For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
===========================
Well at least OneWest legally exists and it didn’t originate any loans even though it sometimes tries to give that appearance. But it is clear that this company was literally formed over a weekend to takeover IndyMac business. In so doing it made a number of dubious deals in which it was not to be liable for the shoddy, fabricated documents, and unlawful practices of IndyMac which claimed ownership of loans that were already sold into the secondary market and then subjected to conflicting claims of ownership. It looks like the return on investment was infinite.
OneWest Bank Targeted By Insurer Over $335M In MBS Losses
Law360, New York (August 13, 2012, 9:41 PM ET) — Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. fired off a suit against OneWest Bank FSB in California on Thursday, claiming the company’s shoddy loan servicing was to blame for some of the $335 million it has shelled out in insurance claims related to mortgage-backed securities.
The lawsuit in Los Angeles court says that since OneWest took over IndyMac Bank FSB’s role as servicer of mortgage loans underlying residential MBS, the loans have experienced delinquencies and defaults at a severe and unexpected rate. That in turn has forced Assured to…
OneWest Bank Can’t Shake HAMP Loan Class Action
Law360, New York (October 23, 2012, 3:11 PM ET) — OneWest Bank FSB on Monday failed to escape an Illinois class action accusing it of bungling a mortgage loan modification application by unreasonably delaying its response and imposing late fees for payments that were not actually late.
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman rejected OneWest’s argument that lead plaintiff Stacey Fletcher lacked standing, finding that her complaint alleged sufficient injury from OneWest’s allegedly unreasonable delay in responding to her request for a modified loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Fletcher further accuses OneWest of reporting her to…
OneWest, Soros Accused Of Mortgage Scam In FCA Suit
Law360, New York (October 16, 2012, 9:47 PM ET) — A Florida resident hit OneWest Bank and billionaire majority shareholder George Soros with a False Claims Act lawsuit Monday, saying that through their connections to President Barack Obama, they had finagled a loss-sharing deal with the government that allowed them to scam homeowners and taxpayers.
James Beekman, who originally took out his mortgage with IndyMac Federal Bank, says when Soros and OneWest took over the fallen bank, they entered into a loss-sharing agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Under the deal, OneWest would shoulder the…
Loan Info Confidential
By Michael Lipkin
Law360, San Diego (November 10, 2014, 6:13 PM ET) — OneWest Bank NA is trying to stop Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. from accessing confidential information about Lehman-owned loans it used to service, alleging in New York federal court that Lehman is trying to blame OneWest for its own bad investments.
In a complaint filed Friday, OneWest claims Lehman is trying to access regulated information about 27 mortgages OneWest used to service, including confidential data about borrowers that OneWest alleges Lehman doesn’t have a right to access. The loans were eventually liquidated after poor performance, and the service agreements governing them have already expired, according to the complaint.“This action seeks to end defendants’ misguided campaign to try to force OneWest to provide them with confidential information to which the defendants are no longer entitled,” the bank said. “Doing so could subject OneWest to potential regulatory and civil liability for failing to protect private borrower information.”
Aurora Commercial Corp., formerly Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, is also named as a defendant.
Lehman allegedly bought the loans as part of a pool from IndyMac Bank FSB between 2006 and 2007, with IndyMac retaining the right to service the loans. After IndyMac was shut down by the Office of Thrift Supervision in 2008, OneWest bought the servicing rights from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The deal expressly said OneWest was not liable for previous servicing conduct, according to the complaint.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Assured Guaranty Municipal Cor, Beekman, class action, FDIC, HAMP, Lehman Brothers, Office of Thrift Supervision, OneWest |
Neil let the Cat out of the Bag and they still cant grasp it!
Donald Duck Loans: Void Note, Void Mortgage and Recovery of all payments made by borrower in REVERSE FORECLOSURE
You can lead a horse to water but you cant drink for it.
I Like Simple ..
FEE Simple
Treasury Warns Congress (and Investors): This Financial Creature Could Sink the System
testosteronepit’s picture
Submitted by testosteronepit on 12/08/2014 23:24 -0500
In its 2014 Annual Report to Congress, the US Treasury’s Office of Financial Research, which serves the Financial Stability Oversight Council, analyzed for our Representatives the “potential threats” to the US financial house of cards. Among the biggest concerns was a financial creature that has boomed in recent years. The Fed, FDIC, and OCC have warned banks about it since March 2013. But they’re just too juicy: “leveraged loans.”
Leveraged loans are issued by junk-rated corporations already burdened by a large load of debt. Banks can retain these loans on their balance sheets or sell them. They can repackage them into synthetic securities called Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs) before they sell them. They have “Financial Crisis” stamped all over them.
So the 160-page report laments:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-08/treasury-warns-congress-and-investors-financial-creature-could-sink-system
And Another!
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/12/08/in-re-thompson-wisconsin-bk-court-orders-wells-fargo-littonocwen-to-repay-bk-court-back-mtg-payments/
Christine
” they own the place” but they cant make it right its wrong and its evil however
the financial global wheel will turn if theres a spoke out of line it will be manipulated back into line and the US as you say is out of line and i think you are right on that we have elizabeth Warren trying to bring some kind of decency to the banking regulating process, a culture that has become so greedy its unreal. our courts hold the key we need some endictments and as we are seeing slowly albeit, cases and case law is moving in our favor sooner or later the public need to be appeased, for votes, you know also its about the vote.
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2014/12/05/tampa-couple-wins-1m-from-bank-of-america-in.html?page=all
Another one for the Little Man!
Deb,
You have to admit: many of us were sold a bill of goods we bought, hook line and sinker, right before the orchestrated collapse planned the minute this country decided to outsource its industries, long before 911.
We bought houses under the threat of “Social Security will be insolvent by the year 2010. Prepare for retirement. Buy real estate”, we lost our jobs, we fell into hard times and you know the rest.
Industries are not back. Jobs are not back but the same “no down payment” insanity is still peddled by hybrid, public-private-half-nationalized entities. What is the likelihood the next round of suckers will fare better?
And just for the hell of it… really. For the hell of the next generation walking right into, trusting, big-eyed and… unemployed and/or underemployed, what do you think the connection between Fannie and Freddie’s enticement to buy what is unaffordable and Blackstone/Bain Capital dumping of real estate properties might be?
Simple: squeeze the last penny out of every poor soul who still believes in the American dream (or in the US, for that matter) while getting out of that crummy market a.s.a.p. and getting a tax break.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-08/did-blackstone-just-call-top-commercial-real-estate
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Who will benefit? Who will lose? Is the outcome predictable? You bet, it is. It’s already been predicted and pretty much played out: there will be suckers who will buy with 3% down. Within 2 or 3 years, they will be in foreclosures and China will have first pick. We need to keep a cold mind and look at it as it is being played out.
Not “if” but ” when” you get FC. Yep! Everybody is going to court. Sooner or Later. I prefer later when . . . Oh never mind!
😷
Darn it this cit is so bad for your health im off to watch some more ” breaking bad. Nite
Right Christine
But no ones stupid and no one wants sympathy. We would however like some gaddarn JUSTICE
Anyone stupid enough to fall for that one doesn’t deserve sympathy when (not “if” but “when”) he ends up foreclosed upon.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-08/fannie-freddie-reduce-down-payments-for-first-time-homebuyers
One for the collection file under you know the hands thing
http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/indymac_what_went_wrong.pdf
Sooner or Later Everybody is Going to Court.
Do you see the conflict my husband and myself have here?
In discovery I found that my title is unencumbered under an off balance sheet financing scheme using an irrevocable trust to secure assets
Now,I am lost on how to process my request for calculating a beneficiary payoff demand. My concern is where I elect to satisfy the purported mortgage but cannot for the following reasons::
1) a “debt collector” is required to foreclose
2) the FDCPA is required to establish the obligation owed
3) the debt collector obtains and order for entry of judgment
4) a judgment creates the basis in my loan
Your firms claims are made for an assessed balance for the amount due payable at time of settlement. This in fact asserts the obligation I owe is for the originating banks debt owed to the beneficiary holding all liens of record at the closing.
Therefore, how can you satisfy a demand to payoff the existing loan where judgment must be entered and no controversy exists.
Croak!
Turning Up the Heat, Just Call Me Keeper of the Flames.
Deb, does this explain the 1099a?
in the event of subrogation arising after
abandonment of the property to the insurer. There, all rights in the property belong to
the insurer, of course including the right to “make a profit.”
———————————————————————————————–
Reblogged this on patrickainsworth.
Do you see why Jan vaneck likes to whack them like a mole for conversion after the sale? I like that Guy!
Way to Go Deb! It goes far beyond just those Turkeys!
They all Did It! Scumbags!!
They were trying to hide the origination fraud at closing.
Do you understand why my husband and I had to have separate attorneys?
Heck, at my age Id be happy with dinner out or sex 3 or 4 times a year. TeeeHeeeHeeeeHe
Storm Bradford
FDIC was not conservator for CW. BAC merged them and sold off or left behind the toxic waste CW left in its path.
BAC is a Rat for Recon Trust!
Croak!
This post leaves much to figure out–in other words, it does not make sense.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0N022V20140408?irpc=932
Nothing surprises me these days Deb, go ahead and tell me …
I’m always good for a Laugh.
sC that term ” poster child” was given to me by another if I told you who you would lyao
You all know ofcourse the FDIC as conservator steps into the shoes of the failed bank so when I asked questions regarding the asset on their books I figured they should know the disposition being they put a dollar amount on the ” worth” of those assets sold to One west. Do they not employ real accountants ? Anyhow like I said stonewall.
Lets Play by the Rules!
Many Blessings to All from The ILLINOIS Poster Child.
Crowned by Name in 2010 by the Legal Professionals
Rule #1 Follow Directions!
Rule #2 Ask Questions!
Rule #3 Do Your Homework!
Live, Love, Learn and Laugh!
Dear Bank of America N.A.
I am asking you to consider my quandary with the encumbered estate held under a account number # xxxxxxxxxx for real property located at 000 Ashxxxx Drive, xxxxxx Illinois xxxx in the county of xxxxxxxx for the state of Illinois. Concerns are for how title to my estate is held during the life of loan with reference to valuing the obligations whereas the title is unencumbered
Your firms claims are made for an assessed balance for the amount due payable at time of settlement. This in fact asserts the obligation I owe is for the originating banks debt owed to the beneficiary holding all liens of record at the closing. Therefore where the title is typically encumbered subsequent to the closing agent’s disbursements, title rests fee and clear by assessed obligations required to move all liens of record off title.
In discovery I found that my title is unencumbered under an off balance sheet financing scheme using an irrevocable trust to secure assets .Therefore I have a right to lay claims for a release of lien for satisfaction of balances owed. My concern is that a request for payoff will adversely trigger recognition presenting an Grantor Annuity Investment “Trustee” the right to restore claims to all liens satisfied by the financing scheme that transferred my equity into a bank depositor’s accounts.
Transferring equity and assessing commercial debt against the household is no less an equitable interest held in title. I am requesting full disclosure of the installment agreements and method for sharing proceeds and liabilities upon the sale of title at settlement. This includes a request for the policy and procedures allowing owner, co owners and leasee with a option to repurchase a first right of refusal to any equitable interest held on deposit.
This is why a FDCPA Debt Collection disclosure is required in every mortgagee’s recovery for foreclosure. Now,I am lost on how to process my request for calculating a beneficiary payoff demand. My concern is where I elect to satisfy the purported mortgage but cannot for the following reasons::
1) a “debt collector” is required to foreclose
2) the FDCPA is required to establish the obligation owed
3) the debt collector obtains and order for entry of judgment
4) a judgment creates the basis in my loan
Therefore, how can your satisfy a demand to payoff the existing loan where judgment must be entered and no controversy exists.
Respectfully
Ok I just was looking over the 4 responses that dont actually respond to anything[from the OCC]all that they are telling me is that the entire time President Obama has been in office his greatest accomplishment and all of those that fill some position on his administration is NOT ANSWERING a single thing.NOT DOING a single thing,and STONEWALLING the fork out of folks so much so its some kind of dumbdumb artform.How long did it take them to come up with that protocol for each other because I cant imagine it just fell into place naturally.
Am I mistaken or would the entire administration{if this was say 1689}be dragged into the center of town and set ablaze?Along with the cheats and brokers,bankers,escrow,title,and anyone else who steals from others for sport.
http://www.bested.com/StudyGuides/SUB/SUB.pdf
See ERISA Act
Other Considerations
There are other features to note:
(a) In the common law, subrogation rights are only acquired after an indemnity has been
provided.
(b) Special considerations arise in respect to subrogation recoveries:
(i) The insurer cannot recover more under subrogation than was paid as an
indemnity. By way of example, suppose there is an insured loss of an antique. The
insurer pays, and some time later when the antique is found, its value is much higher.
The insurer can only keep the amount paid; any balance belongs to the insured.
(ii) The above saying is not true in the event of subrogation arising after
abandonment of the property to the insurer. There, all rights in the property belong to
the insurer, of course including the right to “make a profit.”
(iii) Sharing of Subrogation Proceeds;
Where the insurer has only provided a less-than indemnity on the basis of certain
policy limitations, the insured may possibly be entitled to part of- sometimes even the
whole of- the subrogation proceeds, depending on what limitations have been applied in the process of claims adjustments. The following are illustrations of several
manners in which the sharing of subrogation proceeds between the insured and the
insurer can be done:
(1) Excess: Suppose the insured is responsible for a loss (excess) of $10,000
before his or her liability insurer pays $40,000, and $20,000 is subsequently
recovered from a negligent third party. The whole of $20,000 will belong to the
insurer. However, if the subrogation recovery is $45,000 instead, the insured will
be entitled to $5,000 and the insurer $40,000.
(2) Limit of Liability: Suppose an insured contractor has incurred liability to a road
user in the amount of $1.5 million, of which the insured has to pay $0.5 million out
of his own pocket because his policy is subject to a limit of liability of $1 million.
Any recovery from a joint tortfeasor will belong to the insured, except where it
amounts to more than $0.5 million in which case that part over and above the $0.5
million threshold will belong to the insurer up to the amount of the insurance
payment.
(3) Average: Suppose a fire insurer has paid 80% of a loss where there is a 20%
underinsurance. The insured is entitled to 20% of subrogation proceeds as if he
was a co-insurer for 20% of the risk.
When Subrogation Rights Arise
Subrogation rights arise in the following ways:
• In tort: This usually arises where a third party negligently causes a loss indemnifiable
by a policy. For example, a fire insurer, after paying a fire loss, discovers that the fire
was caused by a negligent act of a neighbor of the insured. It sues the neighbor in the
name of the insured for damages recognized by the law of tort.
• In contract: This arises where the insured (perhaps a landlord) has a contractual right
(perhaps under a tenancy agreement) against another person (perhaps a tenant) for
an insured loss. After indemnifying the insured for the loss, the insurer may exercise
such right against that other person in the name of the insured.
•Under statute: If a person is injured at work, the employer’s insurance carrier will have
to pay a worker’s compensation benefit to the employee in accordance with the
provisions of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Law. The law grants subrogation
rights to the indemnifying employer insurer. (See Great West Casualty vs. MSI)
• In salvage: The insurer may be said to have subrogation rights in what is left of the
subject-matter of insurance (salvage), arising under the circumstances already
discussed.
Subrogation can only apply if indemnity applies. Thus, if the life insured of a life policy is
killed by the negligence of a motorist, the paying life insurer will not acquire subrogation
rights, as this payment was not an indemnity.
Ok I’ll take another look. Thanks
a subrogation clause to bolster the common law rights.
Subrogation is the right or rights of the insurer to assume the rights of the insured. Legal rights or to step into the shoes of.[1] Rights of subrogation can arise two different ways: automatically as a matter of law, or by agreement as part of a contract.[2] Subrogation by contract commonly arises in contracts of insurance. Subrogation as a matter of law is an equitable doctrine, and forms part of a wider body of law known as unjust enrichment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrogation
Read the Note and Mortgage, see surety.
Then study the Coyle case till you get it.
Subrogation Rights
The surety thing
sC
What the heck do you mean explain why
Wake Up Call!
“The question is whose loss was this, and why did the insurance company pay it off? The bigger question is that if the loss was paid off, why wasn’t allocated to the underlying assets whose decline in value was the basis of the loss claim?”
I am non borrowing Owner, Settlor, Grantor, Warrantor and Surety.
Makes me think NPV.
Neil said
“The question is whose loss was this, and why did the insurance company pay it off? The bigger question is that if the loss was paid off, why wasn’t allocated to the underlying assets whose decline in value was the basis of the loss claim?”
My question is why does the 1099a issued against my name from one west state full amount owed to them ( question of fact) and then the trustees deed upon sale states an extra 90k
I Have never received a 1099c and I do not accept that the ” lender ” was is it could be indymac and or one west
So onward.
And did they them sell to Citi
Such a web
under a FOIA request fdic said basically ask one west as all files were transferred
But – they were not the successor in interest to indymac they bought ” certain assets one being ” servicing rights” hence this gave rise to my questions under FOiA ( btw has 6 yr SOL) and so I got nada from one west ( other than a 1099a NO 1099c) which means I have to file judicially to get the info inder FOIA
This should be a class action suit ok
under a FOIA request fdic said basically ask one west as all files were transferred
But – they were not the successor in interest to indymac they bought ” certain assets one being ” servicing rights” hence thus gave rise to my questions under FOiA ( btw has 6 yr SOL
My case (s) is poster child of the wrongful actions
I’ll post more later
This is the same crap from the FDIC in selling alleged assets of IndyMac as with WaMu just a little later. If you take the Ginnie Mae pooled loan they could not have been sold because they were in the MBS already.
Sheila Bair should be called on the carpet for this crap that she allowed to save her insurance fund by all the homeowner to the wolves!