How to Use National Settlements as Part of Foreclosure Defense

Bill Paatalo brought this provision to me attention again. It gives a virtual checklist for discovery:

  1. All DOCUMENTS regarding the National Consent Judgement’s (CONSENT

ORDER) “Settlement Term Sheet (I)(A)(4) which reads as follows:

  1. Servicer shall have standards for qualifications, training and supervision of employees. Servicer shall train and supervise employees who regularly prepare or execute affidavits, sworn statements or Declarations. Each such employee shall sign a certification that he or she has received the training. Servicer shall oversee the training completion to ensure each required employee properly and timely completes such training. Servicer shall maintain written records confirming that each such employee has completed the training and the subjects covered by the training.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps). to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!



So if a homeowner is confronted with an entity that was part of the settlement, they should ask for the following:

  • standards for qualifications,
  • standards for training
  • standards for supervision
  • identification, time and dates of training of any persons who had worked on the subject loan, to wit: preparing affidavits, sworn statements or declarations
  • certification signed by employee that employee received the training
  • how did servicer oversee training completion
  • written records confirming that each such employee has completed the training and the subjects covered by the training.

8 Responses

  1. They diverted the money in NC too. Last time I checked, it was called: stealing.

    My take and it is in my objection to a claim from the fraudster…I disagree with the courts analysis, where, without homeowners, there would be no cash cow, for these thugs. They used our credit profile, income and assets, to acquire loans in “our names”…that damned well makes me a party to the selling of a debt created, in my name. Further, every time it is sold, I am a creditor to that transaction. Nothing to lose at this point…

    Oh and the same scam operators, have a claim (have an order for relief), laying in the district court and are in Federal Court looking for another, at a higher amount! Fraud anyone?

    Ocwen and US Bank, NA…sound familiar?

  2. All settlements blocked investigation. Settled without investigation and without admission of guilt. Worthless to the real victims – the homeowners. The victims were stuck battling alone in courts — who have no idea of the real fraud because investigation was blocked. But, some knew. Some knew what was being blocked from disclosure. The people were the scapegoats to save the fat cows. And, now we have an administration that wants to return to that same fraud.

    Go figure. Republicans don’t have a clue, and Democrats won’t expose what was concealed on their clock. Blocked alright.

    May the truth be one day told. It will happen. At very least, a return of deserved dignity.

  3. When California received $410 million in 2012 as part of a nationwide settlement with major banks accused of abusive foreclosures, Gov. Jerry Brown used $331 million to pay state agencies in housing and other programs to cover their deficits.

    Now a state appeals court has ordered the money be used for its original intent: to help homeowners who suffered foreclosures.

    The money was “unlawfully diverted” from a settlement fund that was designated for programs directly assisting homeowners, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento said Tuesday. A Sacramento County judge had reached the same conclusion but found he lacked authority to order the state to redirect the money, a finding the appeals court rejected.

    Neil Barofsky, a lawyer for the National Asian American Coalition and other groups that filed the suit, said the court had properly ordered the state to “immediately put the money back into a fund where it can be used to help struggling homeowners,” particularly in poor and minority communities.

    H.D. Palmer, spokesman for Brown’s Finance Department, said state officials had not decided whether to ask the California Supreme Court to review the case. He said the debt payments, most of them for housing bonds, had been approved by state lawmakers, and the case raised questions about whether “the Legislature’s appropriations power can be overridden with a court judgment.”

    The nation’s five largest mortgage servicers — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and GMAC — reached the settlement in 2012 in a suit by the federal government and every state except Oklahoma. It included more than $20 billion in direct aid to foreclosed homeowners and $2.5 billion to the states, including $410 million to California.

    Of the $410 million, at least $331 million was designated by then-state Attorney General Kamala Harris for a fund devoted to programs assisting homeowners who were harmed by the wave of foreclosures. The programs included housing counselors, foreclosure assistance hotlines, legal aid, consumer education and efforts to investigate and combat financial fraud.

    After the fund was established, however, the state’s Finance Department appropriated the money, with legislative approval, to pay off deficits to the state agencies in charge of state housing bonds and other consumer-related measures. State lawyers argued that the payments were consistent with the mortgage settlement and were not subject to judicial review, but the court disagreed.

    The money “was unlawfully diverted from a special fund in contravention of the purposes for which that special fund was established,” Justice Andrea Hoch said in the 3-0 ruling.

    Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer

  4. REPOST:

    California ordered to restore $331 million to fund for homeowners


  5. To my knowledge there has never been an exhaustive accounting of the distribution of funds for any bank related 2008 Crisis Settlement, Consent Orders and/or Fannie/Freddie Net Worth Sweeps (gleaned from foreclosures). We do know Obama had “slush funds” for various agendas that AG Sessions ended immediately upon taking office. Obviously, accountings should be public.

  6. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear and commented:
    About time! Many foreclosure defense attorneys do not take the time to dissect these Settlements and Consent Orders. Certainly, many judges have never thoroughly read them -or there would be more sua sponte Orders. There ought to be ongoing prerequisite classes set up for foreclosure judges and attorneys to dissect and review these government actions. It might slow down the need for appeals. Actually, just following the rule of law would help.

  7. We never received any settlement money. I was told by Rust that my services BOA doesn’t have us listed as this being my primary home. Nothing but lies and runarounds since day 1 with BOA and Fannie Mae !!!!!

  8. Wasn’t there a provision to the National Consent Judgement that states a new servicer shall abide by the previous servicers decision to provide a modification (or something to the effect). GMAC sent me a letter stating I was approved for a modification for $1,806.00 a month and then before I received the documents GMAC filed Bankruptcy and then Chase sent me a letter that they are the new servicer and totally ignored GMAC decision and proceded with the foreclosure filed by GMAC. GMAC recorded a recission and Chase assigned the loan to themselves and filed a “do over” NOD.
    Property is in California

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: