Newly Released Letter Show Scope Of Possible Mortgage Screwups

The letter dated Feb. 1 is from the bank's mortgage servicing unit, GMAC Mortgage, to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm it hired to review troubled loans as part of a 2011 agreement with federal regulators. It puts a number on some of the mortgages the bank may have handled incorrectly. Some highlights:

• GMAC started foreclosure proceedings on 1,270 borrowers who were in some stage of the bankruptcy process, and thus should have been protected from foreclosure.

• GMAC carried out foreclosure sales on 1,577 borrowers who were awaiting a decision about a loan modification. This is known as "dual tracking" and is one of the biggest complaints of homeowners and their advocates.

• The mortgage servicer hired a law firm that was subsequently "delisted" to process 30,235 foreclosures. The names of the firms are redacted, but presumably include several of those accused of forging documents as part of the robo-signing scandal.

• The mortgage servicer denied 50,030 borrowers for a government-run Home Affordable Modification Program, and then offered no alternative modification.

Referring a loan for review because it meets certain specifications doesn't necessarily mean that the bank acted unlawfully.

GMAC says in the letter that the number of borrowers subject to the review -- those whose homes were in some stage of foreclosure in 2009 or 2010 -- is 232,132. That's a small share of the estimated 4.5 million borrowers whose loans were handled by one of the 14 mortgage servicers who signed consent agreements with the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other regulators in early 2011.

Full Article: huffingtonpost.com

Anyone with a loan with GMAC or any of the other bankrupt entities should contact us to protect their rights. Call us now! 

The Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C. 718-979-9779

Citibank, NA v. D.D. and B.D. Richmond County Index # 101763/2012

Citibank, NA v. D.D. and B.D. Richmond County Index # 101763/2012 


Citibank once again through its counsel sued a husband and wife on the note of a second mortgage for $44,555.21 as if it were just credit card debt. Well, I guess they realized that you can't do that. We made a motion to dismiss citing a number of defects. First, the second mortgage and note were with Capital One - not Citibank. In the complaint, Citibank wrote “Plaintiff is the original creditor and is not required to be licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs.” Since they were not the original creditor, Citibank must be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs. So Citibank lacked standing (in other words it didn't show that it owned the note) and wasn't properly licensed. In addition, the complaint also didn't properly plead a cause of action for "Account Stated." Furthermore, Citibank did not give the 90 day notice required by RPAPL 1304. 


 Today, Citibank agreed to dismiss the case! We have successfully defended several Citibank lawsuits on the note of the second mortgage. If you get sued by Citibank (or any other bank for that matter) on a second mortgage note, please contact us.

A Monetary Policy for the 99%: Twelve-Year-Old Reformer Goes Viral

For The Full Story: http://4closurefraud.org

California Warns Homeowners: Mass Joinder Lawsuits Are Almost Always A Scam

** CONSUMER ALERT **

FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT

FEES FOR SO-CALLED “MASS JOINDER” OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING

EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF

Full Article can be found here: help.freehomeownershiphelp.com

FTC Legal Action Halts Alleged Mortgage Relief Scammers Who Lured Homeowners with Bogus Claims

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. district court has halted an operation that took in more than $1 million by allegedly selling homeowners bogus mortgage relief and foreclosure rescue products, including a scam that falsely promised to get help for homeowners who joined others to file so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits against their lenders. This is the FTC’s first case against alleged scammers who pitch these kinds of lawsuits.

 The full article: Federal Trade Commission

Mass Joinder Lawsuits Exposed!

The California State Bar Association has raided the offices of Kramer and Kaslow seizing records of their so called mass joinder suit.

For the full article: investigativeguy.com

Federal Trade Commission- Mass Joinder Lawsuits: A New Twist on Foreclosure Rescue Scams

A new scam is targeting financially strapped homeowners across the country. So-called specialized law firms are sending invitations to homeowners, urging them to participate in "mass joinder" lawsuits against their mortgage lenders as a way to get favorable loan modifications and stop foreclosure.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, cautions that the firms involved in this scam promise relief, but generally don't deliver. In fact, many of the firms fail to use qualified attorneys or pursue homeowners's cases, and often leave their clients in worse financial shape than before.


For the full article: Federal Trade Commission

Successful New Mortgage Foreclosure Defense

Decided on April 24, 2012
 Supreme Court, Queens County
 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Plaintiff, against Roland Chateau, et al., Defendants. 

Index No. 1959/10 

Joseph G. Golia, J.

 Defendant's motion for production of Attorney Authority pursuant to CPLR § 322 is granted upon the papers considered. 

 CPLR § 3020 [d] [3] permits plaintiff's attorney to verify a complaint when the plaintiff "is a foreign corporation, or is not in the county where the attorney has his office." Here, plaintiff states in their opposition to the present motion that plaintiff Wells Fargo has their principal place of business in South Dakota. Furthermore, as attested to by plaintiff's counsel in the verification, the plaintiff corporation does not maintain an office within Erie County, NY, the county where plaintiff's counsel's office is located. However, in instances where a verified complaint has been found to "constitute[] prima facie evidence of the attorney's authority"the verification was made by the plaintiff, not plaintiff's attorney (see Raczok v. Capasso, 32 Misc 3d 1242(A) [NY Sup Kings Co 2011]) .

 It should be apparent why a verification made by the plaintiff would qualify as "prima facie evidence of the attorney's authority," but the same cannot necessarily be said about a verification made by the attorney. Verification is an attestation to the fact that the contents of a pleading are true. A verification by the plaintiff that the contents of a pleading are true can simultaneously be implicitly understood as a grant of authority to the attorney. However, while a plaintiff's attorney may be able to attest to the truthfulness of a pleading via verification, such a verification does not necessarily have any bearing upon the question of the attorney's authority to initiate the action. 

 CPLR § 322 states that any request for attorney authority can be made "at any time before answering." Such a motion is not restricted to the window of time before the statutory deadline for an Answer has expired as is argued by plaintiff. Deference must be given to the Legislature's deliberate decision to set the timeframe as it did, and not presumptively apply an interpretation which is at odds with the plain meaning of the text of the statute. 

 The purpose of § 322 is self-evident: to ensure that a defendant is neither dispossessed of their home nor is their interest in their home significantly impaired when the plaintiff landlord/mortgagee does not truly desire such an outcome. Additionally, a court's granting of a motion for leave to file a late answer in a foreclosure action is no great rarity. This is especially true now, evidenced in the facts that the State of New York's policy is to foster settlements in foreclosure actions(see CPLR § 3408, wherein parties to a residential foreclosure action are required to engage in settlement negotiations with the express goal of "reach[ing] a mutually agreeable resolution to help the defendant avoid losing his or her home"), and the fact that good faith engagement in settlement negotiations provides a reasonable excuse for the filing of a late Answer. To find that the filing of a late Answer would present a statutory bar to the granting of a § 322 motion would be in [*2]opposition to both the purpose of § 322 and the State of New York's policy of containing the residential foreclosure crisis wherever possible. Defendant simultaneously submitted to the court a motion to file a late answer and the instant § 322 motion. As such, defendant has not yet filed an Answer, and is thus permitted to seek evidence of attorney authority via a § 322 motion. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file with this Court and serve upon defendant within 30 days of entry of this order evidence of the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to bring the herein action. Such evidence shall be in the form of a notarized affidavit wherein the affiant is an officer or employee of plaintiff corporation who is authorized to execute such a document. If the execution of said affidavit occurs outside the state of New York, said affidavit shall abide by the mandates of CPLR § 2903 [c]. The foregoing constitutes the decision, opinion, and order of the court.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Recovers $202.3 Million From Deutsche Bank And Mortgageit In Civil Fraud Case

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”). The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance.

Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement. As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,

MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:

MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;

MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;

Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;

MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and;

MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.

The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:

The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;

One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and;

Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

The Full Story: WWW.4CLOSUREFRAUD.COM

Banking Giant HSBC ‘A Criminal Enterprise’

The global banking giant HSBC is a “criminal” operation, charges a former officer for the company’s southern New York region in a video interview with WND.

For the video and full article: Banking giant HSBC 'a criminal enterprise'

AG robo-signing settlement monitor puts complaint forms online

Borrowers will get a chance to file complaints electronically with the monitor of the $25 billion foreclosure settlement with the largest mortgage servicers.

For Full Article: AG robo-signing settlement monitor puts complaint forms online

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE

Press Release April 26, 2012 Contact: David Neustadt 212-709-1691 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE Force-Placed Insurance Industry Participants and Other Interested Parties To Testify Hearings in New York City to Begin May 17 and likely to last several days Homeowners invited to detail their experiences with force-placed insurance via the Department's Website Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services, today announced that public hearings will begin on May 17, 2012 in New York City to review whether rates for force-placed insurance are appropriate or excessive and to examine the relationships between and payments to and from insurers, banks, mortgage servicers and insurance agents and brokers. The New York State Department of Financial Services will conduct the hearings from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. beginning on Thursday, May 17. The hearings will likely continue on May 18 and May 21. The hearings will be held in the Neil Levin Hearing Room on the 5th floor of the Department’s offices at 25 Beaver Street in Manhattan. The hearings will be webcast. The public hearings relate to a Department investigation into whether homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities are harmed by high premium charges when banks and servicers "force-place" insurance on the properties they service. This occurs when homeowners' own property insurance may have lapsed or where the bank deems the homeowners' insurance insufficient. The Department has already sent letters to 15 financial services companies directing them to provide written and oral testimony and answer the Department's questions. The companies include banks, mortgage servicers, insurance agents and brokers, insurers and reinsurers. "The object of these hearings will be to probe all the inner workings of this important industry and examine its impact on homeowners and investors. We will use the information gathered at the hearings to determine whether force-placed insurance rates are justified or need correction. We are looking into all aspects of this industry, and will take whatever action is necessary to root out any misconduct and to make sure that homeowners and investors are treated fairly," Superintendent Lawsky said. In addition to financial services companies, testimony will be presented by housing advocates, expert witnesses, homeowners and other interested parties. The Department began looking into force-placed insurance in October, 2011 when it uncovered evidence of potentially problematic and abusive practices in the industry occurring at the expense of homeowners and investors. Homeowners and others who wish to share their experiences with force-placed insurance with the Department and the public can tell their story at: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/csb_tellyourstory.htm. The Department plans to consider some of these stories at the hearings.

Another win for the Law Office of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

Order

Wells Fargo Slapped With $3.1 Million Fine For 'Reprehensible' Handling Of One Mortgage

Wells Fargo as well as other lenders engage in this type of behavior because they know the borrower doesn't usually have the means to defend themselves or to bring an action against their lender for predatory lending/predatory servicing and have also come to realize that the courts have no time to deal with these issues. Knowing most judges do not have the time or understanding of exactly how lenders screw over their customers is even more incentive for lenders to continue this type of behavior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/elizabeth-magner-new-orleans-wells-fargo_n_1412412.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl28%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D150389

Americans brace for next foreclosure wave

Hold on to your hats! Looks like this year is going to have a big uptick in foreclosure filings.


http://news.yahoo.com/americans-brace-next-foreclosure-wave-210253440.html

JPMorgan CEO on housing: We made too many mistakes

Hmmm, there seems to be some admission of guilt here including robo-signing. And there are no indictments because. . . . . . . . .

http://www.housingwire.com/news/jpmorgan-ceo-housing-we-made-too-many-mistakes

Judge signs $25 billion foreclosure settlement

Well, it's finally signed. Seemed for a time this wasn't going to get done. Not so sure this was the best deal for the home owner. However, the Fed wasn't doing much anyway. Hopefully, some of this money will find it's way to some of the nonprofit housing agencies (in New York).

http://www.housingwire.com/news/judge-signs-25-billion-foreclosure-settlement

Another win for the Law Offices of Robert Brown, P.C.

After Another victory …

COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DETERMINING THAT THE MERS ASSIGNMENT WAS A NULLITY.

Plaintiff/Bank moved for Summary Judgment against our client. We cross-moved to dismiss based on among other things the Bank’s lack of standing. Judge Maltese did not credit the Plaintiff’s claim that OneWest purchased all of the assets of IndyMac and noted, “Notably missing from the record is a copy of the purchase and assumption agreement between IndyMac and OneWest.” This is a battle that we frequently fight on the IndyMac loans and the Court here got it right.

Applying Bank of New York v. Silverberg, the Court determined that the assignment made by MERS as a nominee was a nullity. Therefore, the Bank did not have standing to sue the homeowner. Judge Maltese granted our motion and dismissed the foreclosure complaint.

Decision

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Should Have Stricter Regulation: Federal Housing Finance Agency Inspector

It's pretty sad that the FED continues to make loan guarantees with taxpayer money. Far worse is the fact they require (taxpayer) money just to stay in business. Clearly these entities are not capable of turning a profit under the guidance of any government agency. Perhaps a better option would be to completely privatize them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-should-stricter-regulation-fhfa_n_1387515.html?ref=topbar

Predatory Loan Test

You May Have a Predatory or Fraudulent Mortgage If:

•The closing took place in your home or place of business
•There was no physical closing
•You never signed any paperwork
•You never received all of your paperwork
•The mortgage broker promised or paid you to close
•You received no paperwork before the closing
•You were promised a fixed rate loan and then received an adjustable rate
•Your payment was higher than broker stated it would be
•You were told your payment included taxes and insurance
•You were told you needed to buy “life insurance” in order to be approved
•Your income was inflated
•You were approved for the loan based on the value of your home not on your income
•The mortgage broker increased the number of apartments on your application
•The broker added bank accounts you don’t have or inflated the balance in them
•The mortgage broker received an “extra” payment from the bank (known as a Y.S.P.)
•The mortgage broker earned more than what would be consider reasonable
•You refinanced multiple times (loan flipping)
•Broker promised to refinance you into a “better loan”
•Interest rate is higher than promised or incorrect
•Cash out promised is less than received
•Closing costs are higher than stated
•High closing costs
•Unearned or bogus fees paid to the bank or broker
•Payment to mortgage broker is higher than shown on closing statement (HUD)
•You were specifically targeted for a specific type of loan (more fees for broker)
•You were locked into the loan for a long period (or you had to pay a fee)


If you have any questions regarding your mortgage, predatory lending or how we can help you to fight back against foreclosure please feel free to contact us.


Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.
2409 Richmond Rd., Staten Island, New York 10306
Phone: 718-979-9779 Email: jbrancato@robertbrownlaw.com
Attorney Advertising