9 Responses

  1. LPS settles with Missouri AG over DocX robo-signing
    Jacksonville Business Journal by Christian Conte, Reporter
    Date: Friday, August 3, 2012, 9:55am EDT

    “As part of the settlement the Jacksonville-based technology and services company (NYSE: LPS) agreed to pay the state of Missouri $1.5 million, which includes a $500,000 reimbursement to the attorney general’s office, and the state dropped its criminal charges against DocX and LPS”


  2. @UKG,

    How do you know it was romanian?

  3. yeah, I know. I’ve found my posts translated into Romanian, for God’s sake.

  4. The tide has, indeed, turned. It is a slow process but so was the process which resulted in the demise of our great country. Reversing the trend(s) will take time and probably more casualties but we’ll get there, with or without government.


    Did Capital One Target Deployed Soldiers for Foreclosure?
    By Rich Smith, The Motley Fool

    Until recently, the U.S. Army had a recruiting slogan: “Army of One.” The Obama administration is now concerned that slogan may have been a bit too accurate, and wants to know whether, when American men and women shipped out to serve their country overseas, anyone was “watching their six” back home.

    Case in point: Last week, the Department of Justice wrapped up an investigation of Capital One (COF), in which it accused the bank of violating the rules of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act — specifically, rules that forbid:

    Charging more than 6% interest on loans and credit card debt incurred prior to a servicemember’s being called up for active duty, during the period of service.
    Foreclosing on a servicemember’s home for missing a mortgage payment.

    Capital One cooperated with the investigation, ultimately concluding that it was in the wrong, and agreeing to pay $7 million to compensate servicemembers for motor vehicles and homes it foreclosed upon while they were overseas.

    At a minimum, servicemembers who lost their homes to Capital One will receive $125,000 each in compensation, while those who had cars repossessed will get at least $10,000. The bank further agreed to pay $5 million more to cover anyone for whom it failed to reduce interest rates on credit card debt as required by law.

  5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/san-bernardino-bankruptcy_n_1731264.html

    As of today, it is official: San Bernardino has filed for BK.

  6. @DCB,

    There are major differences between countries such as the UK or the US and most other European countries, which benefit from a Civil Code based on the Napoleon one. This would be true for Belgium, Germany, Italy and many others. In most of those countries, foreclosures are judicial.

    Ireland: Foreclosure has been abolished by the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009[36] but Chapter 4 of Part 9 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 provides for vesting orders that are equivalent to foreclosure but may only be used by NAMA. (Wikipedia. I had no idea. Thank you for forcing me to check it out.)

    In Spain, foreclosure is the beginning of your ordeal since personal bankruptcy does not exist, unlike in most European countries. You simply can’t extinguish your debts, period. Which means that, for the rest of your life, you will have to repay the bank, whether you have the house or not and interests keep accumulating. Which explains why Spain is in such a desperate situation, with 20% unemployment.

    In most others countries, taking back a house requires an inordinate amount of work on the part of the banks, there is no such thing as contingency basis representation (you pay your attorney as you go) and the loser pays the winner’s legal expenses.

    And don’t forget that, in Europe, the atrocity of “no down payment” is unconscionable and, from what I gather, so is reverse mortgage.

  7. http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/banks-stepping-on-another-rake-unless/

    response to Brian Davies Fannie/Freddie post in comment section of above link:

    “…much accurate, but I disagree as to the process. Brian fails to understand that loans sold to Fannie/Freddie were falsely placed in default, with collection rights sold, insurance collected.

    I have physical proof of this. These “collection rights” were securitized into the bogus MBS trusts we now know as “toxic assets.”

    Who invested in these toxic MBS?? Big investor was Fannie/Freddie. Why?? Because they paid a higher interest rate than Freddie/Fannie could have achieved had they retained the whole loan.

    The securitization process conceals who the real “investors” are. As a security investor in the toxic MBS, Fannie/Freddie is not the lender/creditor/investor.

    We need to open Fannie/Freddie default records, and accounting records. FHFA has blocked this — and government does nothing.”

  8. @ALL

    This is an interesting assertion—not sure good/bad or indifferent—but it is a very good reason for readers to consider self restraint when it comes to personal expression off-topic. It is one thing to have the “right” to speak on any topic that comes to mind–but the 1st amendment applies to the right to hear—as much if not more than the right to “speak”. If one wanders far off-topic or crowds the space with non-relevant topics, it deters people from reading the material–and may cause abandonment of the site by serious observers seeking info relevant to financial issues. There are certainly many other sites that they can go to—-and hear what they expect to hear. Im at a bit of a loss why anybody in Mongolia would be interested? Is that inner or outer? It would be really nice if a couple people in Washington DC were reading it.

    does this simply constitute a warning that would provide a collection agency with the facts necessary to plead irreparable harm and seek a gag order??? The sword cuts both ways–

    @ENRAGED—you like to discuss [intelligently, I think] european issues ocassionally –as they may pertain to similar issues confronting US investors and retail buyers—what info of use would you suggest to say people in spain or Ireland—-these appear to have the most common problems with us. In Ireland especially a few of the same people in control of non-bank entities and offshore hedge funds –Im deeply curious if these same people are using similar devices to sieze homes. Similarities in ownership in Anglo-Irish Bank and BanUnited in Florida for example. but then again the people reading are most likely investors looking for participation in opportunities to buy high-priced homes at big discounts in Florida in particular–how safe–what to look for? Is it safe to finance home purchases in the US via unregulated securitizations etc.

  9. How would you know this? How many separate readers in a moth?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: