Damage awards for wrongful foreclosure are rising across the country. In New Mexico a judge issued a $3.2 million judgment (including $2.7 million in punitive damages) against Wells Fargo for foreclosing on a man’s home after his death even though he had an insurance policy through the bank that paid the remaining balance on his mortgage. The balance “owed” on the mortgage was $125,000. Despite the fact that the bank knew about the insurance (because it was purchased through the bank) Wells Fargo continued to pursue foreclosure, ignoring the claim for insurance. It is because of cases like this that people are asking “why would they do that?”
The answer is what I’ve been saying for years. Where a loan is subject to claims of securitization, and the investment banks lied to insurers, investors, guarantors and other co-obligors, they most likely have been paid many times for the same loan and never gave credit to the investors. By not crediting the investors they created the illusion of a higher balance that was due on the loan. They also created the illusion of a default that probably never occurred. But by pursuing foreclosure and foreclosure sale, they compounded the illusion and avoided claims for refund and repayment received from third parties and created claims for recovery of servicer advances. In many foreclosures that I have reviewed, payments received from the FDIC under loss-sharing were never taken into account. Thus the bank collects money repeatedly for a loss it never incurred.
This case is another example of why I insist on following the money. By following the money trail you will discover that the documents upon which the foreclosure relies referred to fictitious transactions. The documents are worthless, but nevertheless accepted in court unless a proper objection is made based upon preserving issues for trial and appeal by proper pleading and discovery.
Lawyers should take note of this profit opportunity. Most homeowners are looking for attorneys to take cases on contingency. Typical contingency fee is 40%. If these lawyers were on a typical contingency fee arrangement, their payday would have been around $1.2 million.
I should add that for every one of these judgments that are reported, I hear about dozens of confidential settlements that are of similar nature, to wit: clear title on the house, damages and attorneys fees.
Wells Fargo Ordered to Pay $3.2 Million for “Shocking” Foreclosure
Filed under: AMGAR, CORRUPTION, escrow agent, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, Title, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: compensatory damages, contingency fee, discovery, FDIC, foreclosure, insurance, loss sharing, mortgage insurance, New Mexico, Pleading, punitive damages, Wells Fargo |
WF Bank have no comparison to our hardship letter cancerous frail we make 4 times income of mortgage they stole whatever pride left in our life
Ian – I know of the word “attestation” and have a generic idea of its meaning, but that’s it. Maybe you’ll look into this?
Attestation
John Gault- on my crashed hard drive I saved article by an attorney who spoke of a little known (only place I ever heard it) procedure (and I am paraphrasing here) “attest action of out-of-state affidavits” whereby you or I or anyone could demand proof of anything filed out of state in our own cases. Ever heard of this?
Ian, I knew you meant people. And yes, I’ll keep digging. You, too. All of us.
People not Poole. Spellcheck at work in strange ways !
John Gault- way to follow through on the issue. I think that many people are failing to keep in mind that only a portfolio loan has a creditor or lender. A securitized loan has at best, a holder. A holder is not a creditor, lender, bank ( in the traditional sense). I am still highly irritated by Poole being told to negotiate with their bank, or lender, when they don’t have one. Same goes for “bank owned” signs on properties. This perpetuates the myth that some bank lost money because the homeowner stopped paying. Only through sheer manipulation of both the law and the courts’ abysmal lack of knowledge regarding securitization, IRC REMIC rules, NY Trust law, SEC rules and regulations. As this fraud has sunk the global economy to a hitherto unseen level, govt actions to turn a blind eye and pump tens of trillions of dollars into central banks and banks themselves has only made things worse. As a result, the US And global economies are now teetering on the brink of catastrophe.
But keep digging!
Yep, pretty certain that’s what that statue says: one who has assigned a note may no longer enforce its collateral. Only the note assignee may, but he may not until he records the assignment.
tnharry @6:06 p.m. – I certainly would look at any relevant laws in those states. I see the issue the reverse of how you see it. It may be that a mortgage, a lien, follows a note without the formality of an assgt.
Mortgages are not my thang, admittedly. Using Gene’s one and only CA statute, even by my latter interpretation below, the statute says a note assignee has the’ right’* to enforce the collateral instrument, but because of other CA statutes in play and as stated in the statute he cites, he actually can’t exercise that right against the maker without recordation of the assgt. And now that I think about it more, a dot is not a mortgage, which is the word chosen for the statute (so as to the word ‘mortgage’, it doesn’t apply to a dot imo). Next: Is a dot an ‘encumbrance’? Seems like it is, but is it technically? (As someone around here says, ‘words mean things’.)
What was handy:
“An encumbrance is a right to, interest in, or legal liability on real property that does not prohibit passing title to the property but that diminishes its value.” Well, a dot creates a right / interest, and generally a non-recourse liability (forget CA off-hand), but it also contains a due on sale clause for alienation, so I guess that’s a prohibition which may preclude a dot from falling in the “encumbrance”
category.
*Was the legislative intent to say that the note assignor no longer does (have the right to enforce a mtg or encumberance when he has alienated the note), even if he has not assigned the mtg or encumbrance? Imo, that’s certainly a possibility: the note assignee is the only one who now has the right to enforce the mtg or encumbrance, which makes sense. In fact, that’s what I believe is stated and intended. It’s not a dispensation of a recorded assgt.
okay, Gene. There may be another interpretation.
2932.5. “Where a power to sell real property is given to a
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
the payment of money, * the power is part of the security *
– no contest in a dot – that power is granted the dot trustee –
“and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money”
– generally by way of the note –
“secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised
by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.”
This suggests the assignment of the note should be recorded to 1) establish the assgt which creates (or may) the right to payment and 2) give the assignee the power of sale found in the coll instrument. Without the (Notice of) recordation, a party with the right to enforce the note may yet not utilize the power of sale in the dot. Is this not what is being said? Without recordation then, because of security first, even if a guy has a right to payment under the note, he may not yet enforce it against its maker because he must attack the collateral first. No?
Now, if that’s so, it gives new legit worries to the “MERS” assignment of the dot which also purports to assign the note (but postured mol as an aside or not to mean what is being literally recited), as evidenced in at least the PHH case I’ve linked wherein PHH acknowledged MERS has no authority to assign the note. If that’s true, it’s a false instrument and so is every one like it.
“A secured lender has the option of “electing its remedies” when a deed of trust and note and not being paid as agreed. They can either pursue judicial foreclosure (which means they file a lawsuit against you seeking a court order to sell your real property, and to seek a deficiency judgment if the loan is not subject to California’s anti-deficiency laws under section 580 of the Civil Code) or, they can seek to pursue a non-judicial foreclosure sale (which allows them to sell your property after sending you a notice of default, deed of trust, and complying with other provisions of California Civil Code Section 2924 et seq….” from CA attorney Steven Vondran (which was not in his blog as legal advice nor is it here by my citing).
I have also posited, and continue to posit, that by the election of remedies of non-j foreclosure, a lender waived any right to deficiency and hence any right to the corresponding write-off to a 1099 to the homeowner. I don’t insist on this, either, but since a 1099 requires to the best of my knowledge, a corresponding write-off, and this one was waived by that election, can’t see how a 1099 is appropriate. The other day I linked some material which discussed recourse and non-recourse and it included a link to tax liability from one accountant’s
perspective. I think of taxation as a zero sum game: where there is a debit, there is a credit to someone else. When one exists without the other, someone has a tax liability.
So without an asst of the dot, the lender is stuck with only a note which, because of security first laws (if not the loan agreement), may not be enforced against the note maker on its own: no personal judgment as first remedy for breach. And any deficiency must be sought in one action thru a court, itself subject to anti-deficiency laws. I’ve said and stand by a note is not even a claim at all without the dot – which means article III transfer, even if it were applicable, by itself is good for nada and does not create a right to enforce the note. Without the dot, there would only be the possibility of judgment on the note, which is prohibited, so scratch that.
neidermeyer, just saw your comment. I’m with you: it appears the CA statute only makes sense if the movement of the note from one to another is not pursuant to article III. I think.
Gene et al
2932.5. “Where a power to sell real property is given to a
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in
any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the
money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised
by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.”
“in an instrument intended to secure” – this instrument is the dot.
rewritten: Where a power to sell real property is given to a lender, as evidenced in and by a deed of trust, the power to sell is part of the deed of trust and vests in any person why by assignment of the note becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the deed of trust. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. The power of sale created in and by the deed of trust may be exercised by the assignee if the assgt is dully acknowleged and recorded.”
It’s actually written rather oddly if UCC article 3 by transfer/ “negotation” of the note is the bomb. I’ve said before that MERS attempts an assignment of the note (v a negotiation / transfer) in the assgt of the deed of trust. By my interpretation, the statute is referring to an assignment of the note. (anyone?)
Obviously, I don’t read that the way you do. Maybe you will rewrite it acc to Gene for us bumpkins, as I have tried to do acc to johngault. California subscribes to the one-action rule as well as its corollary, the security first rule. The only one who could try to sue on the note without regard to the security (which generally needs an assgt as applicable) is a sold-out jr lienholder and even then, that jr lienholder is subject to any anti-deficiency provisions in CA statutes. Imo, it’s a common error to rely on an interpretation of only one statute, as there are almost certainly others in play. In CA, se CA CC section 726(a), 716.20, and 729.010 to 729.090.
I’m far from insisting my reading of the statute you cite is the right one, but I’m staying there until it’s demonstrated it isn’t. Keep it friendly, por favor. Even if arguendo, one-action is determined not to include non-j foreclosure, security first still prevails, and that requires an assgt of the power of sale. I think you may agree about security first, but not about the necessity of an assgt to assign that power of sale.
Sent from my iPhone
What Wells Fargo does to “Widows”
Wells Fargo who has NEVER sent me one bill, but has reported to three credit bureaus each and every month that I am “making payments”, current, past due = 0, reviewed for 87 months is stealing my “free and clear” home of 26 years!!!
My husband and co borrower of 20 years passed away In 5/2008. I sent in death certificate in 6/2008 to Wachovia and several times every month for 3 years!!!
We had purchased insurance through World that would pay off loan in the event of death of borrower or co borrower.
It took them from 6/2008 to 11/2011 to “process” the death certificate!!
All the while I made payments!! Over 400,000 of my own money went into this loan!!
Wachovia told me in writing insurance monies and other monies applied and loan was “paid in full” and I would get a Full Revonveyance!!!
Instead I have Wells Fargo who never sent me a bill and Cal Western Revonveyance who never filed a Notice of Default selling my free and clear home on 4/7..
An attorney filed a civil suit to attempt getting an injunction.
Opposing attorney would not identify who he represented. He said.. It could be Wells, it could be Wachovia, it could be World, it could be a trust, a remic, a MBS, WHAT’S IT MATTER???
The Judge laughed and said “exactly.
Rubber Stamped Denied!!
If you have brainstorm ideas on what I can do, please let me know.
I would like to mass media this story and get as much exposure as possible.
Perhaps people can start calling Wells Fargo and Cal Western for me to protest this thievery!!!!!
Any and all input appreciated. Yes, I Filed BK. Stay is up 3/14/2014. (tomorrow)
Peace and Love
Cynthia A Ziemer Santa Barbara, Ca Wells Reference 0043116417 Cal Western TS 1263641-31 cazcando22@gmail.com 805-689-7384
Sent from my iPhone
@ Gene ,
Nice try with the ucc3 dodge ,, but as a lawyer surely you know ucc9 is what governs secured transactions ,, and if you don’t have a receipt (the assignment) you must be prepared to show the actual transaction “for consideration”, especially when you’re representing a known forger such as WF… and the defendant has your star witness stating in a deposition that the “ta dah!” assignment did not exist in the document custodians imaging database at the time the suit was filed.
***So you want people to play lets make a deal with these ass-clowns? ,, you really think loan mods are ok when the counterparty cannot demonstrate that they are a valid party at the table? WHERE DO YOU BUY YOUR METH?***
BTW ; your quip “If you are right, why are your claims not being found valid? Oh right……it is a conspiracy against you by lenders and by the courts……” doesn’t hold water … up until now I’ve been getting answers and concesions ,, plaintiff attorney (3rd one) went shopping for a new judge and had me MSJ’d with a pre-printed decision before they called my name… had my trial date set for 20 days out in the future when they pulled that maneuver.. they know what I have , they know my legal team and they were scared.. hoping I’d run out of money.
Bottom line: nothings been decided and I’m back in the game … next move is decisive and nothing’s over until I say it’s over.
For direct PACER link to my federal case 8:08-cv-01274-DOC-JPR you can try this:
https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?430813
http://kareemsalessi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/1-31-14-salessi-petition-for-review-s216242.pdf
Wells Fargo is Drug Money laundering successor to Wachovia Bank as I have proved, over and over, in every court since 2009, and now once again in my California Supreme Court Petition for Review # S216242
When Wachovia drug money laundering of over $1/2 trillion came under criminal prosecution in 2007/8 Wachovia quickly played dead and broke, even though it was sailing in an ocean of drug money, while other banks were going under.
American money Mafia scrambled to save all the Wachovia drug money, and drug purchased assets, which were mainly U.S. mortgages (including those of World Savings) from having to be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury by simply changing all the names with Wachovia prefixes to Wells Fargo prefixes, and changing the signs of its bank branches to Wells Fargo.
One year later, the U.S. DOJ dropped its criminal prosecution by making a deal with drug bank lawyers, with a ritualistic confession of judgment, and by letting them completely off the hook for their crimes, while hundreds of thousands of people in this country are spending their lives behind bars for having laundered a few hundred dollars of drug money. DOJ calls that American justice! I call it drug-magic!
In my recent petition I proved that at least $1/2 trillion of U.S. mortgages purchased with Wachovia drug money should be destroyed according to U.S. Federal law as well as California’s own drug forfeiture laws. That’s what I have been litigating in federal & state courts but courts have so far taken sides with the drug banks, by killing my cases prematurely, and allowing the drug banks to continue to launder drug money, and to prosper at the expense of the American public.
Individuals, and attorneys, who are interested in joining my efforts in destroying drug-funded Wachovia, and/or, World Savings mortgages, now under Wells Fargo flags, can send letters of interest to the California Supreme Court, and probably later to the U.S. Supreme Court, for filing “amici briefs” in order to show your interest to join the current petition, or my potential U.S. Petition, in case of the California Petition’s denial.
To get a full copy of the petition, plus many other related documents, with PACER, you can pull document # 220, Request for Judicial Notice #5, from my Federal case 8:08-cv-01274-DOC-JPR, in the Central District of California.
neidermeyer,
Read UCC Code Article 3. It fully explains negotiable instruments. The Deed follows the Note, and not reverse.
You and others ignore the real statutes so that you can argue invalid claims.
If you are right, why are your claims not being found valid? Oh right……it is a conspiracy against you by lenders and by the courts……
John Gault
Try CA. under 2932.5, a Deed of Trust is not required to be assigned to enforce the note. Only a Mortgage, which is different from a Deed of Trust is required to be assigned. That is case law since 1878.
But, that probably will not be acceptable to you………….
@ EEYORE ,
If ownership and demonstrating ownership doesn’t matter maybe you can ‘splain why WF acted this way:
********************
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Franklin-Motion-to-Reopen-1.pdf
********************
4. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the Movant went to great lengths to obtain discovery including taking the deposition of a non-party witness, former Wells Fargo employee, Herman “John” Kennerty after being caused to defend a Motion for Protective Order in Charleston,
South Carolina. Said Motion for Protective Order was filed by attorneys for Mr. Kennerty, paid for by Respondent, Wells Fargo.
5. At summary judgment hearing on March 1, 2012 this court determined the Assignment of Mortgage signed by Mr. Kennerty presented with the proof of claim in the instant case to be a fraudulent document.
6. Mr. Kennerty testified at deposition, in part, that there is an endorsement team in North Carolina which would endorse mortgage notes when requested to do so.1
@ TN Harry ,,
Splitting hairs again ,,, the holder is nothing without ownership… the assignment demonstrates a sale and OWNERSHIP … I can hold anything in my hand but that doesn’t mean that it’s mine.
On your THEORY (I won’t grant it any higher status) , the IRON MOUNTAIN company owns the whole frigging world since most critical ownership docs are stored in their secure temperature controlled vaults (old salt mines).
@jg – keyword you use is mortgage. those will require assignments often when a DOT may not. definitely TN does not require, and i’ve seen some suggestion that FL, NJ, and other states would follow suit, particularly given that the lien follows the note. if a state statute speaks clearly to the assignment, then obviously it is required. if not, then the door is open to not need one
if the key word is owner, the other key word is the note. the holder of the note can enforce the deed of trust via the power of sale clauses in the the deed of trust. and since the mortgage (or deed of trust) lien follows the note, assignments just don’t matter as much as you seem to think they do
@ TN Harry ,
I don’t follow your argument, mostly because it’s nonsense ,,, a stranger is A-OK to sue?? BOLLOCKS! I know some jurisdictions don’t require the assignment be recorded ,, but Bob can’t sue Jim if Jim owes John a payment for his 1999 Pontiac… and Bob can’t repop the car either. If that was the case I would take it upon myself to sue my companies biggest customer over our receivables .. they pay us 90 days late consistantly … but you see I still get paid and it’s not my problem , it’s the owners…
That’s the keyword here OWNER … and the plain language of the two individual contracts …
tnharry, would you be so good as to name a jurisdiction which allows enforcement of a mtg loan without an assignment to the claimant?
@neidermeyer – many jurisdictions don’t require assignments at all, and the rule that the mortgage follows the note is still valid, so I’m not seeing the same smoking gun that you are on the assignments
I just email to the NY Post the email I sent to the NY Attorney Gen on Mar 1, 2012 about Wells Fargo and the blank Notes!
I been talking about these clown and their crimes with these Notes since Oct 2010 to the OCC and had reported them to the SEC in Aug 2011. People don’t realize Wells Fargo Mortgage Servicing Center in Milwaukee with the 1.3 million FHA & VA loan that all of the loan have blank endorsed Note that are signed by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) and are impossible to have the loan endorsed as they were seized on Sept 25, 2008 and had long before (bankruptcy remote) relinquish to Ginnie Mae the Notes.This separated the Note from the debt making the Note non-negotiable forever and it also separated it also from any title because WaMu not long possess the Notes and the Note holder in Ginnie Mae does not possess the debt.
The problem Wells Fargo has being this large servicer is that there no way that you can sign a blank endorsement that another signed endorsing it in blank! Can you say these clowns are done!
Its not a surprise
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/03/12/wells-fargo-made-up-on-demand-foreclosure-papers-plan-court-filing-charges/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
re: Here’s the Wells Fargo cookbook …
**** You’re going to just love that procedure manual ,, especially beginning on Page 20 where it gives the attorney the step by step on how to order a brand spanking new assignment of mortgage if he needs it for standing ****
HEY: TN Harry (aka EEYORE) and GENE
Gene. You’re all puff chested about possibly coming up with a suitable way for people to work out a modification with these fine gents… HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DEAL WITH VERMIN LIKE THIS?
I always say that MERS isn’t an agent and lately I’ve said that that gang needed (or thought they did) a bk remote entity and that if MERs were an agent, its bk remoteness would be of no value (because if MERS were its agent, it the same as if the trust had the dot).
United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports
Versatile Helicopters v. City of Columbus Ohio, 12-4239 (6th Cir. 12-3-2013)
“…..(rejecting MJR’s argument that the court could only consider the terms of the contract to which it (MJR) was not a party to decide whether it could be bound under agency principles).[fn1] Generally, “binding the principal to agent-made contracts typically requires that the agent make the contracts on the principal’s behalf with **actual authority to do so.” ** Cincinnati Golf Mgmt, Inc. v. Testa, 971 N.E.2d 929, 934 (Ohio 2012) (emphasis in original). ”
Here:
“Indeed, one of the most important features of the agency relationship is that the principal itself becomes a party to contracts that are made on its behalf by the agent.” Id. (citing 2 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY, §§ 6.01 and 6.02).
Any doubt about whether it was error to look beyond the purchase agreement is assuaged by the following explanation: Additionally, a principal may be disclosed even though the contract does not name or identify the principal; it is sufficient that the third party has notice of the principal’s identity…. Unless the contract explicitly excludes the principal as a party, parol evidence is admissible to identify a principal and to subject the principal to liability on a contract made by an agent.”
MERS isn’t an agent. This doesn’t prove it, but it demonstrates why being an agent would mess up the goal. MERS isn’t an agent, but if it were, the identity of its principal is kept secret….the borrower has no “notice of the principal’s identity” and is never going to get one because MERS isn’t an agent. If it were, for another thing, if a late assignment to a trust is unlawful, the principal for whom MERS purports to act as assignor is liable. MERS executes those assgts in its own right (that is, if a dot exists when a third party was made the beneficiary).
Here’s the Wells Fargo cookbook …
stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/foreclosure_attorney_procedure_manual-1.pdf
Believe or don’t believe, it makes no difference to me: free energy has been used by governments to assure that we, peons, would keep on depending on fossil fuels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQfofTXIvb8
And in the meantime, people keep the existing system alive by feeding into it and keeping it propped up via the IRS and their bank accounts. Tax time is coming. Be good little boys and good little girls and make sure to voluntarily file something that, even according to the IRS, is only “volunteer”.
Throw Back ….
HOW ONE MAN’S SIGNATURE ON HOME LOAN TURNED INTO FRAUDULENT $92 MILLION WORTH OF BONDS WITH TRIPLE A RATINGS
ONE MAN’S HOME LOAN SIGNATURE WAS TURNED INTO $92 MILLIONIN UNSECURED AND ILLEGAL BONDS FRAUDULENTLY GIVEN TRIPLE ASTATUS RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. Watch the Paula Gloria interview of Mr. Raja from Dec. 17
th
2011.Mr. Raja explains how he produced 20 boxes of 20 large files (one of which he shows on camera) for his own case where his signature for a half million dollar “loan” produced around $92 million in unsecured and illegal bonds fraudulently given triple A status RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. Mr. Rajanever even defaulted on his loan before his inquiries to restructure lead to aggressive attacks by the “bank” to foreclose.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBI5lV2M4OM
More Bankster Criminality for your enjoyment:
***************
Bank of England Drops a Bombshell on Parliament: It Shredded Its Crisis Era Records
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/03/bank-of-england-drops-a-bombshell-on-parliament-it-shredded-its-crisis-era-records/
The money goes into the state budgets, to fill the holes….holes being the correct word, fir everyone who has their hand in this corrupt cookie jar. …… but the music is about to end , very soon !!
@Charles Reed, ask the attorney generals and the “big settlement” where the money goes and why. They are all in it together to fleece the muppets.,
I am going after them i was in loan mod back in 08 i made 3 payments of 2000 dollars April may june in September i got loan mod offer they tacked on all these fees and my mortgage went up 500 month i remember asking the girl why were they charging me 7000 in legal fees she said is any lawyer cheap i told her i did not want that loan mod i felt like they were taking advantage of me and i wanted another loan mod because i could not afford the payments she told me she would put me in another loan mod but it might not be as favorable as this one make along story short two months later i get letter my house was sold at sheriff sale the bank bought back i thought i was still in loan mod waiting to get the results back they told me as long as i was in loan mod they would suspend the sheriff sale every month not to worry they sold my house right from under me now i want pay back i know i have good case by the way it was ASC but we all know its really wells Fargo another scam
My insurance funds from damages are in escrow at CitiMortgage while no repairs are being made and CMI is about to foreclose next month while holding $250k, possible grants and another insurance holdback of $145k. Yes indeed, why would they do that? Aurora, Lehman then bailout and SASCO with CiriMortgage. Need immediate help to stop this. What can I do?
Sent from my iPhone
>
Good question Christine, as in the recent JPMorgan settlement they admitted to bad underwriting and falsifying documents yet the homeowners are not included in the payout schedule at all.
How can one admit to the fact that they improperly underwrote the file and falsified the documents, and simply agree to pay $614 million and which files that were corrupt not be publicly released with all who were harmed not notified and restitution not paid? How does it not go in front of a judge and how if not the victims not releasing the offender, does this stuff seem lawful?
All the banks have been investigated and severely fined. Where’s the money going? Anyone seen any of it?
Where are the lawyers in California
Most were going for modification
I believe there still sucking up to the bank because they have all the cash
We foreclosed because of Wells Fargo taking money from our bank acct unauthorized.
When the system does not take into account the fact that over the past 5yrs Wells Fargo has paid out over $15 billion and is currently in court with the Federal Government suing them for 100,000 loan that if we are to count the foreclosure sale amounts plus the insurance claim are part of the damage and include tremble damage, we got a $33 billion that would be due to the Fed Gov.
So how is it that the same crook appears in court after court across the country and all there past crimes (settlement or not) is not taken into consideration of the court?
Time and time again Wells Fargo is in court with these schemes but they just keep up with more of the same. Wells Fargo must keep up with these schemes because not only are the investors in need to be repaid but now you got a situation of a homeowner and some other party that purchase the homes through these illegal sales. The clowns in some case has increase their obligation to 6 times amount of damage!