BOA settles Freddie Mac Claims for $500 per Mortgage

So if this covered 716,000 different mortgages and the average is $200,000 per mortgage, that equates to around $143 Billion in mortgages on which there are charges of fraud, breach of underwriting duties, buy backs etc. The settlement of $404 million is a joke. It is only about $500 per mortgage. The question is how these settlements effect the ownership of the loan, or, as admitted in some appellate oral arguments by the bank lawyers, whether the owner of the loan can ever be known.

If the owner can’t be known, are we really saying that the borrower still owes the money on the fictitious debt that was described in ether note and mortgage? We have law that covers this. If he the debt was not adequately represented at closing on he the note and mortgage and note, then we can agree that a debt exists, but it not to any of the parties in he the existing paper train. Why should borrowers have the burden of proof on establishing the most basic elements of a claim to collect or a claim of foreclosure using a mortgage that secured a note that describes a debt that either never occurred or which has long since been satisfied.

While this is a complete sell-out by a scared clueless government, it might be helpful if we got the claims and the settlement documents and perhaps anything else that could be obtained by a freedom of information act request.

I take the lawsuits filed by the government agency to be a finding of fact by the government agency. Whether the bank disclaims any admissions, the findings of fact by an agency are presumptively true. The more documents we have about what was behind the lawsuits by Fannie and Freddie, the stronger the argument of agency finding. It might be enough to shift the burden of proof over to the bank to show that the allegations were not true.

BofA settles with Freddie Mac for $404M

08:00 AM ET · BAC

The $404M settlement (less credits of $13M for repurchases already made) is over reps and warranties on 716K single-family mortgages originated (between 2000-2009) by Bank of America (BAC) and sold to Freddie Mac (FMCC).
Any payment made by BofA is fully covered by the bank’s existing reserves. With this deal, says the bank, BofA has resolved all outstanding potential rep and warranty claims by the GSEs on loans sold by both it and Countrywide from 2000-2009.
BAC +0.1% premarket.
Press release

Read more at Seeking Alpha:

23 Responses

  1. @ KC & Marilyn

    Hate those debt collector frauds ,, have a hearing on motion to compel against (new plaintiff) OCWEN in a week … OCWEN is the big fish in the debt collection fraudster bully contingent. will suggest your pre-emptive strike with my team.

  2. Marilyn, those debt collector attorneys don’t like it so much when you give them advance notice that if they even try it …. you will Nail their Little Peckers.

  3. Fraud upon the court[edit]

    In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as “fraud upon the court”, is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.

    Officers of the court include: lawyers, judges, referees, and those appointed; guardian ad litem, parenting time expeditors, mediators, rule 114 neutrals, evaluators, administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.

  4. Wells Fargo: U.S. targeting executive as defendant may be retaliation

    Filed December 2, 2013

    By Joseph AxNEW YORK – Wells Fargo & Co said Monday that a U.S. government request to add one of its executives as a defendant in a fraud case may be in retaliation for the bank’s decision to cut off settlement talks.In a motion filed in New York federal court opposing the Justice Department’s request to add executive Kurt Lofrano as a defendant, Wells Fargo said it told the government it would no longer engage in settlement negotiations on October 29 after months of discussions.Three days later, the government for the first time said it would seek to add an unnamed executive, later revealed to be Lofrano, to its year-old lawsuit accusing the bank of fraud during the lead-up to the financial meltdown.”In the absence of any other explanation for the lengthy delay, this intervening event – within days of the notice – raises questions about whether the United States acted in bad faith, in retaliation for Wells Fargo’s message,” the bank’s lawyers said in court papers.The bank questioned why the Justice Department waited a year before deciding to pursue claims against Lofrano, who has joined a very short list of individual executives to be sued by the government over actions that contributed to the financial crisis.The U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan declined to comment on the filing.Wells Fargo, the country’s largest mortgage lender, is accused of misleading the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development into believing defective home loans qualified for insurance from the Federal Housing Administration, causing the government hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.The bank has denied the allegations.On November 22, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman for permission to add Lofrano, who it said played a “critical role” in the bank’s alleged failure to report the loans’ flaws to the government.He worked as vice president for quality control from 2002 to 2010, a position that made him responsible for the bank’s self-reporting policies, the government said.He remains employed at the bank. In a statement following the government’s request, Wells Fargo said Lofrano was a “well respected team member” and that it stood by him unequivocally.Furman denied the bank’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in September.The case is U.S. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-07527.

  5. Stopa is a Busy Body … yes he is!

    The Aftermath of Focht

    Posted on November 10th, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    When Florida’ Second District Court of Appeal issued a written opinion in Focht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on September 25, 2013, Florida homeowners, consumer advocates, and defense attorneys were concerned. After all, there was potential for the Florida Supreme Court to change the law and take away one of the biggest defenses homeowners can raise in a foreclosure case, the bank’s standing at the inception of the suit.

    Fortunately, that issue is now dead. Wells Fargo decided not to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, and even though the Second District certified the issue, the Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to rule when an appeal is not filed. mI’d like to think Wells Fargo realized it had no chance of prevailing after reading my motion for rehearing, but whatever the reason, there is no imminent risk of the law being changed on this issue. “Standing at inception” remains a requirement in all foreclosure cases in Florida, and that’s great news for homeowners, obviously.

    Meanwhile, though, some bank lawyers and even some judges are pointing to the Focht ruling as proof of a changing of the guard in the foreclosure arena. They see Focht as proof that judges are tiring of defense arguments and should just rule in favor of banks. In support, they point not only to the certified question and, in particular, Judge Altenbernd’s concurring opinion.

    I suppose I can understand this logic. After all, three appellate court judges openly campaigned that the Florida Supreme Court change the law to prevent homeowners from raising “standing at inception” as a defense in foreclosure cases. Judge Altenbernd is so troubled at the equities of foreclosure defense that he openly lamented something that is totally lawful, homeowners collecting rents while a foreclosure suit is pending.

    Hence, it might seem easy to argue Focht as proof that the tide is turning. It might be easy, but it’s wrong.

    Focht doesn’t help banks. Focht helps homeowners! Just look at who won the appeal – not Wells Fargo, but Focht! Yes, the judges didn’t want to have to rule in Focht’s favor. Yes, Judge Altenbernd finds it inequitable. The point, though, is that despite their personal feelings on the matter, these judges still ruled in favor of the homeowner!

    This is the essence of foreclosure defense. Frankly, I don’t care if judges want to rule in my favor. I don’t care about their personal feelings on the matter. All I ask, as defense counsel, is that they follow the law. In that sense, Focht is the poster-child for foreclosure defense. Quite simply:

    Judges’ personal feelings on foreclosures are irrelevant. All that matters is that they continue to follow the law.

    So if any bank lawyer tries to say Focht somehow proves a trial court judge should rule in favor of a homeowner, that it proves the tide is turning, make sure you argue otherwise. Focht doesn’t help banks – it helps us.

  6. I had taken a break from reading Stopa and he managed to nail a few things while i was away. This is for all the people who didn’t attack the bank when they started being abused, didn’t find out what their rights were when they fell behind in their mortgage, ignored the foreclosure filing and refused to hire an attorney when they should have and are now cramming pro se to reverse what their own apathy, fear or whatever else allowed: the seizure of their property with courts’ blessings. Read it. it may save you.

    “I’m Sorry, You’re Too Late”
    Posted on November 5th, 2013 by Mark Stopa

    It happens nearly every day. A homeowner comes to my office with a tear-jerking story, explaining how he/she has been foreclosed. A Final Judgment of Foreclosure was entered, but the homeowner is now ready and willing to pay Stopa Law Firm to defend the case. “Work your magic, Mark. We’re ready.”

    There’s just one problem. The homeowner waited too long. There’s no magic to work – the case is over. You see, once a Final Judgment is entered, the time to assert defenses has passed. As a matter of procedure, those defenses are barred. Short of a bankruptcy consultation, there’s little that can be done to stop that foreclosure. Defenses that could have carried the day can no longer be raised.

    “I’m sorry, you’re too late.”

    Sometimes I fear that I perpetuate this problem by providing information on this blog. Homeowners may think they can take the information provided here and defend a case on their own.

    Please … don’t make this mistake, folks.

    I could spend years educating you on how to defend your case. It’s called law school – and that’s just the start of it. The nuances of what to argue and how to argue it are never-ending. Candidly, the biggest problem for pro se homeowners, in my experience, is they might know what to argue, but they have no idea when or how to argue it.

    You think the bank lacked standing when it filed suit, so you bring a motion to dismiss. Wrong.

    You think the bank lacked standing when it filed suit, so when the bank moves for summary judgment, you don’t file anything, but you show up at the hearing to argue. Wrong.

    I’ve created an entire business model predicated on helping as many homeowners as possible as inexpensively as possible. It’s called Stopa Law Firm. If you’re waiting to retain us, please – don’t be penny wise and pound foolish. Get an experienced foreclosure defense attorney on your side before it’s too late. Otherwise, you’ll be one of the many prospective clients calling our office only to be told:

    “I’m sorry, you’re too late.”

    Mark Stopa

  7. hahahaha…………… Blame it on the Notary? …. Who works for the Law Firm ….. roflmbo


    7) The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notorized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida, the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
    The Motion to Compel is granted. As a sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery Rules the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to this Court

  8. hman, someone correct me if I am wrong – but a loan servicer only assumes liability of the assigner/transferor if they are Holder in due course. UCC 3-302 I think? They must have notice something something…If they claim they are ‘not responsible’ might that mean they knew Aurora had done wrong? I don’t know….here is a newer article out, I have not read it yet, t’s on my ‘to do’ list :} Might clarify? Or not at all?

