SHOCKER, not everyone in foreclosure “bought too much house” or “lied about their income on the loan application”.

It turns out, that at times, Wells Fargo  falsified records and changed borrowers loan applications or steered them into sub-prime profitable loans.

“The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices.”

To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008

Thanks to 4closurefraud.org for the article.

- The Bank Slayer

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Federal Reserve Orders $85M Civil Penalty Against Wells Fargo for Steering Potential Prime Borrowers Into More Costly Subprime Loans and Falsifying Income

The following is an announcement by the Federal Reserve Wednesday regarding a civil penalty against Wells Fargo:

The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday issued a consent cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.

The $85 million civil money penalty is the largest the Board has assessed in a consumer-protection enforcement action and is the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulatory agency to address alleged steering of borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans.

Wells Fargo Financial–a once-active, non-bank subsidiary of Wells Fargo–made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.

These practices were allegedly fostered by Wells Fargo Financials incentive compensation and sales quota programs and the lack of adequate controls to manage the risks resulting from these programs. These deficiencies allegedly constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices and unfair or deceptive acts or practices that are prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. In agreeing to the order, Wells Fargo did not admit any wrongdoing. The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices. To identify prime-eligible borrowers with cash-out refinancing loans who were subject to improper steering, Wells Fargo is required to reevaluate the qualifications of all borrowers who took out a subprime, cash-out refinancing loan between January 2006 and June 2008 to account for certain specific steering techniques. To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008 at a Wells Fargo Financial office where there is evidence that sales personnel at that office altered or falsified borrowers income information.

These compensation plans must be approved by the Federal Reserve. An independent, third-party administrator will review determinations about the eligibility of individual borrowers for compensation and the amounts of compensation provided. The Federal Reserve will also monitor compliance with the approved plans. Failure to comply with the plans will constitute a breach of the cease and desist order.

The amount of compensation provided to individual borrowers will depend on a number of factors, including differences between what borrowers paid and what they should have paid in terms of origination points, interest payments, fees, and penalties. Until specific determinations of harm to individual borrowers are made, it is difficult to determine the total amount of compensation provided to borrowers. Based on preliminary estimates, the amount of compensation that each eligible borrower will receive ranges between $1,000 and $20,000, but some eligible borrowers may receive less than $1,000 and others may receive more than $20,000. The number of borrowers who may receive compensation under both plans is estimated to be between 3,700 and possibly more than 10,000.

Further information for borrowers may be found at www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage.

In addition to the monetary components of the settlement, Wells Fargo is required to improve oversight of its anti-fraud and compliance programs and incentive compensation and performance management policies for personnel who sell and underwrite home mortgage loans. The Board
also has issued consent orders against 16 former Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel prohibiting them from becoming employed in the banking industry. The Board has also issued a consent cease and desist order against another former Wells Fargo Financial sales person prohibiting future improper conduct.

SHOCKER!!   Buyer of a short sale doesn’t own the property he just purchased (or does he?).  Seller of the short sale paid off the wrong party (or did he?).

The below email was sent to Neil Garfield at Living Lies.  Sadly this is not shocking at we know of two other lawsuits where the seller and the buyer acted in good faith and sold the property and the money was sent to BofA (and MERS was involved as well) and later the “real” owner of the deed of trust came forward and demanded that the transaction be undone due to a mistaken release of the deed of trust by the wrong party.

What does this mean to a real estate agent involved in the transaction?

Get an attorney involved – preferably BEFORE the short sale closes.  Why?  Quite simply you need to make sure that the transaction is buttoned up tight.   Many of the short sales that involve an attorney and litigation against the pretender lender will require a settlement agreement to be signed at closing (or at least have enough documentation that the seller & buyer have some ground to stand on).

But what does a settlement agreement do and how does it help you as the real estate agent?

First, the pretender lender whose is receiving the proceeds of the short sale “swears” they are the real lender or working for the real lender (like Fannie Mae).  Second, a well crafted settlement agreement will indemnify the seller (or whichever parties are named) – meaning that the lender getting the money has to defend the seller if they are sued over the specifics related to the settlement, i.e. the short sale.

Does the buyer lose the house and does the real estate agent have to give back their commission?

Very likely the answer is no.  But you will have to hire an attorney to fight this battle for you.   The title company should be on the hook for the value of the home – meaning they will either have to pay off the “real” lender or the new homeowner.   The downside is that it could cost more than the commission just to fight this type of suit AND the title insurance is only good for the amount of the policy (if the house was bought for less than full value or thousands of dollars in updates/remodeling has been performed you could lose this amount).

Bottom Line

Short sales and even purchasing foreclosure can be great equity and value builders for the buyers and assist the seller with disposing of a property but a good title company and good lawyer can help you keep this value hopefully keep your sanity and commission.

Seek legal counsel from a real estate attorney and one who has experience in dealing with short sale and foreclosure.

- The Bank Slayer

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!!

Finally!  Bank of America coughs up $20 million and Saxon another $2.35 millionto members of the military who are victims of wrongful foreclosure actions.

On average, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez said victims in the Saxon case will receive an average of $130,555, while the Countrywide victims will receive about $125,000 each.

He said he hopes that all other servicers “will take a very careful look at these settlement agreements.”

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides protections for those military personnel that are deployed away from home.  Specifically prohibiting foreclosure on a servicemember’s home unless there is a court order.

It’s a very simple process for banks to quickly search a database to determine if a borrower is a member of the military and then just follow the rules!  Court orders for foreclosures are routinely and fairly simple to obtain but banks are in such a rush to foreclose that innocent families are caught up in a whirlwind of bank negligence and profiteering.

If you or someone you know is facing a foreclosure or has been wrongly foreclosed upon contact our office today.

– The Bank Slayer

The article below is from the Huffington Post

Improper Military Foreclosures: U.S. Settles With Two Firms [UPDATE]

Amid blistering heat and thunderous bombing in central Iraq during summer 2005, U.S. Army Sgt. James Hurley suddenly found it difficult to reach his wife back home in Michigan.

For four days straight, he called and got a troubling message that the line had been disconnected. Eventually, Hurley tracked her down through his uncle.

“She tells me, ‘We got kicked out of the house, we’re foreclosed,’” Hurley recalled. “I was so pissed off. If it wasn’t for my roommate and my sergeant who was over me, I think I would have gone nuts.”

As his wife removed every stick of furniture from their home, cramming it in her parents’ house and in a nearby garage, Hurley was left to stew halfway around the world. He asked for extra-long shifts and additional mechanic assignments, just to keep his mind off things.

It would be another six months before he could return home to sort out the mess, beginning a years-long court battle with Saxon Mortgage Services over the loss of his home while deployed overseas.

Prompted in part by Hurley’s case, the Justice Department on Thursday announced a $22 million settlement with Saxon and a unit of Bank of America to provide relief to more than 170 active-duty military members who experienced improper foreclosures over the past few years.

Active-duty military are protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law that provides a slew of consumer protection measures designed to protect military personnel from financial distress. Among other things, the law prohibits foreclosure on a servicemember’s home unless there is a court order.

The Government Accountability Office hinted at the investigation in a report earlier this month.

The Justice Department alleged that the Bank of America unit, formerly part of Countrywide Financial, improperly foreclosed on 160 military personnel between January 2006 and May 2009 and didn’t check whether the borrowers were active-duty military.

They also alleged that Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, foreclosed on 17 servicemembers without obtaining court orders.

Bank of America agreed to pay $20 million, and Saxon Mortgage Services, of Fort Worth, Texas, agreed to pay $2.35 million. If additional military members come forward, the companies have agreed to compensate them beyond those amounts.

“I feel quite confident in the thoroughness of the investigation to date,” said Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. “However, if we identify other victims in the course of our review, or if the servicers identify other victims, we will of course compensate them.”

On average, Perez said victims in the Saxon case will receive an average of $130,555, while the Countrywide victims will receive about $125,000 each.

JPMorgan Chase has also disclosed in recent months that it improperly foreclosed on 18 servicemembers. Perez said he could not comment on other mortgage servicers that the Justice Department may be investigating for violations of military consumer laws.

He said he hopes that all other servicers “will take a very careful look at these settlement agreements.”

A spokesman for Morgan Stanley issued a statement on behalf of Saxon Mortgage Services.

“First and foremost, we want to apologize to those military families that were affected by any mistakes made in the foreclosure process. Our servicemen and women deserve the highest level of customer service. Saxon has taken meaningful steps to ensure it has appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply fully with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.”

Victims identified by the Justice Department included soldiers who returned home severely paralyzed and suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Hurley settled with Saxon Mortgage Services separately in March, but the Justice Department initiated the investigation in response to his case, Perez said.

For six months after he heard the news in 2005, Hurley was burdened with both the mental strain of a war zone and concerns about the fate of his wife and home on the other side of the world.

Since returning home to Michigan in early 2006, he and his wife have moved into a small cabin where her parents lived.

He did receive some money earlier this year — he couldn’t disclose the amount based on the terms of his settlement — but he said his only real wish was to get his house back.

A longtime handyman, Hurley has done his best to expand the place and make it more comfortable. But after the foreclosure, his prior home of more than a decade remains in the hands of someone else.

“To this day I still don’t understand why,” Hurley reflected. “They took it illegally; why can’t I get it back? I didn’t want any money. All I wanted was my house back.”

He suffers from pinched nerves and major back and neck problems, the result of injuries sustained while driving around in tanks. He has major difficulties hearing out of his right ear.

Hurley said he was happy to hear that others are getting restitution, and he hopes that more come forward.

“These banks know they can’t do it, but they turn around and they do it anyway,” he said. “Because they’re the people who are in power, and they think all the government’s going to do is slap their hands.”

The letter below shows EXACTLY how the banks and their lawyers try to twist the facts and scare homeowners as well as consumer advocates into accepting their lies.   The blogs referenced in this response letter are credible and valuable in the foreclosure defense arena.

Statements like: “A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.” show that once the rocks are overturned the light is shown on the fraud happening in the foreclosure mills.

Read and enjoy.  EXCELLENT REPONSE!

- The Bank Slayer

posted at http://4closurefraud.org/author/4closurefraud/

SAVE MY HOME LAW GROUP
3601 WEST COMMERCIAL BLVD., SUITE 16
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309
TEL:  954-677-8888; FAX: 954-677-8881
CAROL C ASBURY, SENIOR ATTORNEY

March 30, 2011

Michael B. Colgan
GLENN RASMUSSEN FOGARTY & HOOKER
100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 1300
Tampa, Florida 33607

RE:  Cease and Desist Demand Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011

Dear Attorney Colgan:

Please be advised that this Law Firm has been retained to represent Lisa Epstein regarding your Cease and Desist Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011 seeking to silence Lisa Epstein regarding matters of great public interest in order to discourage debate on these important issues of public concern directly impacting and complicating the foreclosure crisis in Florida.

My first concern with regard to your letter is that you state that your Office is counsel to Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (“NTC”) but your Office seems to be seeking redress concerning individuals who are employees of NTC but who are not represented by your law firm.  For instance, the first example involving Crystal Moore does not even mention your client, NTC, yet your Office insist that Lisa Epstein remove this very old posting (September 20, 2010) directing her attention to an Order by Sarasota Circuit Judge Rick DeFuria enjoining Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, implying that the Judge’s Temporary Injunction somehow applies to her and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org Not only is the Judge’s Order not directed at her or her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org but you failed to inform her that on or about December 10, 2010 that Order was appealed by the ACLU, who is representing Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, to the Second District Court, which places its viability in question.

I would note that these videotaped depositions can be found in a number of places on the internet including some State Governmental sites.  Furthermore, posting a third party article directing people to a YouTube site is not defamation nor can it be considered “posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining materials” related to those depositions.  All of which is done on YouTube.

In fact, in a letter to the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Canady, Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida, Executive Direct said, “Putting the videotaped depositions of ‘Robosigners’ on YouTube give the world an opportunity to see how the practices of Banks and Title Companies are affecting homeowners facing financial problems.  This is a public service that shouldn’t be subject to a court imposed gag order.”  This Letter was co-signed by the Florida Association of Broadcasters, Florida Society of News Editors, Florida Press Association, Florida Times-Union Newspaper, and the First Amendment Foundation.  More information can be found at a site that my Office sponsors, www.4closurefraud.org, authored by Michael Redman.

Example two in your letter is an objection to Attorney Lynn Szymoniak’s summary of Brian Bly’s deposition.  Now if summarizing the sworn testimony or statements of an individual is actionable then every newspaper and newsroom needs to be shut down immediately.  The public would instantly be cast into the dark ages – a time when a few powerful individuals attempted to control the people by keeping the masses in ignorance.  As with Example one, NTC is not even mentioned, with the exception that example two indicates that Brian Bly is employed by Nationwide Title Clearing.   However, your letter adds the additional information that, in your legal opinion, it is not legally improper for NTC to direct Brian Bly to sign documents as an officer of over 20 banks although Mr. Bly has no knowledge of what he is signing or the contents of the assignments.   In other words, your letter admits that he just “robo signs” documents put in front of him because NTC directs him to do it.

Since your are being so open an honest, I will also be open and honest.  I have in my office sworn Affidavits – not assignments – signed by both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly.  Based on your candid statement, I can surmise that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly sign these affidavits without any knowledge of the contents because they are directed by NTC to sign these documents as an officer of over 20 banks.  Does your Law Firm find this policy regarding sworn Affidavits also legally permissible?

It may be your legal opinion that your clients do not need to read the documents that they sign but, in my legal opinion, I inform all my clients to read and understand everything that they sign; especially, if that document is going to be recorded in the county records and used in a court of law as evidence.  Moreover, if – as you state – “the signer is not required to read them before signing” – then how do you, as the attorney for NTC, know that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly only signed Assignments since “not reading” a document means, by definition, that neither of them knows what kind of document they signed – whether it be an Assignment, Lost Note Affidavit, Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment, Satisfaction of Mortgage or any other document – because neither of them had any knowledge of the contents of the documents that they signed.  To use your phrase, “I am sure you know” that both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signed sworn Affidavits of all kinds.

By Mr Bly’s own admission, he signed 5000 documents a day in batches of 200.  Assuming an 8 hour day, Mr. Bly  would have had to sign over 600 documents every hour or 10 documents every minute.  Mr. Bly accomplished this feat by not reading the documents, which prevents him from having any knowledge of the content of the document or what type of document he was signing.  I am sure he did not even care what he was signing as his job was signing – not reading, understanding, or knowing.   As pointed out in Example 3, the document signed is a Satisfaction of Mortgage – not an Assignment of Mortgage.  To sign a Satisfaction of Mortgage, Mr. Bly would have to have some knowledge of whether or not the mortgage was in fact paid off.  However, he was not reading the documents he signed, which, of course, begs the questions – Was the mortgage really satisfied?

Example 4, relates to Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signing Affidavits and Example 5 relates to a question posted by a reader of www.foreclosurehamlet.org regarding another employee of NTC, Mary Jo McGowan.   Although you state that these statements are false and materially misleading, you don’t explain your statement.  In my legal opinion, a person who signs an Affidavit swearing to facts set forth therein without any personal knowledge of those facts is making a false statement.  It is fraud on the Court to utilize such fraudulent affidavits as evidence in a court of law.  One law firm has, this very week, agreed to pay a paltry $2 Million in fines to Florida regarding the filing of such false affidavits and paper work.  I guess that the Attorney General’s Office in Florida is seeking to hold someone “accountable” for these “sworn false statements.”

Twice you make the rather amazing statement that my client “knows” that NTC has duly executed resolutions or power of attorney for the financial institutions for which its employees executed assignments.  Need I point out that my client does NOT “know” anything of the sort.  I have been practicing in this area of the law (Mortgage Defense Law) since early 2008 and I have never seen such a resolution or power of attorney.  So not even I know anything about “resolutions” or “power of attorneys” authorizing Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore, or anybody else to sign for any bank, lender or financial institution.  Since these resolutions you mention deal only with “assignments”, can I assume that there are not resolutions authorizing the signing of Affidavits, Satisfactions of Mortgages, or other sworn statements, which have been filed in courts throughout Florida?

Your statement that such confidential resolutions or power of attorneys exists secretly, hidden from view, is meaningless, pointless, and not trustworthy.  For example, you provide a copy of a three year old, November 20, 2008 “Unanimous Written Consent of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Citi Residential Lending Inc.” which is neither “unanimous”, as it is signed by only two out of three people, nor does it authorize the signing of any and all assignments no matter what State or legal case the assignments relates.  Half the resolution seems to be missing. (See, Page 2).  Its not authenticated – but just a copy.  Its old.  I have no idea if Sanjiv Das and Paul R. Ince have really signed this alleged resolution or are authorized to sign this resolution.  The resolution “specifically” relates to something happening in Colorado, not Florida.  The resolution is not even valid until NTC executes an Indemnity Agreement.  Who knows if NTC executed this Indemnity Agreement.  Since this alleged resolution is no longer confidential, can I assume that your Law Office will be making all these “confidential” resolutions or power of attorneys available for discovery should your Client decide to sue my Client?

Again your letter states that these duly-executed corporate resolutions or powers of attorney allows the employees of NTC to execute assignments only. Again, can I assume that there are no secret, confidential resolutions or power of attorneys granting the employees of NTC the right to sign sworn affidavits, satisfactions of mortgages, or other sworn statements? If that is true, as you imply, then any Affidavit, Satisfaction of Mortgage, or sworn statements signed by Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore or other employees of NTC are, consequently, legally invalid.

Now let me tell you a little bit about Lisa Epstein and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.  The blog specifically states that it is for “Supporting, Informing, & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”  The blog posts every day the latest news in this very important public interest subject of foreclosure and foreclosure fraud.  This area is of such importance that the ACLU has become involved in Florida due to the blatant violations of Floridian’s constitutional due process rights.  The Florida Attorney General is actively investigating several law firms for filing false affidavits and false documents in the courts.  A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.  All these issues and many, many more are tracked on Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.

On a daily basis, Lisa Epstein’s blog provides its readers with up to date information and news regarding events surrounding Foreclosures; including, but not limited to changes in the court administrative rules and recent rulings from Judges throughout Florida.  The Blog receives over 3,000 hits every day from people seeking information on this vitally important area of public importance in Florida.  In short, www.foreclosurehamlet.org receives approximately 100,000 hits per month.  Every day the number of hits increase.

Lisa Epstein’s name is known even in Tallahassee.  Recently she was one of the leaders in the Rally to Tally where she traveled with two bus loads of fellow advocates to Tallahassee to protest the new attempts to cut short the due process rights of homeowners in Florida.  There in Tallahassee, she met with representatives of the Attorney General’s Office as well as members of the State Legislator regarding bills presently pending before the House of Representatives and State Senate.

Lisa Epstein has been named the Homeowners Advocate by the Palm Beach Post.  In December, 2010, Florida Trend named Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman the Florida News-makers of the Year for 2010.

Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have assisted the Florida Attorney General’s Office in investigating and providing evidence of the the fraudulent documents that have been filed in the county records and in different courts throughout the States.  Both Lisa Epstein’s, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, and Michael Redman’s, www.4closurefraud.org, investigative journalism have been responsible for exposing how different signatures appear for the same robosigners, how the banks have filed two blue ink notes, and exposed all the different kinds of fraudulent affidavits, assignments of mortgages, and other fraudulent documents have been filed in the courts and in the county records.  Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have investigated and reported on many issues that are now in the forefront of newspapers and the nightly news.  In addition, both web blogs are considered the two most important sites for seeking information in this most critical area for Floridians who are losing their homes and their finances.  Without a doubt, Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, concentrates on gathering, selecting, and preparing, for purposes of publication to a mass audience, information about current events of interest and concern to her audience  — specifically, “Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”

It is well settled law that Lisa Epstein is entitled to the protections provided by the First Amendment with respect to the freedom of free speech.  In addition to her investigative work, Lisa Epstein’s  republishes articles picked up from other new sources, blogs or internet news sites.  In the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971), the federal government sought to enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a stolen classified documents on United State decision-making policy in Vietnam.  The documents contained highly classified information that presumably threatened national security.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that even those threats to important governmental interests could not overcome the established presumption against prior restraint on speech.  It is a “hallowed First Amendment principle that the press shall not be subjected to prior restraints.”

Moreover, the activities of Brian Bly and Crystal Moore have made them infamous throughout the United States.  These two names are well-known.  Whether Brian Bly or Crystal Moore intended the notoriety, these two people – along with many others – have become famous and will be forever linked to the name “robosigner”.  Consequently, any defamation action will need to meet a higher standard to state a cause of action.

My client will not waive her First Amendment Rights which protect and guarantees the full and uninhibited discussion of the vitally important public issues surrounding foreclosure litigation in Florida; especially since there has been no statements that can be reasonably interpreted as stating false and defamatory facts about Mr. Bly or Crystal Moore or NTC reputations, which may warrant stifling the First Amendment rights to public debate.  The First Amendment guarantees a full and uninhibited discussion of public issues.  In the arena of public discussion, differing views may be voiced within the established limits of verbal discord or rhetorical hyperbole’, and even offensive utterance, without violating the law of defamation; especially, where such statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual’s reputation.   The public has a right to weigh all the facts in arriving at conclusions related to any individual who signs for companies he or she is not employed with or who swears to facts in affidavits where the individual admittedly has no personal knowledge.    Fifty States are now investigating these activities.  The Florida Bar has now stated that lawyers may loose their Florida Bar licenses over filing such false and fraudulent paper work in the courts.

To the extent that your Law Firm does not represent the individuals you seek redress for, my client declines to comply with your demand letter to abridge her Constitutional Right guaranteed under the First Amendment in favor of demands your Law Firm has no legal right to make.  With regard to NTC, you letter simply refers to “implications” you have drawn from statements your Law Firm have interpreted as being defamatory to the reputation of NTC.  My client declines to accept those interpretations; therefore, she will continue to exercise her Constitutional Rights of free speech.

As far as Matthew Weidner’s actions with regard to NTC’s law suit, he has chosen the higher ground and the better fight.  His energy is better served in the court room and not being drawn off into some legal battle that draws his attention away from the real battle.  On the other hand, my client, Lisa Epstein, is an advocate for the People of Florida and her arena is the public.  Her strengths are in her First Amendment rights as a journalist and an Advocate.  That is why your letter and this response will be posted on her Blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, as well as, www.4closurefraud.org.

Sincerely,

Carol C Asbury
Senior Attorney

The New York Times is reporting that the Department of Justice is looking into Saxon Mortgage regarding their foreclosure of ACTIVE DUTY military families without a court order – a clear violation of Federal law.

Anyone who has had Saxon as a mortgage servicer for more than 3-4 months quickly learns that they are difficult to work with AND they tend to lose records.  If you miss a payment or your tax or insurance escrow has a problem then start praying.

TIP:  We have found that in almost every case with Saxon you have to bring a big stick and be prepared to swing.  Hence go for the legal onslaught from the beginning and break them early.   Then you’ll be in a position to get the loan modification or short sale you need.

- The Bank Slayer

The New York Times

A Morgan Stanley unit is under investigation by the Justice Department for foreclosing on nearly two dozen military families without a court hearing, a violation of Federal law meant to protect active duty service members.

The Federal law at stake is the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, whose origins date back to the Civil War, when Congress barred civil actions from being taken against soldiers while they were at war.

News of the Justice Department’s inquiry was revealed during proceedings last Tuesday in the case of a Michigan National Guard member who lost his house to Saxon Mortgage Services, a division of Morgan Stanley, while he was fighting in Iraq. Saxon settled with him on Thursday. Details were not revealed but the vet’s lawyer said his client was “well pleased” with the results.

In the middle of court, the National Guard member’s lawyer served a subpoena on the general counsel for Saxon. Their lawyers filed a motion to stop it, arguing that “any reference to the investigation, the negotiation of a consent decree, or the allegations that are the basis for that investigation, would also be unfairly prejudicial to Saxon.” By talking about what they didn’t want talked about, the lawyers inadvertently tipped off reporters to the investigation they didn’t want talked about.

Neil Garfield (whom we soundly endorse) posted the notes below to his site about Too Good To Be True offers from “professionals” in the mortgage or loan modification arena.

We agree with Neil that many “providers” offer amazing stats or promises such as “We stop 100% of all foreclosures” or “We resolve 99% of all short sales or loan mods.” But in reality most catchy names end up at 1-800-RIP-UOFF and are too good to be true.

Hats off to Neil for the overview.  With the new MARS rule in effect from the FTC, the heat is on the “scammers”.  We are proud to be MARS complaint and all attorneys to whom we may refer homeowners are believed to be in compliance and are litigators not just a loan mod shop.

Two quick examples:

1. The Gore Law Firm in Houston has lost only one restraining order hearing EVER and the end result of this “loss” was the homeowner lived in the home for over two years, with no financial recourse (the bank can’t chase you for the money) and cash was handed over to help move.
2. The McCartney Law Firm in Dallas has Wells Fargo opposing counsels on speed dial.  Last we heard, Wells Fargo representatives draw straw to try and avoid facing McCartney.

Bottom Line: References and experience should be the driving factor in your decision as to the best advocate to help you win approval for your short sale or loan modification.  Frankly speaking, if a lawyer hasn’t filed at least a dozen or more lawsuits (and won most if not all of them) versus a bank/mortgage company you should pick someone else or at least that lawyer should be mentoring under a firm or another lawyer who has experience in this arena.

TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE HOMEOWNER SOLUTIONS

I know this is going to get more than a few people mad at me. But here are some rules of thumb to detect when you have been approached by someone with a “solution” to your mortgage problem, when in fact, at best they are mistaken and at worst, they are scam operators:

1. GUARANTEES: If the service involves anything more than information a guarantee is a dead ringer for a scam. Even in the area of information, those of you who have ordered services from us will see disclaimers all over the place. Much of the information posted by bankers is either wrong or misleading.
2. STOP PAYING YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS: Anyone who tells you this is looking to redirect money from those who are seeking to collect your regular monthly payment into their own pockets. While I strongly believe that in securitized loans (96% of all loans) the servicers and others who are collecting from you have no right to do so, the cessation of payment can have grave consequences. Even a lawyer would be reluctant to tell you to do that.
3. UP FRONT MONEY: The regulators are right. Other than lawyers, giving money to someone without any actual work or results is taking a big risk that you’ll never see your money, the person, or any results. Even with lawyers, the higher the retainer up from the lower your expectations should be. Retainers generally should not exceed $3500 for lawyers, depending upon how they structure the rest of the fees (contingency, monthly, etc.)
4. DON’T HIRE ANYONE WITHOUT CALLING REFERENCES: Better yet, don’t use anyone who is not referred to you from someone you already know.
   
5. OUT OF STATE VENDORS: Other than procuring information and research assistance an out-of state person, lawyer or not, cannot do you much good. Lawyers can only practice in the jurisdiction in which they are licensed. If your property is not located where the lawyer is licensed, then it is probably true that the lawyer will be, at a minimum, restricted in what they can do for you.
6. MULTISTATE ACTIONS: State law varies considerably from state to state even on some of the simple stuff. I realize that the fraud allegation aspect covers all 50 states and maybe there is something in there than could be sustained as a certified class action or “mass-joinder” action, but I  have grave doubts that such actions will produce any real results, other than lulling you into a sense of complacency and allowing your real rights to lapse with the statute of limitations. File your own lawsuit. Allegations that comply with pleading requirements in one state most probably do NOT comply with the pleading requirements of other states. Remedies for the same proof of facts will differ from state to state. I’m inclined to say take a pass on such “opportunities”particularly when there is an “upfront fee”.
7. SALESMAN: Even lawyers need to be careful on this one. A client should be solicited by the lawyer, not by a salesman. The attorney client relationship can only be formed when the client enters into a direct relationship with the lawyer. BUT there is nothing wrong with paralegals and staff members getting the fact gathering out of the way before you meet with the lawyer. Like a doctor’s office, the repetitive takes are performed by technicians who are trained to get your “vitals.” Interstate sales calls are particularly suspicious to me, and of course sales calls that involve services from non-attorneys should be closely scrutinized.
8. PRO SE LITIGATION ASSISTANCE: If you are thinking you will represent yourself with the help of a non-lawyer, the results are likely going to be disappointing even in the best of circumstances — but I do know of hundreds of cases where it has worked well. My problem is that this litigation gets more sophisticated each day and harder for non-lawyers to understand the procedures and presentations required in motion hearings, evidentiary hearings and pleadings. I won’t say don’t even do it, but I will say that if you take a single step or make a single decision without at least consulting a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction in which your property is located, you are probably going to make some fatal mistakes.

“We are deeply appreciative of those who fight to protect our country and Chase funds a number of programs that provide benefits to military personnel and veterans, and while any customer mistake is regrettable, we feel particularly badly about the mistakes we made here,” Chase chief communications officer Kristin Lemkau said in a statement to NBC News.

She said that beginning this week Chase will be mailing a total of about $2 million in refunds to families that may have been overcharged. She says most of the families improperly foreclosed on have gotten or will get their homes back. A bank official described what happened here as “grim,” but emphasized the mistakes were inadvertent, not malicious.

The news comes as millions of Americans are struggling to keep their homes. Banks have come under fire for allegedly improperly foreclosing on homes across the country.

JP Morgan Chase had over $2.14 trillion in total assets as of September, second only to Bank of America Corp., which had $2.34 trillion.

The overcharges may never have come to light but for Rowles, 31, and his wife, Julia.

“It’s been a nightmare. It’s been my living nightmare,” Julia Rowles said of her experience with Chase, in an interview with NBC News in Beaufort, S.C.

The saga began in 2006 when Rowles went on active duty. Under the SCRA, he could get his mortgage interest rate, which was adjustable and rising, lowered to 6 percent.

But Chase took a few months to lower Rowles’ rate, overcharging the family, Rowles says, by as much as $900 a month. In the fall of 2006, Chase finally began charging Rowles the correct 6 percent rate. For the next year or so, everything went relatively smoothly.

Then, two years ago, the Rowles family says, Chase began hitting them with collection calls that escalated to sometimes three a day, claiming they owed as much as $15,000.

“Saturday, Sundays, middle of the night. It did not matter if it was a holiday,” Julia said. “Collection calls at 3 in the morning. He would state, “I’m in California. I’m stationed here in  Miramar. It’s 3 in the morning. What are you doing calling me?” “Well, sir, this is an attempt to collect a debt.”

She said they threatened to take the house and report the family to a credit agency, even though the Rowles family didn’t owe the bank anything and never missed a payment.

The Rowles’ records show that while they kept making payments on their mortgage at 6 percent, the bank wrongly had been charging them at rates above 9 or 10 percent. They kept calling the bank to explain there had been a huge mistake but say no one would listen. They say they kept being harassed for money they did not owe.

Fed up, Capt. Rowles got a lawyer and sued Chase, for himself and other members of the military.

“They ought to only have to worry about fighting the fight and keeping alive, not about whether their wives and children and going to be put out on the street,” said Dick Harpootlian, an attorney for the Rowles family.

The lawsuit is still pending. But a Chase official now tells NBC that Rowles did everything right, and the bank did a lot wrong. (The bank maintains, however, that it previously refunded the initial overcharges of the Rowles family. The couple disputes that.)

“We made mistakes here and we are fixing them,” said Chase spokeswoman Lemkau.

Wells Fargo make a mistake?  Not possible.  They said they have reviewed all their foreclosure processes and everything is on the up and up.

It seems that robo-signing can lead to mistakes.  It seems that in a rush to foreclose some innocent folks are inadvertently snared in the foreclosure net.

The story below is another good example of not rushing to presume that every person that is posted for foreclosure is a deadbeat, non-paying, bought more than they can afford, loser.

Have people bought homes with no money down, yes.  Have folks bought more than they can afford, yes.

But not everyone.

The full AP article is below.

- The Bank Slayer

‘Mistaken foreclosures’ on rise

Homeowners’ lawsuits in several states allege they were victims.

By Michelle Conlin of The Associated Press

Christopher Marconi was in the shower when he heard a loud banging on his door. By the time he grabbed a towel and hustled to his front step, a U.S. marshal’s sedan was peeling out of his driveway. Nailed to Marconi’s front door was a foreclosure summons from Wells Fargo, naming him as a defendant. But the notice was for a house Marconi had never seen — on a mortgage he never had.

By now, you may have heard the stories of bank robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day without verifying a single fact. But they were genuine defaulters. Now a new species of homeowner is getting pushed into foreclosure hell.

These homeowners paid their mortgages — or loan modifications — on time. Some even paid off their loans. Worse, those on the receiving end of a bad foreclosure claim tell similar stories of getting bounced from one bank official to the next with no resolution while the foreclosure process continues apace.

“This is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” says Ira Rheingold, an attorney and executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Homeowners in Florida, Nevada, Texas and Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits alleging that they were victims of mistaken foreclosure. In many of those cases, the bank went so far as to haul away belongings and change the locks on the wrong homes.

One such suit was filed in March by Pennsylvania homeowner Angela Iannelli. She was up to date on her payments when, she says, she arrived home in October 2009 to find that Bank of America had ransacked her belongings, cut off her utilities, poured anti-freeze down her drains, padlocked her doors and confiscated Luke, her pet parrot of 10 years. It took her six weeks to get the bank to clean up the house.

Iannelli’s lawyer says the parties are in the process of “mutually resolving the issues” and the lawsuit is “in the process of being discontinued.” Bank of America did not immediately respond to a request for comment on her case.

This is another sad example of the strength of mortgage bankers as well as their deep reach into our government.

In an article by Tony Pugh title “Fed wants to strip a key protection for homeowners” he outlines changes the Fed plans on making to the Truth in Lending Act.   Namely castrating mortgage borrower’s ability to use rescission to stop a foreclosure and/or get out of a bad loan.

In fact the article quotes other players in the foreclosure defense field going as far as saying this change “Requiring homeowners to pay what remains of the original loan before a rescission can proceed is tantamount to a “verdict first, trial later” philosophy”.

How does rescission work?

Quite simply if you were sold a bad product you have the right to return it and get back what you paid.

As far as applying this to a mortgage situation it works like this:  You discovered that your mortgage loan which you refinanced was “bad”  or predatory in nature – not everything was disclosed properly.

Foreclosure are back with a vengeance in the Greater Houston area- just in time for Christmas.

While November saw a lull in the number of homes posted for the monthly foreclosure auction, December is set to roar back with over 6,700 homes posted for sale.

Posted Homes for Foreclosure

Posted foreclosures for the Greater Houston Area total 6,732 which is a 23% jump from last month’s 5,462.   Montgomery County took the lead with a 35.8% increase over November’s posted foreclosures.  Brazoria is not far behind with a 33.1% increase in postings.  Harris County and Fort Bend County finished neck to neck with increases of 22.2% and 21% respectively.   Galveston County finally slowed down from the last few months with only a 16.8% increase.

Here we go for the December 7, 2010 sale date*.

• 4,712 vs 3,857 for November – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.) +22.2% increase
• 326  vs  279 for November – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.) +16.8% increase
• 817 vs. 675 for November – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.) +21% increase
• 334 vs. 251  for November – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.) +33.1% increase
• 543 vs. 400 for November – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc) +35.8% increase
• 6,732 – TOTAL

*data is derived from Foreclosure Information & Listing Service, Inc and The Gore Law Firm.