Balancing the Scales of Justice for Pro Se Homeowners

Posts by Simonee

NAKED CAPITALISM DETAILS BANK OF AMERICAS CORRUPT “FORECLOSURE REVIEW”

Posted by on Apr 5, 2013 | 0 comments

CAUTION – This report may cause a spike in blood pressure or severe waves of nausea.

 

I love these guys from Naked Capitalism, they just tell it like it is and don’t pull any punches.  This report is no different.  They explain all the gory details of the corrupt processes that the Office of the Comptroller of Currency allowed Bank of America to put into place.  As I read this report, and I have just begun, I can’t help but wonder where the heck are our congressional representatives in this mess?  At what point will our representative in congress and the senate comprehend just how abusive these slimy banks are and become outraged?  That this travesty continues is beyond comprehension..but then again, so is the debt of corruption we are seeing  with these banks.  Click here for the Naked-Capitalism-Whistleblower-Report-on-Bank-of-America-Foreclosure-Reviews

KEEP UP THE FIGHT!

 

Simonee

Read More

Does JP Morgan Chase OWN Washington Mutual Loans?

Posted by on Feb 7, 2013 | 2 comments

Depending on who you ask, and when you ask, the answer could be ..yes, no, or…don’t know! Now how is that possible? Either they do or they don’t.  And it is a question that every single Washington Mutual consumer should be asking.

Back in 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) stepped in and took over operations of Washington Mutual Bank; and through that process they sold assets of the bank to JP Morgan Chase.  What JP Morgan expects the general public to believe is that means they took over all loans originated by Washington Mutual Bank, unless they are getting sued by investors and then they claim none were purchased.  So how is it possible that JP Morgan talks out of both sides of its “proverbial” mouth?

 First, Washington Mutual Bank, FSB (Federal Savings Bank) f/k/a Washington Mutual, FA (Federal Association) was ONE of SEVERAL entities owned by Washington Mutual, Inc.   (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutual)  JP Morgan apparently took over Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp as well.

Then on September 25, 2008 the FDIC sold “certain” assets to JP Morgan Chase; one assumes those assets were the deposits, savings, credit cards and servicing contracts held by Washington Mutual Bank.   I say assumes because it is only now coming to light that when the FDIC sold those “certain” assets, they didn’t bother with identifying some of those assets – and this could prove to be a big problem for JP Morgan Chase.  (Time to start those crying violins).

Recently Deutsche Bank National Trust Company sued the FDIC for flawed loans originated by Washington Mutual Bank; through that lawsuit, the FDIC filed a Motion to Dismiss stating the FDIC isn’t responsible for those loans, that JP Morgan Chase assumed liability for those loans.  So of course, Deutsche then joined JP Morgan Chase, who in turn says…… “Whoa there Nelly, we don’t have those loans and we certainly didn’t take on liability for those loans”.  Among other sorts of teeth gnashing and whining, apparently neither the FDIC nor JP Morgan Chase are quite clear just which  loans were actually sold to JP Morgan Chase.  (If you want a copy of the Amended Complaint and Motions to Dismiss as filed, email me and I will send them to you)  Which by the way, the Motions to Dismiss were DENIED.

This confusion is further illustrated by a 330 page deposition of a one Lawrence Nardi.  On May 9, 2012 in the matter  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank v. Waisome, Florida 5th Judicial Circuit Case No. 2009-CA-005717, Lawrence Nardi, Operations Unit Manager and mortgage officer for JP Morgan Chase, who was previously employed by Washington Mutual and thereafter by JP Morgan Chase, in sworn deposition testimony under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury, testified that there was NEVER a mortgage loan schedule as to any mortgage loans “purchased” by JP Morgan Chase, NA from the FDIC pursuant to the Purchase and Asset Agreement (PAA) between the FDIC and JPM dated September 25, 2008.  Pertinent testimony from the 330 page deposition is as follows:

Q: (page 57, beginning at line 19): Okay. The — are you aware of any type of schedule of loans that would have been created to represent the — either the loans that were asset loans or the loans that were serviced by WAMU? Are you — was the — do you know if there is a schedule or database of loans like that?

A: (page 58, beginning at line 1): I know that there was a schedule contemplated in certain documents related to the purchase. That schedule has never materialized in any form. We’ve looked for it in countless other cases. We’ve never been able to produce it in any previous cases. It would certainly be a wonderful thing to have, but it’s — as far as I know, it doesn’t exist, although it was — it was contemplated in the documents.

Q: (beginning at page 260, line 18): Have you ever in your duties of being a loan analyst — a loan operations specialist, have you ever seen an FDIC bill of sale or a receiver’s deed or an assignment of mortgage or an allonge?

A: (page 260, beginning at line 23): For loans, I’m assuming you’re talking about the WaMu loan that was subject to the purchase here.

Q: (page 261, line 1): Right.

A: (page 261, beginning at line 2): No there is no assignments of mortgage. There’s no allonges. There’s no — in the thousands of loans that I have come into contact with that were a part of this purchase, I’ve never once seen an assignment of mortgage. There is simply not — they don’t exist. Or allonges or anything transferring ownership from WAMU to Chase, in other words. Specifically, endorsements and things like that.

This claim by Nardi is supported by some of the Free Writing Prospects that Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation (who allegedly purchased the loans originated by WaMu) that clearly states –

 

Possession by a Subsequent   Purchaser or Creditor of the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages Could Defeat the   Interests of the Trust in the Mortgage Notes and Mortgages The trustee will not have   physical possession of the mortgage notes and mortgages related to the mortgage   loans owned by the Trust. In addition, the trustee will not conduct any   independent review or examination of the related mortgage files. Instead, to   facilitate servicing and reduce administrative costs, Washington Mutual Bank   fsb, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Mutual Bank, the servicer of the   mortgage loans, will retain possession of and will review the mortgage notes   and mortgages as custodian for the Trust and financing statements will be   filed evidencing the Trust’s interest in the mortgage loans. The mortgage notes will not be endorsed to the Trust   and no assignment of the mortgages to the Trust will be prepared.   Furthermore, the mortgage notes and mortgages will not   be stamped or otherwise marked to reflect the assignment to Washington Mutual   Mortgage Securities Corp. and then to the Trust. If a   subsequent purchaser or creditor were able to take physical possession of the   mortgage notes and mortgages without knowledge of that assignment, the   interests of the Trust in the mortgage notes and mortgages could be defeated.   In that event, distributions to certificateholders may be adversely affected.

So it is quite understandable that consumers are confused by JP Morgan Chase’s claim as a “party of interest” in their foreclosures.  And every single one should be questioning that claim.  If the loan was sold to Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp back “when”, then how could the FDIC ever sell it to JP Morgan Chase? The fact is ..they did NOT.  They may have sold servicing rights to the loan, but they did NOT sell the loans to JP Morgan Chase.  And everyone should be demanding proof of that purchase.

I have seen numerous “Assignments of Deed of Trust” or “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust” in which JP Morgan falsely claims:

             JP Morgan Chase as Success in Interest to Washington Mutual Bank 

            This statement is a flat out lie; JP Morgan Chase purchased assets from the FDIC they purchase NOTHING from Washington Mutual Bank.  Don’t take my word for this; recently the Michigan Supreme Court looked at this issue and THEY declared in their ruling that JP Morgan Chase is not “successor in interest” to Washington Mutual Bank. See Michigan Supreme Court – JP Morgan NOT Successor in Interest to WaMu

             JP Morgan Chase National Association Successor in Interest by purchase from the FDIC as Receiver from Washington Mutual Bank et al

            Okay. That is possible if Washington Mutual retained the loan; but if there is a REMIC on the “assignment” then that is a flat out lie, because the loan was sold years ago to the Washington Mutual Securities Corp who sold it to the REMIC Trust; it was not part of the assets taken over by the FDIC.  If they “purchased” it..show me the schedule. Show me the endorsement (a real one, not a manufactured one please).  Show me the receipt.  My oh my what a web we weave when we first practice to deceive.  Investors SHOULD be all over this mess.

The issue of whether JP Morgan Chase is the “successor in interest” is hearsay.  There is too much evidence in the general public domain and being filed in cases throughout the county demonstrating that Washington Mutual sold those loans long before the FDIC got involved; so the assignment is a sham.  And you might want to look into what constitutes “fraud upon the court” if they come trotting into Court with their manufactured “assignment” as proof.

The other really odd thing about these “assignments” – they claim that the Trustee of the REMIC Trust (Wells Fargo, US Bank, Deutsche), and the FDIC ALL reside at the exact same address and share the exact same phone number.  Really?  Not that it is fatal to the assignment but I think it is evidence that JP Morgan lies.  If I want to call the FDIC and ask them about this assignment, the number rolls to JP Morgan Chase; if I want to call one of the Trustees, the number rolls to JP Morgan Chase.  Why is that?

I also find it fascinating that JP Morgan, who according to financial sites, was hankering to buy Washington Mutual – I can’t help but wonder how attractive those “unendorsed” Notes were to JP Morgan Chase;  does this little bit have anything to do with the OCC’s Cease and Desist Order to JP Morgan Chase on their anti money laundering practices?  The modern day mafia doesn’t deal in drugs and booze, they deal in stolen homes.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT!

Simonee

Read More

LPS settles outstanding Attorneys General foreclosure issues for $127 million

Posted by on Jan 31, 2013 | 4 comments

LPS settles outstanding Attorneys General foreclosure issues for $127 million

By Kerri Ann Panchuk

• January 31, 2013 • 8:48am

Mortgage technology firm Lender Processing Services ($24.12 1.72%) agreed to settle foreclosure documentation and processing issues with 46 different state attorneys general and the District of Columbia for $127 million on Thursday.

“Today’s settlements are another major step toward putting issues related to past business practices behind us,” said LPS President and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Harris. “As LPS continues to grow and exercise its leadership in the mortgage industry, we remain committed to enhanced regulatory compliance and operational excellence, which are crucial in our changing industry.”

The one-time payment with numerous AGs is another step in the firm’s attempt to distance itself from past allegations of mishandling foreclosure and mortgage documents. The company said Thursday’s multi-state agreement mirrors past LPS settlements with AGs in the states of Missouri, Delaware and Colorado.

The only unresolved AG inquiry into LPS’ practices is pending in the state of Nevada. LPS reaffirmed plans to ensure strong compliance and oversight of operations – as well as its strong commitment to remedy issues of concern.

LPS pointed out that it continues to put outstanding civil lawsuits related to foreclosure processing behind it. In January, the company settled with the St. Clair Shores General Employees’ Retirement System over securities fraud litigation. LPS also resolved litigation filed by American Home Mortgage Servicing, the tech firm said.

“We look forward to favorably resolving our remaining regulatory and legal issues in the near future,” added Harris.

To handle outstanding litigation issues and settlements, LPS upped its legal and regulatory reserves in the last quarter of 2012 by $48 million.

After paying out expenses, the company’s legal/regulatory reserve stood at $223 million in late December.

Along with the District of Columbia, the following states signed onto the settlement with LPS:Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Read More

US banks to pay $8.5B in mortgage settlement

Posted by on Jan 8, 2013 | 1 comment

By DANIEL WAGNER and CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER AP Business WritersAssociated Press
Posted: 01/08/2013 02:45:15 AM PST
January 8, 2013 10:51 AM GMTUpdated: 01/08/2013 02:51:27 AM PST

WASHINGTON—Hundreds of thousands of Americans stand to benefit from the latest mortgage-abuse settlement, but consumer advocates say U.S. banks may be getting the best of the deal.

Banks have agreed to pay $8.5 billion to settle charges that they wrongfully foreclosed on millions of homeowners in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Abuses included “robo-signing,” when banks automatically signed off on foreclosures without properly reviewing documents.

But the agreement announced Monday will also help eliminate huge potential liabilities for the banks.

Consumer advocates complained that regulators settled for too low a price by letting banks avoid full responsibility for foreclosures that victimized families and fueled an exodus from neighborhoods across the country.

The settlement ends an independent review of loan files required under a 2011 action by regulators. Bruce Marks, CEO of the advocacy group Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, noted that ending the review will cut short investigations into the banks’ practices.

“The question of who’s to blame—the homeowners or the lenders—if you stop this investigation now, that will always be an open-ended question,” Marks said.

The banks, which include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, will pay about $3.3 billion to homeowners to end the review of foreclosures.

The rest of the money—$5.2 billion—will be used to reduce mortgage bills and forgive outstanding principal on home sales that generated less than borrowers owed on their mortgages.

A total of 3.8 million people are eligible for payments under the deal announced by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve. Those payments could range from a few hundred dollars to up to $125,000.

Homeowners who were wrongly denied a loan modification will be entitled to relatively small payments. By contrast, people whose homes were unfairly seized and sold would be eligible for the biggest payments.

Banks and consumer advocates had complained that the loan-by-loan reviews required under the 2011 order were time-consuming and costly and didn’t reach many homeowners. Banks were paying large sums to consultants to review the files. Some questioned the independence of those consultants, who often ruled against homeowners.

The deal “represents a significant change in direction” that ensures “consumers are the ones who will benefit, and that they will benefit more quickly and in a more direct manner,” Thomas Curry, the comptroller of the currency, said in a statement.

But Charles Wanless, a homeowner in the Florida Panhandle, is among those who question that promise. Wanless, who is fighting foreclosure proceedings with Bank of America, says he doubts the money will benefit many who lost homes.

“Let’s say they already foreclosed on me and I lost my home,” said Wanless, who runs a pool-cleaning business in Crestview, Fla. “What’s $1,000 going to do to help me? If they took my house away wrongfully, is that going to get me my house back? I might be able to find one if I’m one of the lucky ones who gets $125,000.”

Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, complained that the deal won’t actually compensate homeowners for the actual harm they suffered.

The deal “caps (banks’) liability at a total number that’s less than they thought they were going to pay going in,” she said.

Thompson supports the decision to make direct payments to victimized homeowners. But she said the deal will work only if it includes strong oversight and transparency provisions.

The companies involved in the settlement announced Monday also include Citigroup, MetLife Bank, PNC Financial Services, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank and Aurora. The 2011 action also included GMAC Mortgage, HSBC Finance Corp. and EMC Mortgage Corp.

Regulators announced the deal on the same day that Bank of America agreed to pay $11.6 billion to government-backed mortgage financier Fannie Mae to settle claims related to mortgages that soured during the housing crash.

The agreements come as U.S. banks are showing renewed signs of financial health, extending their recovery from the 2008 crisis that nearly toppled many of them. They are lending more and earning greater profits than at any time since the Great Recession began in December 2007.

Monday’s foreclosure settlement doesn’t close the book on the housing crisis, which caused more than 4 million foreclosures. It covers only consumers who were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010. Some banks didn’t agree to the settlement. And resolving millions of claims involving multiple banks and mortgage companies is complicated and time-consuming.

“It’s going to take a few more years to get it sorted out,” said Bert Ely, an independent banking consultant.

Michael Allen of Petersburg, Va., hopes to benefit from the settlement. He lost his home last month after 2 1/2 years of trying to modify his mortgage. He had fallen behind on his payments after the plant he was working closed.

“I was working with the banks to re-modify (my loan), and I’d get to the final stages and I’d have to start over again. They didn’t give me any reason. I’d call them, they’d transfer me from one person to the next. … They just kept giving me the runaround.”

Citigroup said in a statement that it was “pleased to have the matter resolved” and thinks the agreement “will provide benefits for homeowners.” Citi expects to record a charge of $305 million in the fourth quarter of 2012 to cover its cash payment under the settlement. The bank expects that existing reserves will cover its $500 million share of the non-cash foreclosure aid.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said the agreements were “a significant step” in resolving the bank’s remaining legacy mortgage issues while streamlining the company and reducing future expenses.

Amy Bonitatibus, spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase, said the bank had “worked very hard” on the foreclosure review and was “pleased to have it now behind us.”

U.S. Bancorp, which owns U.S. Bank, said its part of the settlement includes an $80 million payment to homeowners. That payment will reduce its fourth-quarter earnings by 3 cents per share. It has also committed $128 million in mortgage aid.

Leaders of a House oversight panel have asked regulators for a briefing on the proposed settlement. Regulators had refused to brief Congress before announcing the deal publicly.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the settlement “may allow banks to skirt what they owe and sweep past abuses under the rug without determining the full harm borrowers have suffered.”

He complained that regulators failed to answer key questions about how the settlement was reached, who will get the money and what will happen to others who were harmed by these banks but were not included in the settlement.

The settlement is separate from a $25 billion settlement among 49 state attorneys general, federal regulators and five banks: Ally, formerly known as GMAC; Bank of America; Citigroup; JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

———

Associated Press writers Steve Rothwell in New York, Mike Schneider in Orlando, Fla., and Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.

———

Daniel Wagner can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/wagnerreports .

 

Read More

Ignoring a Summons and Complaint Guarantees YOUR loss – STOP THE LYING SOB’s

Posted by on Dec 19, 2012 | 1 comment

Today I received a call from a friend.  He shared how several weeks ago a homeowner had received a notice from the Court about an Unlawful Detainer being filed against them.  They came home a couple of weeks later and found an unstamped summons and complaint sitting in their mailbox, with no postage and no US stamp.

For those of you who follow Unlawful Detainers (or are about to) – service of the Summons and Complaint needs to be done in person.  In order for the process server to “drop it off” at your porch or post it to your door the process server must first attempt to “serve” you; then after their “due diligence” seek the Court’s approval, via a signed order,  to do a “post and mail” service.  (i.e post it to  your door and then mail it first class).  Anything varying from this is “improper service”.  (Sticking it in the mailbox is actually a federal offense!)

In this particular case, the homeowner checked with the Court and there was no order for post and mail; so they did nothing.  The Plaintiff sought, and received, a default judgment.  No surprise but now the homeowner is freaked because they never got a chance to “defend the action”.   Uh well actually, yeah, they did but they did nothing.  How would the Court know it is improper service if no one tells the Court? The only person talking to the Court is the Plaintiff – your silence is your agreement with what the Court is being told.

The above scenario is the whole purpose of a motion called a “Motion to Quash”.  The defendant files a Motion to Quash as a “specially appearing defendant” claiming that the Court has NO jurisdiction over them since service was improper.  But the ONLY WAY THE COURT WILL KNOW THIS IF YOU TELL THEM THIS. “Even when the defendant tenants (and/or subtenants) actually received summons and complaint and otherwise have actual notice of the lawsuit, a motion to quash will lie if process was not served in a statutorily-authorized manner”. Schering Corp. v. Super.Ct. (Ingraham) (1975) 52Cal. App. 3d 737, 741.

In this particular case the process server put it in the mail box and then claimed “actual personal service”.    They filed their “proof of service” and requested the “entry of default” on the SAME day.  The homeowner should have filed the Motion to Quash on the day they found the summons (or the next day)– and stopped these people in their tracks.   By ignoring the complaint they gave the liars another opportunity to mislead the Court and now the homeowner is further behind the eight ball because now they have to seek to get the default set aside.  Not a pretty place to be.   Getting the default set aside should be a no brainer but the reality is whether the default will be set aside is at the “discretion of the court”.  If you get a Judge who doesn’t want to be bothered, you run the risk of never getting your day in Court.

If you get a Summons and Complaint – don’t ignore it.  If it was improperly served do a Motion to Quash; if you don’t then the lie will continue right into a writ of possession that removes you from your home.    There is a sample template of a Motion to Quash in our Documents for paid annual members, please make use of it if you find yourself in this situation.

 KEEP UP THE FIGHT!

Simonee

 

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this web site and eBooks, infotofightforeclosure.com, is provided as a service to the Internet community, and does not constitute legal advice. We try to provide quality information, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this web site.  As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel. Info to Fight Foreclosure is not a law firm and nothing contained in this site should be deemed an endorsement or recommendation by infotofightforeclosure.com  of any attorney or firm listed in this website.

 

 

Read More
X

Forgot Password?

Join Us

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.