Posted Homes for Foreclosure

• 226 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.)
• 586 – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.)
• 244 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.)
• 3,361 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.)
• 371 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc)

Foreclosures for Sale on MLS

• 262 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.) +5.6%
• 491 – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.) +4.2%
• 343 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.) +13.2
• 3,091 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.)  -1.3%
• 416 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc.) -2.4%

Short Sales for Sale on MLS

• 75 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.) +13.7%
• 239  – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.) +8.1%
• 98 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.) +24.1%
• 1,239 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.) + 1.8%
• 141 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc) -8.4%

If you are someone you know is facing a foreclosure situation call our office today at 713-595-8200.

- The Bank Slayer

Houston foreclosures up 34.6% from ’09

Houston Business Journal – by Francisco Vara-Orta Austin Business Journal Staff Writer

Home foreclosures jumped overall in the first six months of 2010 from a year ago in the greater Houston area, but actually saw a slight decline in June, according to a new report from RealtyTrac Inc.

June statistics  – One in every 581 houses foreclosed or was in danger of foreclosing in June, a 2.4 percent decrease from the same month in 2009. However, the number of foreclosures in the Bayou City is up 14 percent from May.   Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, a private marketer of foreclosure properties, found that a total 3,843 Houston homes foreclosed, defaulted, or were scheduled for auction in June.

Overall Houston ranks in the middle among metro areas with the highest number of foreclosures in June, checking in at No. 102 of the 203 areas that RealtyTrac monitors.   In June in Texas, one in 788 homes statewide received a foreclosure filing compared to nationally where one in 411 houses received a filing. Texas continues to do better when it comes to avoiding foreclosures compared to other states, such as the top four in rates and in total homes foreclosed such as Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and California.

Nationwide, foreclosure filings were reported on 313,841 properties in June, a 3 percent decrease from the previous month and a 7 percent decrease from June 2009. June was the sixteenth straight month where the total number of properties with foreclosure filings exceeded 300,000.     Second quarter and mid-year — In the second quarter, about 9,611 Houston homes were foreclosed on or in danger of it, a 15 percent increase from the previous six months, but a 14.4 percent decrease from the first quarter of 2010. That means one out of every 232 homes was in or is in danger of foreclosure.

Foreclosure filings were reported on 895,521 U.S. properties during the second quarter, a decrease of nearly 4 percent from the previous quarter and an increase of less than 1 percent from the second quarter of 2009.    “The second quarter was a tale of two trends,” RealtyTrac CEO James J. Saccacio said. “The pace of properties entering foreclosure slowed as lenders pre-empted or delayed foreclosure proceedings on delinquent properties with more aggressive short sale and loan modification initiatives. Meanwhile the pace of properties completing the foreclosure process through bank repossession quickened as lenders cleared out a backlog of distressed inventory delayed by foreclosure prevention efforts in 2009.”

As far as mid-year statistics, nationwide, about 1,654,634 homes were foreclosed on or in danger of it in the first six months of 2010, a 5 percent decrease from the previous six months, but an 8 percent increase from the first six months of 2009. That means one out of every 78 homes was in or in danger of foreclosure.   In Texas, about 64,883 homes were foreclosed on or in danger of it in the first six months of 2010, a 4 percent increase from the previous six months, and a 32 percent increase from the first six months of 2009. That means one out of every 148 homes was in or is in danger of foreclosure.

In Houston, about 19,137 homes were foreclosed on or in danger of it in the first six months of 2010, a 7.3 percent increase from the previous six months, and a 34.6 percent increase from the first six months of 2009. That means one out of every 117 homes was in or in danger of foreclosure.   “The midyear numbers put us on pace to exceed 3 million properties with foreclosure filings by the end of the year, and more than 1 million bank repossessions,” Saccacio said.

“The roller coaster pattern of foreclosure activity over the past 12 months demonstrates that while the foreclosure problem is being managed on the surface, a massive number of distressed properties and underwater loans continues to sit just below the surface, threatening the fragile stability of the housing market.”

DO NOT try to “flip” the property to make extra money.  Not only can this be an ethical violation it may be fraud and that can mean jail time.  Furthermore, as an agent representing a seller you should ALWAYS seek to secure the highest/best offer possible to increase the odds of the short sale being accepted as well as to lower the risk of the seller needing to sign a promissory note and/or be hit with a deficiency judgment.  

On all short sales an agent should seek legal counsel to avoid putting their seller at risk as well as themselves.

Read below to see what happens when you try to get line your pockets unethically.

- The Bank Slayer

Real Estate Agent Admits Short Sale Fraud

Sergio Natera, 35, Bridgeport, Connecticut, a licensed real estate agent, pleaded guilty before United States Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons in Bridgeport to one count of bank fraud stemming from his involvement in a “short sale” mortgage fraud scheme. A short sale transaction involves a mortgage holder or lender entering into an agreement to release its mortgage or lien on real property in exchange for payment of less than the total amount owed on the underlying debt. Many short sale transactions are legitimate.

According to court documents and statements made in court, Natera worked with another real estate agent to defraud Regions Bank, which held two mortgages on a residential property in
Bridgeport, Connecticut. On December 5, 2007, the other real estate agent, who was a listing agent for the property, received an offer to purchase the property for a price of $132,500. However, Natera subsequently communicated to Regions Bank that the highest offer to purchase the property was for $102,375 by BOS Asset Management, LLC, an entity that Natera controlled. The bank agreed to a short sale of the property for the lower price, and released its mortgages on the property. On June 9, 2008, Natera, through BOS Asset Management, sold the property for $132,500 to the original bidder on the property.

Natera is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Janet C. Hall on April 30, 2010, at which time he faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years, a fine of up to $1 million, and an order of restitution.

Nora R. Dannehy, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced the guilty plea.

This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Ann M. Nevins.

In July 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced the formation of the Connecticut Mortgage Fraud Task Force to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud cases and related financial crimes occurring in Connecticut. In addition to investigating past mortgage fraud schemes, the Task Force will focus on emerging crime trends that are associated with the growing tide of foreclosures, including foreclosure rescue schemes, and short sale schemes. Citizens are encouraged to report any suspected mortgage fraud activity by calling 203-333-3512 and requesting the Connecticut Mortgage Fraud Task Force, or by sending an email to ctmortgagefraud@ic.fbi.gov.

Why stop now?  You have unlimited U.S. taxpayer money.   Everyone NEEDS to have a home.  More loans, more loans, more loans.  A mortgage loan in every pot.  Say it together.

Bottom Line:  Until homeowners are educated on the true and total cost of home ownership AND brokers stop gouging folks, a tweak here or there will be countered by lenders needing to make a fast buck and will continue to dupe borrowers.

- The Bank Slayer

Fannie Modifies Criteria for Purchase and Securitization of ARMs

Citing the need to protect borrowers from mortgage payments that potentially balloon out of control, Fannie Mae (FNM ^[1]: 1.22 -3.17%) is putting forward new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products. The government sponsored entity is also tweaking its rules on interst0only products.

Below is a short article by a Boston BK attorney who I think does a decent job of explaining both options.  That said, I think that way too often homeowners jump right to the bankruptcy plan when a short sale would “do them just fine.”

Bottom Line:  No need to blow-up your credit for years with a BK if instead you can pull off a short sale and get back on your feet.

- The Bank Slayer

Bankruptcy and Short Sales

by Nicholas Ortiz, Boston Bankruptcy Attorney

Should I try a short sale, file bankruptcy, or both? That is the question. Do short sales and bankruptcy make sense together? The answer is, not usually.

Often when people are in the eye of a financial storm they address problems piecemeal. They may try credit counseling for credit card debt, an offer in compromise for tax debt, and to get out from under a burdensome mortgage they might try the obvious: selling their house. The problem with this last idea is obvious, if the house is “under water” or, in other words, saddled with a mortgage worth more than the house, one can’t sell it without the lender’s permission. That’s called a short sale.

A short sale happens when a lender agrees to allow a person to sell his house for an amount that does not result in the mortgage being paid off. Along with mortgage modifications, short sales are a useful tactic to try when a mortgage is the main source of trouble. There are also significant credit reporting advantages to a short sale over the alternative, a foreclosure.

But in bankruptcy it’s a different story. The main purpose of a short sale is, after all, to get out from under a mortgage debt. This can be achieved by “surrendering” a house in bankruptcy. This is possible in either a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The surrender to the mortgage lender, however, still will occur via a foreclosure. That’s how a mortgage lender gets the house back after it’s surrendered. This results in some credit reporting damage, but the homeowner walks away from the mortgage debt with no deficiency debt. Consequently, a short sale is often unnecessary when someone has multiple debt problems and bankruptcy is inevitable.

However, with all that being said, a short sale can be possible and even advisable if the homeowner has the energy and the desire to avoid a foreclosure on his credit record (in addition to the bankruptcy) after the bankruptcy case is over. The timing on these post-bankruptcy short sales can be tricky. Ask your bankruptcy lawyer if this is an avenue you are interested in exploring. He or she may be able to refer you to a real estate broker experienced in short sales.

Recently, members of our team confronted the Trustee that was about to auction off the homestead of one of our clients.  In our hand was the Temporary Restraining Order, the ink still wet from a Judge’s signature; effectively stopping the foreclosure sale and saving this home owner.

When the TRO was handed to the Trustee he feigned surprise and acted as if he didn’t care one way or another if some local Judge had ordered the foreclosure sale to stop.  Why? He was on a mission for the bank or possible his buddies.  Sell the house.

As he glanced at the TRO our team said, “I guess that’s all you need.”  The Trustee’s retort, “You going to stick around to see if I still sell the house?”   Incredulously we said, “I trust you’re going to follow the Judge’s order.”  His curt reply, “There is no trust in this business.”

Amazing huh?   Sadly this Trustee who is supposed to sell a home to the highest bidder and show impartiality between the bank and the homeowner is untrustworthy.

Just take a trip down to the foreclosure auctions.  You’ll quickly see that homeowners are getting the shaft.

We have witnessed trustees high fiving each other after clearing the sale board.  why? Not a single house sold to a third party buyer, in other words they bid back every house to the bank.

Bottom Line: You can’t trust the trustee.  Want another example…read on below.

- The Bank Slayer

Department of Justice Press Release – Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

For Immediate Release
April 16, 2010 United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of California
Contact: (916) 554-2700
From Dan Edstrom:

Stockton Real Estate Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging at Auctions of Foreclosed Properties

SACRAMENTO, CA—United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner and Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced today that Anthony B. Ghio, 43, of Stockton, pleaded guilty today before United States District Judge Edward J. Garcia to conspiring to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions held in San Joaquin County.

These charges arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of fraud and bidding irregularities in certain real estate auctions in San Joaquin County. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

According to Assistant United States Attorneys Robin R. Taylor and Russell L. Carlberg, who are prosecuting the case with assistance from Barbara Nelson and Richard Cohen of the Antitrust Division, Ghio admitted in his guilty plea that he conspired with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at noncompetitive prices.

Court documents show that after the conspirators’ designated bidder bought a property at a public auction, they would hold a second private auction. Each participating conspirator would submit bids in the private auction above the public auction price. The conspirator who bid the highest amount at the end of the private auction won the property. The difference between the noncompetitive price at the public auction and the winning bid at the second auction was the group’s illicit profit, and it was divided among the conspirators in payoffs. Ghio participated in the bid-rigging scheme from April 2009 until October 2009.

Ghio is charged with bid rigging, a violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory sentencing factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

The investigation is continuing. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660 or visithttp://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm, or the FBI’s Sacramento Division at 916-481-9110, or the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of California at 916-554-2900.

Media inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be directed to Lauren Horwood at 916-554-2706. Media inquiries regarding the department’s Antitrust Division should be directed to Gina Talamona at 202-514-2007.

This law enforcement action is part of President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

Posted Homes for Foreclosure

• 257 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.)
• 540 – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.)
• 237 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.)
• 3,471 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.)
• 388 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc)

Foreclosures for Sale on MLS

• 248 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.)
• 471 – Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.)
• 303 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.)
• 3,131 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.)
• 426 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc.)

Short Sales for Sale on MLS

• 66 – Brazoria County (Pearland, Alvin, Lake Jackson, etc.)
• 213  - Fort Bend County (Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc.)
• 79 – Galveston County (Galveston, Clearlake, Texas City, etc.)
• 1,217 – Harris County (Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, etc.)
• 154 – Montgomery County (Montgomery, Conroe, Splendora, etc)

He tells tales of “being trained” on programs like HAMP and seeing blacked out sections.   When he asked why IndyMac (now OneWest) redacted the HAMP training guidebook, his supervisor told him, “We don’t agree with those parts so you won’t be trained on them since we aren’t going to implement  it.”   Nice huh?

As a REALTOR you wonder, “Why don’t these banks follow the rules set out to help homeowners, like HAMP and HAFA?”  Because:

#1 they are guidelines, not laws.

#2 they don’t care and do what they want.

If you have an account or mortgage with what was IndyMac, below is info relating to what happened and supposedly who you can contact.   Thanks to Neil Garfield.   The mortgage companies have MERS.  He’s building HERS.      Stay tuned.

- The Bank Slayer

Information for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., and IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena,

Introduction

1. Press Release
2. Acquiring Financial Institution
3. Question and Answer Sheet
   • En Español
   • Chinese Language Version (350 kb PDF File PDF Help)
4. Banking Services
5. Loan Customers
6. Unclaimed Deposits
7. Possible Claims Against The Failed Institution
   • FAQ re IndyMac “No Value” Determination
8. Priority of Claims
9. Dividend Information
10. Brokered Deposits (Institutional Brokers)
11. Agreements
    • Purchase and Assumption Agreement (1.1 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
    • Master Purchase Agreement by and among FDIC as Conservator for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and IMB HoldCo LLC, and OneWest Bank Group LLC (5.3 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
    • Loan Sale Agreement Between the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and OneWest Bank, FSB (3.5 mb PDF File –PDF Help)
    • Shared Loss Agreement Between the FDIC as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB and OneWest Bank, FSB (1.7 mb PDF File – PDF Help)
12. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Contact Information
    JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate towww2.fdic.gov/drrip/cs/index.asp and search for the contacts.
13. Balance Sheet Summary

I.  IntroductionOn March 19, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) completed the sale of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California, to OneWest Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California.  OneWest Bank, FSB is a newly formed  federal savings bank organized by IMB HoldCo LLC.  All deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB have been transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB.OnJuly 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, CA was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the FDIC was named Conservator.  All non-brokered insured deposit accounts and substantially all of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. have been transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA “assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  No advance notice is given to the public when a financial institution is closed.

The FDIC has assembled useful information regarding your relationship with this institution.  Besides a checking account, you may have Certificates of Deposit, a car loan, a business checking account, a commercial loan, a Social Security direct deposit, and other relationships with the institution.  The FDIC has compiled the following information which should answer many of your questions.Back to top

II.  Press Release The FDIC has issued the following press releases (PR-56-2008, PR-42-2009) about the institution’s closure.  If you represent a media outlet and would like information about the closure, in California, please contactDavid Barr with the Office of Public Affairs at 202-898-6992, in Washington D.C. please contact Andrew Gray at 202-898-7192. Back to top

III.  Acquiring Financial InstitutionOn March 19, 2009, all deposits of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB were transferred to OneWest Bank, FSB, (OneWest Bank) Pasadena, California.On July 11, 2008, all non-brokered insured deposit accounts were transferred to IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Federal Bank), Pasadena, CA (“assuming institution”) a newly chartered full-service FDIC-insured institution.  The OTS appointed the FDIC conservator of IndyMac Federal Bank.  All insured deposit accounts will be available as usual during regular business hours starting July 14, 2008.

Principal and interest on insured accounts, through July 11, 2008, are fully insured by the FDIC, up to the insurance limit of $100,000.  You will receive full payment for your insured account.  Certain entitlements and different types of accounts can be insured for more than the $100,000 limit.  IRA funds are insured separately from other types of accounts, up to a $250,000 limit.

All accounts that exceed the $100,000 insurance limit, and/or all accounts that appear to be related and exceed this limit, are reviewed by the FDIC to determine their ownership and insurance coverage.  If you think you might have uninsured deposits you should call the FDIC Call Center to arrange for a telephone interview with  a Claims Agent at 866-806-5919. The Claim Agent may direct you to download and submit a particular form that will assist in expediting the processing of your claim.

List of Affidavits, Declarations, and Forms available for download

Please return the forms to the FDIC by FAX (facsimile) or mail at the number or address listed for the failed institution.

If it is determined that you have uninsured funds, the FDIC will generate and mail to you a Receiver Certificate.  This certificate entitles you to share proportionately in any funds recovered through the disposal of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.  This means that you will eventually recover some of your uninsured funds.  The FDIC declared a 50% advance dividend for uninsured deposits.To find out more about FDIC Deposit Insurance:

• Visit EDIE the FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator
• View the FDIC Deposit Insurance Coverage Video

Checks that were drawn on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. will be honored up to your available balance or the insured amount.  You may withdraw funds from any transferred account without an early withdrawal penalty until you enter into a new deposit agreement with IndyMac Federal Bank.  A hold may be in place on deposits accounts due to delinquent loans where the depositor is the borrower or guarantor.  Additionally, any account pledged as collateral for a loan will be held.Back to top

V.  Banking ServicesOn March 19, 2009 there was no break in services.As ofJuly 14, 2008 you may continue to use the services to which you previously had access, such as, online service, safe deposit boxes, night deposit boxes, wire services, etc.

Your checks will be processed as usual.  All outstanding checks will be paid against your available insured balance(s) as if no change had occurred.  IndyMac Federal Bank will contact you soon regarding any changes in the terms of your account.  If you have a problem with a merchant refusing to accept your check, please contact IndyMac Federal Bank, Customer Service Department, at 800-998-2900.  An account representative will clear up any confusion about the validity of your checks.

All interest accrued through Friday, will be paid at your same rate.  IndyMac Federal Bank will be reviewing rates and will provide further information soon.  You will be notified of any changes.

Your automatic direct deposit(s) and/or automatic withdrawal(s) will be transferred automatically to IndyMac Federal Bank.  If you have any questions or special requests, you may contact a representative of your assuming institution at 800-998-2900. Back to top

VI.  Loan Customers If you had a loan with IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., you should continue to make your payments as usual.  The terms of your loan will not change under the terms of the loan contract because they are contractually agreed to your promissory note with the failed institution.  Checks should be made payable as usual and sent to the same address until further notice.For all questions regarding new loans and the lending policies of IndyMac Federal Bank, please contact 800-998-2900 or visit the IndyMac Federal Bank website atwww.IndyMac.com. Back to top

VII.  Unclaimed Deposits Please note that any deposits that have not been claimed within 18 months of the failure of Indymac Bank was sent to the FDIC by One West Bank. If the FDIC is unable to locate the deposit customer, the unclaimed funds will eventually be escheated to the state or according to Federal Law (12 U.S.C., 1822(e)).

Back to top

VIII.  Possible Claims Against the Failed InstitutionDetermination of Insufficient Assets To Satisfy Claims Against Financial Institution in Receivership

SUMMARY: The FDIC, by its Board of Directors, has determined that insufficient assets exist in the receivership of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California and the receivership of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California to make any distribution to general unsecured claims, and therefore such claims will recover nothing and have no value.

DATES: The Board made its determination on November 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this notice, contact Thomas P. Bolt, Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562–2046 ortbolt@fdic.gov; Shane Kiernan, Senior Attorney, Legal Division, (703) 562–2632 or skiernan@fdic.gov,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Bank’’) (FIN # 10007) was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) was appointed as its receiver. In complying with its statutory duty to resolve the institution in the method that is least costly to the deposit insurance fund (see 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)), the FDIC effected a pass-through receivership. Accordingly, the FDIC organized IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California (‘‘IndyMac Federal’’), a new federal savings bank for which the FDIC was appointed as conservator. IndyMac Bank’s assets were transferred to IndyMac Federal under an agreement whereby the amount (if any) realized from the final resolution of IndyMac Federal after payment in full of IndyMac Federal’s obligations was to be paid to the IndyMac Bank receivership. On March 19, 2009, IndyMac Federal was placed in receivership and substantially all of its assets were sold. The amount realized from the resolution of IndyMac Federal is insufficient to pay all of its liabilities, and therefore there will be no amount to pay to the IndyMac Bank receivership.Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets forth the order of priority for distribution of amounts realized from the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution to pay claims. Under the statutory order of priority, administrative expenses and deposit liabilities must be paid in full before any distribution may be made to general unsecured creditors or any lower priority claims. The FDIC has determined that the assets of IndyMac Bank are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. The FDIC has also determined that the assets of IndyMac Federal are insufficient to make any distribution on general unsecured claims and therefore, such claims, asserted or unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value. //

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 18, 2009 / Notices59541

FAQ re IndyMac “No Value” Determination Back to top

IX.  Priority of ClaimsIn accordance with Federal law, allowed claims will be paid, after administrative expenses, in the following order of priority:

Depositors

General Unsecured Creditors

Subordinated Debt

Stockholders

Back to top

X.  Dividend Information When IndyMac was placed into Conservatorship in July of 2008, the FDIC calculated that the ultimate resolution of IndyMac would result in a recovery of approximately 50% of the uninsured deposits of IndyMac. Based upon that estimate, an advance dividend in that amount was paid to the uninsured depositors at that time. The announced sale of IndyMac to IMB Management Holdings is consistent with the original estimate and no additional dividend will be paid as a consequence of this sale.While no dividends for the uninsured depositors are anticipated at this time, the FDIC will continue to periodically re-assess the financial condition of the receivership to determine if there is additional cash for dividend distributions.

Dividend History on IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
JavaScript is disabled or blocked. Alternatively, you may navigate to
www2.fdic.gov/DIVWEB/Dividendindex.asp and search for the dividends. Dividend Information on Failed Financial Institutions Back to top

XI.  Brokered Deposits The FDIC offers a reference guide to deposit brokers acting as agents for their investor clientele.  This site outlines the FDIC’s policies and procedures that must be followed by deposit brokers when filing for pass-through insurance coverage on custodial accounts deposited in a failed FDIC Insured Institution.Deposit Broker Processing Guide

Regardless, fighting bank that are trying to collect on you is a daunting task unless you know what you are doing.  Hats off to Steven Katz, a “credit terrorist”.  His website debtorboards may be just the tool you’re looking for to “suit up” in an attack on your debt collector.

Aiding in the fight is the fact that On Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it even easier for consumers to use the courts to fight debt collectors, ruling that collectors cannot be shielded from suits by claiming they made a mistake in interpreting the law.

I’m going to try to get this guy on the radio in a week or so.

- The Bank Slayer

Learning How to Fight the Collector

By ANDREW MARTIN

Among debt collectors, Steven Katz is known as a “credit terrorist.” For years, he has run what he calls the Steven Katz School of Bill Collector Education, otherwise known as the “credit terrorist training camp.”

Mr. Katz, a 58-year-old accountant in suburban Tucson, spends his free time schooling debtors on the finer points of consumer protection law to help them turn the tables on debt collectors. On occasion, he thumbs his own nose at them too.

“How many times can I sue you? Let me count the ways,” he wrote under his pseudonym, Dr. Tax, in a March posting on Inside ARM, a debt collectors’ Web site.

A former bill collector himself, Mr. Katz rebelled after a debt buyer damaged his credit score with what he says was a bogus bill. Mr. Katz sued, and in 2003 he collected his first damage award, a $1,000 check that he now keeps framed behind his desk.

“The bill collectors, when they call, make you feel like the only option you have is to lay down and play dead. That’s not true,” said Mr. Katz said, who does not charge for his advice. “Nothing validates this more than getting a check.”

Call this movement revenge of the (alleged) deadbeats. Even as collectors try to recoup debts from millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, a small but growing number of lawyers and consumers are fighting back against what they describe as harassment, unscrupulous practices — and, most important to their litigiousness, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In fact, 8,287 federal lawsuits were filed citing violations of the act in 2009, a 60 percent rise over the previous year, according to WebRecon, a site that tracks collection-related litigation and the most litigious consumers and lawyers on behalf of debt collectors.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it even easier for consumers to use the courts to fight debt collectors, ruling that collectors cannot be shielded from suits by claiming they made a mistake in interpreting the law.

When a consumer stops paying a bill, creditors often try to collect on their own for a few months. In many instances, the creditor hires another company to collect the debt. In other cases, they may dispose of the debt by selling it to a debt buyer for a steep discount.

Debt collectors and debt buyers are the targets of litigious consumers, since the debt collection law primarily applies to third-party collectors.

Peter Barry, a Minneapolis trial lawyer, is so bullish on the future of debt collection litigation that he holds several “boot camps” each year to share his secrets with other lawyers who want in on the action. If the debtor wins a court case under the act, the debt collector must pay the lawyer’s fees.

The next boot camp is being held in early May in San Francisco, at a cost of $2,495 a person for two and a half days of instruction.

“I can’t sue every illegal debt collector in America, although I’d like to try,” Mr. Barry said.

Mr. Katz can also claim some credit for the increase in lawsuits. For six years, he has run a free Web site called Debtorboards.com, where people share tips on topics like keeping a paper trail and recording calls from collectors.

He said the site received two million hits in 2009, a 60 percent increase over the previous year.

“Debtorboards is geared to help people use the laws as they are on the books as both a shield and a sword,” said Mr. Katz, who says he has won $36,000 from his own litigation against collection agencies. (Since many of the settlements are confidential, it is difficult to prove the claims of Mr. Katz and others).

Of course, debt collectors are hardly pleased with the litigation trend.

Rozanne M. Andersen, chief executive of ACA International, a trade association for the debt collection industry, said she was “extremely concerned” about the increase in lawsuits, which she said cost her industry hundreds of millions of dollars a year. She said much of the increase was the result of ambiguous language in the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Debt collectors are required, for example, to identify themselves on a voice message left for a consumer, she said. But they are also prohibited from telling a third party — including someone who might overhear a phone message — about a consumer’s debt.

“We are between a rock and a hard place,” Ms. Andersen said.

Ms. Andersen said she had little patience for Web sites that encouraged consumers to thwart debt collectors.

“We believe those types of Web sites are encouraging people to not take responsibility for just debt,” she said.

Jack Gordon, who runs the fee-based WebRecon site, said it was no wonder lawsuits were increasing, because consumers were being bombarded with ads from lawyers when they searched online for information on debt collection. He said the proliferation of discussion sites like Mr. Katz’s had, to a lesser extent, also contributed to the trend.

On the boards, he said, “There’s a lot of hot air, a lot of people who overinflate their accomplishments.”

Regardless, Mr. Gordon’s database has become a badge of honor among the devotees of Debtorboards.com. As Brandon Scroggin, a 37-year-old from Little Rock, Ark., puts it, “That’s one list I’m a proud card-carrying member of.”

Mr. Scroggin, who provides price estimates at a body shop, said he was the type of person who refused to be taken advantage of, even for petty offenses. For instance, years ago, he said he joined in the class-action suit against the pop group Milli Vanilli, accused of lip synching, and collected a $1.25 check.   After a messy divorce, Mr. Scroggin was stuck with a $7,000 bill that he said belonged to his ex-wife. Instead of paying it, he began researching the law and stumbled on Debtorboards.com.

Armed with lessons he learned on the site, he demanded proof of the debt from the collection agency, and the calls stopped. But two and a half years later, they started up again so he sued the collection agency, National Loan Recoveries, for failing to provide proof of the debt, among other things.

The case was settled in 2008. The terms were confidential, but he says he never paid National Loan a dime. “Let’s just say I’m a very happy person,” he said. A lawyer for National Loan, Kathryn Bridges, did not return messages seeking comment.

Mr. Katz said his Web site was not intended to help people avoid paying legitimate debts. But if they do so, so be it — he feels no need to apologize.

He said Congress gave consumers certain rights, and he is simply making people aware of them, sometimes colorfully.

As Mr. Katz says at the bottom of each Dr. Tax posting, “A telephone in the hands of a collector is like a crowbar — it can be used to pry a mouth open wide enough to insert a foot.”

Barbara Thompson, 46, of Atlanta, said she challenged $11,000 in credit card debt using online research about collection laws. She does not dispute the debts but reasons that the credit card company wrote off her charges long ago. By her account, she owes the credit card company, not the debt collector.

“The credit card company, they sell it off, they charge it off, it’s just business as usual,” she said, adding, “I’m adamant about not paying a collection agency.”

While a Default Judgment is unlikely to last forever, U.S. Bank never bothered to answer the lawsuit in the first place.

This isn’t the first time a large bank has been forced to negotiate themselves out of hole.

We continue to see homeowners win the initial battles versus large banks when they are willing to pursue the bank and force them to come forward to defend their position as a rightful foreclosing entity.

Tip for the day…attack early and often.

To boot, when they do answer they are likely to just make it up as they go along…Below is an except from a Florida case regarding U.S. Bank.   The Plaintiff is the bank, Defendant is homeowner.

The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintifff was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation//notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.

Posted on April 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months, between the time the Interrogatories and the Request for Production were served on January 8, 2008 and the date of the hearing on the Motion to Compel took place on March 1,2010. Additionally, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to produce responses to the Request for Production propounded in July 2009.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the tiling of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.

The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing ofthis action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action. (See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISOAIATIMA v. Genelle Jean-Jacques, Serge Jean-Jacques, Jr. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee fo rthe C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CBS (2nd DCA Case No. 2f)~08-3553) Feb. 12,2012.)

The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.