  9. Deb, you don’t fight like any girl I know.

    You Kick -Butt Like a Real Woman … Feather Weight on Not!

    I myself am a perfect 10.
    When my feet take me … where the sun don’t shine ….

    They Leave My Mark!

    “The Mark of KC”.

  10. Kc
    Please dont call me ” women” im just a girl. Ha. Just a featherweight girl.
    Best regards.

  11. @ MasterServicer re:Valukas

    I can see that scenario when they were holding RMBS’s that they were having problems selling but how does that apply to 99% of the RMBS’s out there that were sold?

    Can you point out a few keywords in the report to search on?


  12. “While this is a complete sell-out by a scared clueless government”

    You cannot believe for a second that our government was/is clueless in fathering the “GSE Business Model”.

    Our congress people bet borrowers homes and the US Treasury via the guarantee of the GSE’s MBSs. In exchange for that guarantee was the purchase of the loans for any violations of representations and warranties AT PAR.

    All this means that the banks owe the full amount not some back door settlement that amounts to a fraction of the losses and a thinly veiled subsidy for the players involved in the sham.

  13. Javagold, I hope that you get your answers. We all do. Be strong. I have been at this for what will be seven years come this January.

  14. Java, Java … add some Mocha.

    Nobuddy gets the code! Nobuddy speaks of the Code! No! No! No!

    But when you add in all the missing factors in the Formula … the solution is obvious.

    But once you know … You can never unknow…

    . And you will barf awhile!

  15. Deb, catch up woman! Not only have the citizens of Gothem been Hooked, they were already skinned alive and preserved for future use.

    I call it TARP.

    Speaking as an Investor and Taxpayer … of course.


    As an Estate owner …. I stand my ground with enough buckshot fire … that even a blind person couldn’t miss the target.

  16. WHO got the “payoff” of the foreclosures??? They’ll never tell…’cause it’s not a real “creditor”…

  17. MasterServicer. Email with 2009 attachments has been sent to you this morning. Please confirm receipt of email and let me know when you are finished with code. Thank you.

  18. When a loan servicer purchases the Mortgage servicing rights do they assume the liabilities of the prior servicer(ers)?/originators. I’ve been in correspondence with my current servicer Nationstar and I have advised them of the Malfeasance of the prior servicer Aurora.

    They are claiming that they are not responsible for any fraud that occured during the time the loan was with Aurora. Is anyone aware of any federal or state specific laws (AZ) that states otherwise. I’d like to reference these when I ‘m writing the report.

    Also, I pulled the sale on edgar but it is very vague. It says Nationstar will “assume certain liabilities” but does not say what they are.

  19. “Where’s the beef? Where’s the loan? Where’s my payments?

  20. Java java java
    Means we are ALL on the hook including the very judges that are in a position to stop them. Except they will not feel the pain we will.
    Hence we must stand up and be strong.

  21. The settlement of $404 million is a joke. It is only about $500 per mortgage. The question is how these settlements effect the ownership of the loan, or, as admitted in some appellate oral arguments by the bank lawyers, whether the owner of the loan can ever be known.
    The Truth defies Logic

    So… is the scoop . You wont listen anyway …but what the hell.

    They stock piled mortgages in house switching out files under a 1031 exchange every 180 days. See the Vulkas report. It was a nightmare . Then it came time to dump the warehouse lines used to allegedly fund loans but in fact used to fund each of the depositors accounts. The loans that funded were no longer GSE insured , so then Fannie Mae and Freddie mac jumped back in to kiss to get them of US bank lines as member bank obligations

    The Euro banks bought them up at 80 percent fo the property value ….versus US Government having to insure the piece above 75% LTV .
    Can’t you see …GSE insured loans exchanged for a payoff demand compelled in five years by a foreclosure sale ? Fannie and Freddie were window dressing to get the boo-sheet off the banks balance sheet and onto the homeowners obligation.

    So Joe Lunchbucket is obligated for a mortgage that never funds but went offshore into a depositors account. And he insures the existing liens of record that were never paid off by as alleged at closing on the HUD 1 statement .

    But you want to talk about Robo the Hobo and Nicole the Notary and Amos the appraiser and Sphincter the Securities baker and candlestick maker.

  22. Just another BS settlement that lets BOA off the hook. Where are the trials and convictions of top executives in the banks? I see that China does not want to invest in “foreign currency” anymore. Guess what that means? They do not trust us and do not want to do business with us.

  23. BOA. CHECK. 2007. CHECK. FREDDIE MAE. CHECK. ………but what does it mean for homeowners. Taxpayers. Americans. ?????????

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: