair your house, then to struggle with you to foreclose on it over many years. They will take the insurance proceeds and run, leaving you in a wrecked house. One way to get you to move, for sure.

    If you control the proceeds, by being the only loss payee, then you control the repairs to your house. These”servicer” bums will stiff you.

  40. Ask your judge or find out through public records (County Recorder) who pays his salary? Does he or his family his collegues have or had a mortgage with Wells Fargo or any other big Bankster

    A good Obama is an unelected Obama.

    Yesterday instead of showing us the demonstrations in front of The Bank of America meeting. The news headlines was about the President and Gay Marriage.

    Reminds me of Nazi Propoganda.


  41. concerned- I brought up this exact same issue several months ago. On my Chubb insurance policy, the servicer is named as the loss payee. Everyone listed on the legal docs is out of business, with no successors or assigns. The FRB states that a servicer can be a debt collector but never owns the mortgage. It would seem that I have them trapped with no escape route.

  42. I note that on my insurance, the ‘LOSS PAYEE” of record with my insurance company is actually the supposed servicer of my fraudulent mortgage.

    The DOT itself indicates the LENDER is to be shown as the “LOSS PAYEE”, not the servicer. This is important in that the actual named LENDER was a fictitious entity, falsely identified as a New York Corporation when it did not actually exist at all.

    The servicer was bought by another company. That servicer is not satisfied with the insurance I have, despite the package including replacement cost.

    Since the mortgage is fraudulent, I’m leaving it to my attorney to contact the servicer over the issue of the insurance since I do not want any contact with them on my part to be shown in the future as any agreement from me that they are the valid party.

  43. A MAN- good point. I always said, if the f/c entity has copies of the note and mortgage, we should just give them a picture of the house.
    Seems fair and logical to me.

  44. If the State of California owes money to the banksters and do their banking through the banksters How can we expect a Judge to be fair? or the Attorney General to be fair if they know that their pay check depends on the Banksters.


  45. It is not the Banksters fault. It is the Judges and the Politicians fault.

    The Judges are accepting copies of the deed of trust and note.

    So why dont we show them copies of Checks that we paid off the mortgage.

    Because they would lead us straight to jail.

    Never again

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: