Pilant's Business Ethics

Business Ethics Blog

Tag: foreclosure fraud

Bank of America Forecloses on Santa Clara Woman After Telling Her to Miss Her Payments | | St. George News

008bBank of America Forecloses on Santa Clara Woman After Telling Her to Miss Her Payments | | St. George News

How many times do we have to read this same story? Telling someone that they have to stop paying to access a federal program, encouraging them to believe that they are going to get a loan modification, when your bank has already decided that no one is going to get this kind of deal, and then foreclosing on them when they fall for the bait – is this they way banks are supposed to make money?

What is the business ethics here? The bank should be telling its customers the truth, not a set of lies. I don’t think that requires much analysis.

Banks are a utility in the United States. That is, they have government protection in return for the bank following a set of rules. That’s why your accounts are insured and banks are supposed to be accountable. Because in a real sense a bank is public institution, it has privileges in the law to protect and profit it. How much less incentive should this kind of institution have than private companies from misleading and cheating its clients out of their homes?

Since, I wrote this article my own students have come forward with the same story of being told to miss payments by the bank and then being foreclosed on. There is great and calculated cruelty in these acts.

James Pilant

SANTA CLARA – Bank of America foreclosed on a Santa Clara woman’s home, despite her doing everything she was instructed to do in order to prevent it. Annette Lake resided in her house in Santa Clara from 1986 until May 24, 2011, when Bank of America foreclosed on her home. Just after her divorce from her husband was finalized in 2008, Lake was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was laid off from her job during chemotherapy treatments. She began ha … Read More

via

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail (via foreclosuresinmass)

About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail  (via foreclosuresinmass)

English:

English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve been arguing the same thing, – that there was much more to the mortgage crisis than robosigning. So, give this a read. I like skepticism and intelligence. This article has both.

James Pilant

Since last October, shortly after the robosigning scandal broke, I’ve been talking until I turned blue in the face about robosigning being the tip of the iceberg with mortgage problems and that the real issue was chain of title. Robosigning appeared to be an almost unexpected deposition by-product; the real goal in the depositions that uncovered the robosigning was exposing the backdating of mortgage endorsement. And that they did–the notaries’ … Read More

via foreclosuresinmass

From around the web.

From the web site, Living Lies. (There is really no way to do this article justice by a couple of paragraph quote – Go and read the whole thing. This is good legal writing, clear and concise. The advice is excellent. This is a great web site!)

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/can-a-broken-chain-lead-to-cancellation-of-instrument-no/

Which brings us to the second break in the chain. “for value received” is so commonplace, nobody reads it or pays any attention to it. But the fact is that the payee on the note never loaned the money nor purchased the loan. So in discovery, when I say follow the money, I mean follow the actual transactions in which the other side can prove money ex changed hands. It didn’t. Nobody paid for anything because the whole scheme was funded by investor-lenders ignorant of how their money was actually being used.

But by creating paperwork that carries with it the assumption or presumption that the assignee of course paid the assignor, the banks and servicers have so far accumulated title to more than 6 million homes most of which with a credit bid from a party who neither funded nor purchased the loan and who therefore could not be a creditor and who was not permitted under statute to submit a credit bid. This break in the chain of title is more akin to civil theft but it qualifies as a break.

From the web site, Findsen Law.

http://findsenlaw.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/prudential-v-goldman-sachs-raises-chain-of-title-in-securitization-of-mortgage-notes/

Several Prudential Insurance companies filed a lawsuit against Goldman Sachs related to a series of mortgage-backed-securities deals, particularly a lot of the GSAMP deals.  Prudential v Goldman here.  It contains some interesting allegations based upon Prudential’s systematic review of the collateral files:

Evidence That Goldman’s Representations Concerning the Mortgage Loans’ Chain of Title Were Systemically False

Goldman’s representations about the valid transfer of title of the Mortgage Loans to the Trusts were false. In many instances, the collateral did not properly secure the underlying Mortgage Loans and the Trusts could not foreclose on delinquent borrowers because Goldman.  Contrary to its representations, Goldman did not properly assign large numbers of the Mortgage Loans to the Trusts. In its rush to securitize loans and thereby offload risky collateral onto investors such as Prudential, Goldman did not comply with the strict rules governing assignment of mortgages and the transfer of promissory notes and loan files.  Goldman lost much of the paperwork relating to the Mortgage Loans underlying the securitizations, or made no attempt to assign the Mortgage Loans and deliver the original mortgage notes to the issuing trusts, as represented.

As part of its loan-level analysis of the Mortgage Loans underlying its Certificates, Prudential also examined if the chain of mortgage assignments was complete with respect to the Mortgage Loans. The review demonstrates that Goldman’s representations regarding the title for the Mortgage Loans were false and misleading, and that Goldman fraudulently failed to disclose problems in the chain of title for the Mortgage Loans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fraudclosures | Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law (via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge)

For about seven months now, I have argued over and over again that lying to the courts with false affidavits and actions amounting to fraud were prosecutable. I have used the word, crimes, and I meant it.

Why is it that if one of my students breaks the law by stealing a few dollars that he will go to jail and these banks can commit these acts and reap huge profits without fear of prosecution?

I want these law-breakers, these greedy well placed fraudsters, to go to jail, to do the perp walk, to pay enormous fines, and to serve as a warning to every Armani clad crook haunting the board rooms of our great investments banks.

James Pilant

My thanks to “Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge.”

Fraudclosures | Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law The Market Ticker – Federal Reserve: They Broke The Law but nobody cares…. (including us) The reviews found critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, including foreclosure attorneys.While it is important to note that findings varied across institutions, the weaknesses at each servicer, individually or collectively, resulted … Read More

via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Open Letter Re: Withdrawal of Proposed Consent Orders Regarding Mortgage Servicing Illegalities (via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge)

I strongly support this. The proposed consent orders fall far short of any fair settlement of the crimes committed by mortgage industry. I hope you are willing to join in this effort to find justice for millions of Americans whose property rights have been violated by a rogue industry that directly violated the law hundreds of thousands of times.

James Pilant

Open Letter Re: Withdrawal of Proposed Consent Orders Regarding Mortgage Servicing Illegalities April 6, 2011 Ben Bernanke, Chairman Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System John Walsh, Acting Comptroller Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Sheila Bair, Chairman Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation John Bowman, Acting Director Office of Thrift Supervision Re: Withdrawal of Proposed Consent Orders Regarding Mortgage Servicing Illegalities Dear Federal Regulators of the Financial Institutions of the United States: The undersign … Read More

via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

DYLAN RATIGAN: FORECLOSURE FRAUD; $45 TRILLION DOLLARS (via Dylan Ratigan Show)

A family seizes their home back from the banks.

It’s pitiful that Americans have to take justice into their own hands.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Foreclosure Fraud – Lawyers Cannot Support Fraud

Foreclosure Fraud – Lawyers Cannot Support Fraud

An attorney discusses widespread fraud and attorney participation in the following video. I have met many people who assume all attorneys including me are scum, but the fact of the matter is, some of the best people I have ever known have been in the legal profession and some of the worst. There isn’t a simple rule involved. But I want you to know one thing – without lawyers working at times for little money or no money, the enormous amount of foreclosure fraud would never have come to light. That alone sheds a positive light on the legal profession.

This is devastating to the banks.

James Pilant

From around the web.

From the web site, Living Lies. (This one will burn the paint off the wall! Keep up the good work!)

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/a-new-face-in-government-activism-in-securitization-scam/

We need many more people to run for office where it counts — the county level, get rid of the hacks who refuse to sue the banks for screwing up title, refuse to collect fees that are owed and would help the county budget, and refuse to hold those who submitted false filings accountable. THAT is where the banks have little influence. That is where they are weak politically. The lower the political office the less influence the bank has in preventing actions that would embarrass the mega banks.

Eventually the truth will all come out. It is seeping in through all the windows and doors. The logjam will break and we’ll know everything. And what we are going to find is that most mortgages were recorded without any transaction commenced between the the parties recited on the documents. We’ll find that the record is devoid of any real documentation between the real lenders (who might be impossible to determine with certainty because of commingling of funds in escrow accounts that ignored the existence of the REMICs). All that means is that the mortgages were fraudulently filed and therefore the foreclosures are invalid. There lies the path to salvation to our economy. Instead of the big boys getting a handout, the little people who were scrunched into the dirt by the boots of Wall Street titans are going to get a break.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Guest Post | Stay Calm, Remain in Your Homes (via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge)

We have many crises going on all at once. Why?

A convergence point has been reached. The foreclosure crisis is one element in a series of development.s In the United States, the critical development has been the continuous conversion of the economy from manufacturing to finance. Everything else flows from that.We make and less actual products each year. Our primary source of income as a nation is financial innovation.

Manufacturing requires large capable work forces to function. Finance requires a handful of people.

A huge financial sector demands several policies. 1. Free trade, in particular, the free movement of money and credit across national borders. 2. Relentless inflation control, this involves suppressing wage pressure and allowing economic growth only in a controlled manner. 3. As little taxation or no taxation on anything related to their operations. The people of the United States bear the principal burden of taxation. The financial sector has incredible profits while other parts of the economy flounder. Yet the tax burden does not shift to follow the money. 4. A intertwining of the government and the financial sector. More and more the government appears to be an arm of investment banking. The government insures the great financial houses of protection from failure. The government provide inexpensive loans for these companies. The government works with frantic intensity to control inflation. 5. Diminished public spending and the rigorous control of all social programs from education to unemployment insurance. This is to justify continuous cuts in taxes and to shift the burdens of a civilization from organizations to individuals. 6. This is a characteristic no often mentioned, but I kept finding it in report after report. A frantic, bizarre mania for numbers indicating a perception of higher form of reality, the music of the spheres. 6. Natural resources, in particular, basic human needs like water are to be divided for use by the private sector. 7. All endeavors from the military to the public schools must be converted from the public to the private, regardless of the outcomes. 8. An almost religious determination to follow the markets wherever they lead, cheaper workforces, better purchasers. 8. A visceral contempt for Americans under a certain income level. The “lower” classes are considered to be lazy, self-indulgent, burdens upon the elite producers. This is indicated by the absence of influence by the middle class on any policy decisions and the continuous development pf the doctrine of personal responsibility demonstrated by such changes policies as bankruptcy “reform” to student loan collections.

The change is focus from producing things to manipulating money might seem to be the most significant change here, but it is not. There is one overriding change that anchors and justifies all the others. The most important change over the past fifty years has been the development of a philosophy justifying profit taking over all other values.

When one part of society did something to damage the social order there were countervailing ideas. We can see this in the Progressive movement, the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. Other ideas of how things should work. We as a society called upon a variety of intertwining values to make decisions. But these are no longer considered valid. In the past, there could have been calls to patriotism. These are irrelevant in modern business philosophy. There could have been calls to God and religion. These are irrelevant in modern business philosophy. There could have been calls to the great philosophical systems of history. These are irrelevant in modern business philosophy. There could have been a call to righteousness or ethics. There could have been a call to the rule of law. These are all irrelevant.

For a single nation, only Kafka could explain the motives and values of the financial class. But for international business, the logic is clear.

Here is a posting about these changes beginning with the foreclosure crisis.

George Mantor writes this piece. He has his own web site at Keepin’ it real.

Stay Calm, Remain in Your Homes This is standard advice in times of emergency.  The principle is simple and logical. Authorities are dealing with limited resources in a critical environment wheGuest Post | Stay Calm, Remain in Your Homesre every second counts.  The fewer events and people they need to deal with, the more effective they can be. If you know me, you know that I am upbeat and positive by temperament and challenges don’t faze me.  I’m pretty level-headed, and I do my own thinki … Read More

via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

NJ | Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure (via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge)

There are few assaults upon our dignity as crushing as the theft of all of our possessions. It is not so much the large items like refrigerators and televisions that are missed. Humans attach value to the strangest things. Instead of the microwave they lament the loss of their wedding pictures. When logic would dictate the loss of the computer should be the first cause of regret, they think of the old worn chair that has sat in the living room for years. Considering the great value placed upon personal privacy and possessions, would it not seem logical and prudent that those entrusted with the safety of the public should investigate and seek to punish the guilty. But the investigators would only need a mirror to discover the perpetrator of this crime, law enforcement itself.

It seems unfair that the bank never has to worry about these mistakes in judgment. It seems unfair that the bank, should use so many public resources to serve its interests.

The victim is asking $500,000 dollars in damages.

That seems fair, first, to recompense her for damages and second, to discourage the sheriff and his deputies from any more random home raids.

James Pilant

NJ | Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure Sheriff’s Officers Accused Of Emptying Wrong Home In Botched Foreclosure HILLSIDE – A 76-year-old Hillside woman has filed a claim for damages against Union County, alleging that officers of the county sheriff’s department illegally entered her home and removed the entire contents because they had the wrong address of a foreclosure. In the document, obtained by Tina Renna of The County Watchers, Ozzie Leak claims that Union County Sheriff Ralph F … Read More

via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

Bank Agrees To Modify Your Mortgage – Then Kicks You Out – Standard Practice!

 

From the Washington Post

Across the country, struggling homeowners are increasingly tripped up by mortgage lenders that press ahead with foreclosures regardless of any effort they make to provide borrowers with relief on unaffordable mortgages.

Amid the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, mortgage companies have established a dual-track approach toward troubled homeowners, negotiating with them over loan modifications while trying to seize their homes.

Top government officials have been urging lenders to redouble their efforts at modifying burdensome loans and have barred lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are seeking to rework their mortgages under a federal program. Mortgage companies, however, have continued to pursue this two-track strategy, with a widening toll especially on those homeowners who have been trying to resolve their mortgage difficulties before they snowball, according to federal and state officials and consumer advocates.

During the last month, several major lenders have temporarily halted thousands of foreclosure cases amid reports that fraudulent court documents and improper procedures have been used to evict people from their homes. But disarray within the mortgage industry goes much further. And the foreclosure pause has done little to address the common industry practice of taking homes from people who’d been led to believe they could save them.

“It’s still happening everywhere,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has tried to bar the dual-track process in his state, one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. “It’s one of the largest complaints I get. . . . The lenders need to make a choice. What do they want: a foreclosure or a loan modification?”

The banks are playing it both ways. They foreclose on you when you are delinquent on payments and they foreclose on you when you get your payments modified with them since you’re not paying the full amount. Confused? Think how you would feel after reaching an agreement with the bank to lower your payments and your house is auctioned!

Take a look at the case of Mr. Roberts.

In Centreville, Woodrow Roberts III said he enrolled last October in a loan modification program with Bank of America. At the time, he was still current on his $3,000-a-month payments but wanted some relief until he could find a second job. The bank agreed to trim the monthly payment by $600 for a three-month trial period and consider Roberts for a permanent modification, he recalled.

After three months, he said, he heard nothing from the bank. “I called in every week to see the status of my loan,” Roberts said. “After a year of phone calls and no real information, I received a letter in the mail.” It said he had been rejected for a modification and that he owed more than $8,800 – the total he’d thought his payments had been reduced over the course of the year plus fees. If he didn’t pay, the letter warned, his home would be sold at a foreclosure auction Nov. 12.

“If I knew this type of program could risk everything, I would have never entered into this program,” Roberts said. He explained he can’t afford to pay the sum demanded all at once and hasn’t been allowed to spread it out over time.

In response to a reporter’s question about the case, Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said Roberts was turned down for a permanent loan modification under the federal program because his income was too high to qualify. But she said the bank is now reviewing whether he is eligible for alternative relief.

Sounds like he had a deal to me. But he didn’t. They agreed to modify his mortgage but the deals only work one way. If the bank wants to go with the deal, it’s fine. If they don’t, your home is auctioned and they don’t feel obligated to talk to you about it. Just hope they don’t offer to modify your mortgage.

Modify Your Mortgage

Modify Your Mortgage



Here’s some more –

The Mortgage Bankers Association said lenders often file initial foreclosure paperwork as they work to modify a loan. John Mechem, an MBA spokesman, said they want to make sure that if the modification effort fails, they can promptly move forward with the foreclosure, which can take up to three years to complete depending on the state. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration impose deadlines for filings on loans these agencies guarantee or own, he said.

But Phillip Robinson, a lawyer at the nonprofit law firm Civil Justice Inc. in Baltimore said, “Attorneys and housing counselors here and all over the country complain every day about this kind of thing.”

I don’t understand. I thought if you called and talked to someone at a bank, a loan office, etc., and they said they would take the payment late, they would take a buyout, they would accept a lower payment over a longer time, etc, etc, that we had a deal.

Apparently not. If you’re negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and they agree to modify it, you need to get it in writing. What’s the catch? I don’t see why they should let you have any such evidence of their intent. When they can decide to foreclose or not regardless of the arrangements they have made with you, why should they put anything on paper?

If you have a mortgage, and you have made arrangements with a bank, have a backup plan in case foreclosure is pushed through anyway.

James Pilant

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén