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

On the surface this looks like a win for the investors who lost billions when they bought lousy and in many cases FAKE mortgage backed securities.   But the question for Henry Homeowner who is wrestling with his own mortgage woes is, what does this mean to me?  Will I benefit from this “win”?

I have posted below comments and editorial from Neil Garfield @ LivingLies, Christine Riccardi @ Housing Wire, and a related post from the Subprime Shakeout website.

As far as my take…Let’s see the specific 530 RMBS to which this cases was pointed.  If your mortgage is inside (or was supposed to be inside) one of these allegedly held in Trust by the Bank of New York Mellon then you should have a leg up on BofA, as to your rights as a borrower and BofA as the servicer.  We’ll see.

- The Bank Slayer

NEIL GARFIELD COMMENTS & NOTE: The investors put up the money for the funding of mortgage transactions with BOA and other investment banking operations brokering the deal. Now BOA is about to pay the largest settlement to investors so far. The real question is that if the investors were the real creditors, which they were, then the obligation from borrowers should be prorated downward. If BOA is buying these pools that were never filled it doesn’t mean that the pools gain any more credibility as having the assets claimed for the pool than they had before.

And if BOA wants to move into the shoes of the investors they are faced with the same conundrum that the investors had when they decided to abandon claims against homeowners and seek redress from BOA, to wit: do they really want to move directly into the line of fire of a hail of defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims for predatory and fraudulent lending? And is there anyway that they can say that their claim was secured when the loans were never transferred by proper documentation or delivery?

This is a classic PR move for Wall Street. This is a fake scenario in which the true liability is being masked by a friendly deal. They are taking hundreds of billions and probably trillions in liability and attempting to distill it down to what appears to be a large a number but in reality is less than 1% of the total liability. This isn’t the end of it even if they want it to be.

But in the meanwhile, brokers and investors will be hearing what they want to hear and BOA stock will inch up a bit.

The reality is that these bonds are worthless  and always were worthless. Any balance sheet item anywhere is a fake if it is based upon mortgages or mortgage bonds whose value is derived from mortgage loans.

The loans were not originated in a standard contractual manner — the borrower and the lender were shown, and each agreed, to two different sets of documents. They treated the loans as if they were transferred but never actually transferred them. So the mortgage was invalid at inception and even if it wasn’t, is not perfected as a lien. The amount due is clearly effected by these settlements, but more than that, we can see that the investors as creditors have clearly abandoned their claims against the so-called borrowers

Investors, creditors stand to benefit from BofA settlement (Housing Wire)

Posted By CHRISTINE RICCIARDI On June 29, 2011 @ 12:33 pm | No Comments

The $8.5 billion Bank of America (BAC^[1]: 11.14 0.00%) settlement with investors of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by Countrywide Financial Corp., which the banking giant acquired in 2008, will have positive ramifications for both creditors and investors, according to analysts throughout the industry.

Bank of America reached an agreement^[2] with Bank of New York Mellon (BK^[3]: 25.44 0.00%), which served as trustee for 530 RMBS trust with a total balance of $424 billion, to reimburse investors who lost money on failed securities.

Barclays Capital analysts said Countrywide deals and other nonagency RMBS will now be more attractive to investors because of the potential return. For the most part, Barclays said, nonagency investors only assume small benefits from rep-and-warranty-related repurchases.

“A less negative (or positive) development on any of the (housing) issues could help alleviate price pressures,” Barclays said. “We believe the headline housing data will improve in the coming months, roll rates will continue to improve and this news should help nonagency prices.”

Barclays analysts expect cash flow from the settlement will most likely filter into the trusts that represent 226 deals involved in the complaint, thereby benefiting Countrywide cash flows, “as these effectively come in as faster prepays and reduce total losses.” Cash flows on Alt-A securities might hit senior mezzanine and even junior mezzanine loans, Barclays said. Subprime bonds should also benefit.

“Deals as part of the settlement could see a direct benefit of 8 to 10 points of additional cash flow,” analysts said. “Even if we assume that the settlement covers all of Countrywide outstanding ($285 billion), the benefit would be at least three to five points of additional cash flow.”

The $8.5 billion settlement represents about 10.8% of the $79 billion outstanding on the list of Countrywide deals repurchased by BofA. The original balance of all these securities was $179 billion. BofA is paying about 4.8% of that original balance, Barclays said.

Moody’s Investors Service said the settlement, alongside its $5.5 billion reps and warranties payout, reduces BofA’s potential exposure to higher losses under a stress scenario. And while BofA’s earnings will undoubtedly suffer in the second quarter, Moody’s expects the bank’s capital ratios to remain above the same period of 2010.

“The costs incurred are at the high end of the range that Moody’s had previously estimated Bank of America might be required to pay to resolve these matters,” said David Fanger, Moody’s senior vice president. “However, following today’s settlement and the announced addition to reserves, Moody’s believes that (BofA’s) remaining representation and warranty exposures are no longer a negative credit concern.”

On June 2, Moody’s placed the banking giant on review for possible downgrade^[4], saying analysts will evaluate the bank’s standalone financial strength to see if credit-risk improvements were made over the past few years. Moody’s expects the settlement will have positive credit implications.

BofA’s overall liability for Countrywide assets could reach $24 billion, according to Barclays based on the percentage of deals in the settlement. However, other securities could be concentrated in cleaner vintages, Barclays said.

Bank of America’s stock closed at $10.82 Tuesday after word of the settlement leaked. Shares of the component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at $11.15 Wednesday, and activity in BofA is helping push the DJIA toward three days of gains^[5].

Breaking News: BofA Close to Reaching $8.5 bn Settlement with
BlackRock, PIMCO (100th Post)
Posted By igradman On June 29, 2011 (12:10 am)

As part of the Subprime Shakeout’s 100th Post (woo-hoo!), I bring you an analysis of some big, breaking news: today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bank of America was closing in on an agreement with the
investor group led by Kathy Patrick to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims over mortgage backed securities.  If true, this would be the largest MBS settlement to date arising out of the mortgage crisis.

I first reported on this investor effort back in October 2010.  You can find my initial take here, a link to the demand letter sent by Patrick here, and a link to the response fired off by BofA here.
While we heard early in 2011 that the parties would extend all deadlines while they negotiated, we had heard very little about the progress of these efforts until today.

While the details of the purported settlement are sketchy, the WSJ report states that the current investor group includes 22 institutions, including BlackRock, PIMCO, the New York Fed, MetLife
and Freddie Mac, which collectively hold $56 billion worth of mid-2000s vintage MBS.  Though it did not report on any impending settlement, Bloomberg also published an article today on these
negotiations, and stated that the value of the securities at issue was $84 billion, while the original principal value of the securities was $182 billion.  While it is not entirely clear how these numbers line
up, my best guess is that the investor group holds approximately $56 billion of the $84 billion outstanding.

What’s also unclear is how much of the reduction in the value of the bonds at issue is as a result of pay-downs and prepayments, and how much is as a result of the trusts taking losses on foreclosed properties.  Thus, it is difficult to assess what percentage of potential damages from investor claims is being born by BofA under the settlement.  My initial reaction is that, while the absolute dollar amount sounds large, this settlement is ultimately fairly small compared to the potential damages.

This result would be consistent with the consensus among commentators regarding this investor group, including some of the comments contained in today’s Bloomberg article and my initial take on this effort: namely, the investors involved have significant other business dealings with BofA (a.k.a. conflicts), and thus would not seek an aggressive settlement.  At the same time, BofA has exhibited a growing interest in resolving its legacy RMBS liability, and thus would be interested in entering into a sweetheart settlement with a prominent group of investors that would set a precedential ceiling on future recoveries and discourage other investors from coming forward.

Without seeing the terms of the settlement and the details of the group’s holdings, it’s impossible to know what claims are being released in this settlement and how the proceeds are to be shared. For example, if the group is being paid outside of the trust waterfalls, and thus receiving the entire $8.5 billion, then the investors would actually be recovering much larger proportion of their potential damages (while potentially throwing the other investors who did not participate in the settlement under the bus, either by purporting to release their claims, or by making it impossible for those other investors to gain standing to sue).

However, sources have indicated that the settlement funds will actually be paid into the trust waterfalls.  This would be ostensibly more equitable, in that all bondholders would be entitled to receive a share of the settlement proceeds, depending on their seniority. However, query how equitable it really is for a portion of the bondholders (and most likely the senior portion, since these are primarily institutional investors) to set the settlement amount for the rest of the non-participating bondholders, and to receive the lion’s share of the benefits based on their more senior bond position. Whether the investor group could or would engineer such a settlement remains to be seen.

Regardless, the fact that these investors got any money at all out of the nation’s largest bank, let alone a material dollar amount, might actually encourage other investors to come forward.  A settlement of this size would reveal that BofA’s initial rhetoric, that it would fight these claims tooth and nail until they were forced to pay, was just that–empty rhetoric.  For example, BofA CEO Brian Moynihan stated
during the company’s third quarter 2010 earnings call that, “we will go in and fight this.  It’s worked to our benefit to—we have thousands of people willing to stand and look at every one of these loans.”  Further, this settlement undermines BofA’s recent estimate that the cost of its legacy RMBS putback issues would not exceed $10 billion.  BofA cannot seriously assume that this is the only large investor group with which it will have to tangle over defective Countrywide loans.

The simple truth is that investors have significant amounts of viable repurchase and Securities Act claims stemming from their purchase of Countrywide-issued or originated MBS, and BofA will be forced to confront many additional claims by investors in the coming years.  These additional investors might not have the same level of business dealings with BofA and thus might be willing to take more aggressive steps in pursuing reimbursement for its losses.  In that case, BofA’s strategy of creating a lowball settlement to discourage investors from coming forward might end up backfiring and further eroding the already strained capital on BofA’s balance sheet.

Article taken from The Subprime Shakeout – http://www.subprimeshakeout.com
URL to article:  breaking-news-bofa-close-to-reaching-8-5-bn-settlement-with-blackrock-pimco-100th-post.html

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

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.

AMAZING!  Anyone attempting a loan modification or short sale more than once with Wells Fargo can attest to “The Black Hole”.

The following article is from Neil Garfield’s website and is very revealing.  Wells Fargo as well as other large banks tend “lose” documents on a regular basis.

- The Bank Slayer

EDITOR’S COMMENT: LIVINGLIES HAS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED EVERY STATEMENT OF THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER. IT OPENS THE DOOR TO A WHISTLE-BLOWER LAWSUIT, A QUI TAM ACTION IN WHICH THE RELATER OR WHISTLE-BLOWER CAN RECEIVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS WILL THE LAWYERS. I’m sure that some smart people will follow up on this. The ramifications are huge.

AN INCREDIBLE, HONEST, REVEALING POST BY AN ANONYMOUS WELLS FARGO EMPLOYEE. WOW. THANK YOU.

Documents are destroyed in “The Black Hole.” The people you talk to when you are seeking a loan modification have no knowledge of it. Many of them are temps, lacking experience in loan processing. It never registers with most of them that something strange is going on. The Black Hole is kept completely isolated from Wells Fargo servicing staff. Even if they realize it exists, they have no idea of its location.

I think it unlikely The Black Hole is actually in Wells Fargo. They have to keep it separate from their own staff, and separation provides a layer of insulation from discovery in lawsuits. It’s likely a service provided by LPS. It’s curious that other servicers who are LPS clients have a public record of the same kinds of loan modification document disappearance. My best guess for the name of the LPS product (software) that does this is LPS HAMP Solutions.

This is very troubling.  Every foreclosure attorney that is on the other side from us, including GMAC / Ally & Bank of America is reporting to us that they are being directed by their clients – READ: Banks – that the November 2, 2010, foreclosure sales are still on.

YES, THEY PLAN TO FORECLOSE PROPERTIES IN TEXAS IN 14 DAYS.

At the beginning of October, all banks except GMAC /Ally, still held their scheduled foreclosure sales, although the Texas Attorney General’s office requested a hold before the October sale date.

In fact, RealtyTrac reported that,

“Lenders foreclosed on a record number of properties in September and in the third quarter, taking a bite out of the backlog of distressed properties where the foreclosure process was delayed by foreclosure prevention efforts over the past 20 months,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac.

Although we are watching this very carefully, if you or someone you know is (or was) facing a foreclosure situation or even thinks they might be in danger of foreclosure they need to act now.

What do you do?

1. Call your mortgage company and ask point blank, “What is my foreclosure sale date?”   Don’t beat around the bush!  If they give you any other date than the first Tuesday of a month they are lying.  Unless you are not in default.
2. Ask the bank for the phone number and name of the law office handing your file.  Then call them, regardless of whether the bank says you are in foreclosure or not.  RECORD THE CALL.  Find out if you are facing foreclosure and get the date.  If you can get it in writing do so.

If you are facing a scheduled foreclosure sale date you have three options:

1. Give them whatever money they require.  As Neil Garfield says, the only sure defense to collection is payment.
2. File bankruptcy.  Be warned, this is usually at best a delay tactic and it is the gift that keeps on giving.  A BK stays on your credit for 7-10 years!!
3. File suit and attempt to get a Temporary Restraining Order against the bank to buy time for you to resolve your issues.

Bottom Line is that if the bank considers you are in default, whether from your own failure to make payments or not (yes, every month we help folks that are CURRENT and still facing foreclosure) you must act now!

If you are a REALTOR assisting a homeowner with a short sale or loan modification make sure your client takes steps to stop the foreclosure.   To see a list of some of the REALTORS that we’re working with to close their short sales and keep the house out of foreclosure click here >>  Short Sales in play

If you can’t pay off the banksters then seek qualified legal help.

- The Bank Slayer

This may be one of the most important posts I have ever published.

We have reached a point in the housing crisis where we must decide:  Continue to cower before and believe whatever the bank’s attorneys claim OR ask for proof of their claims?

Quite simply, why won’t you let the dog sniff your locker?

Right now we’re assisting a homeowner who has three different “banks” all pursing him for the SAME loan!!

Time and time again the foreclosure mills and/or the banks they represent them seem to have no problem fabricating the documents necessary to “claim” ownership of the mortgage.

Take a trip with us down to the courthouse and see the shenanigans these people play.

Below is an article highlighting how JP Morgan Chase is no different than any of the other large banks and is willing to do whatever they see as fit to establish their claims and legitimize their seizure of a person home many time AFTER the loan has been paid off.

GMAC is making headline news for their role in supporting an industry that makes its living pumping out fabricated documents at the rate of 10,000+ a month or 1 per minute.

I incorporated Neil Garfield’s comments from his site as well as they are important in understanding what is happening.

Just think…we’re supposed to trust these people with our money?!?

- The Bank Slayer

“As basis for the legal case, WaMu had submitted an assignment of mortgage, which however the court just found never actually belonged to WaMu, and instead was carried on the books of Fannie Mae.”

NEIL GARFIELD’S NOTE: It’s an old story to us but it’s news to everyone else. Yes it IS fraud, and all you have to do is look, inquire and aggressively press the opposition.

Just like Wells Fargo in Massachusetts, GMAC now in 23 states so far, the story is always the same — the lawyer doesn’t know who he/she represents and doesn’t care, the documents submitted are fabricated and forged and the representation that the would-be forecloser is a creditor is a plan and simple lie — only revealed AFTER they are pressed to support their claim of standing, real party in interest, holder of the note etc.

ALL the foreclosures and notices of sale, motions to lift stay, motions for summary judgment start the same way. Some party picked at random from the securitization chain comes in and starts a foreclosure sale (non-judicial) or a foreclosure lawsuit after documents are fabricated showing a chain of title that never happened and doesn’t exist.

MOST of the time borrowers and the Courts are intimidated by the presence of a “Bank” (which is neither acting as a bank nor was it the lender, creditor, or payee at any point in the process of the closing of the transaction between the homeowner as borrower and the investor as lender).

SOME of the time, borrowers are successful in their challenges to the foreclosure. The reason is not that the rest of the foreclosures are proper, right, legal or equitable. The reason is that in those cases where the borrower is successful they managed to get the Judge to pause long enough to actually look at the documents being presented and to allow the borrower to inquire as to their authenticity and authority. If there is such an inquiry the borrower wins. If there is no such inquiry, the borrower loses.

ALL of the proceedings in which foreclosures were initiated in both non-judicial and judicial states are fatally defective and has resulted in a pile of debris called “title” when in fact no title has been transferred, no credit bid was ever submitted and no deed was issued with authority from a party who possessed the right to convey title.

Each day an angry judge realizes he/she has been duped for years by these antics of people he knew and trusted. Criminal acts, contemptuous of the law and the Courts have been committed in millions of foreclosures.

None of the agencies that are charged with responsibility to regulate the activities of these banks, institutions or companies has lifted a finger to impose existing rules and regulations that were designed to prevent this behavior and punish it when it occurs. None of the Courts want to apply clear Federal law on the subject in the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act. Because when it comes right down to it, the facts unfolding in the lead news stories and in the court orders being entered are downright unthinkable.

We have now come to that fork in the road where we must stop anyone who asks”why would they lie?” and simply admit that it has ALL been a BIG LIE and we have been living this lie for 10 years, hence the name of this blog.

So there is no mistake about it I am stating the opinion that NONE of the foreclosure sales on residential property in which the loan was originated as part of a securitization scheme are valid. They are void. If you think you lost your home you’re wrong no matter what anyone tells you. Any lawyer who studies this instead of responding from a knee-jerk “I remember that issue from law school” will come to the same conclusion — the title chain is not just clouded, it is fatally defective. That means the foreclosures were void according to existing law. It is the same effect as if I signed a warranty deed conveying title to YOUR home now. Such a document might LOOK good, but it is fraudulent, because I don’t have the title to convey much less warrant that it is good title.

But if Judge won’t let you speak or won’t even consider the possibility that I would flat out lie and file a totally fraudulent deed, I’ll win and you’ll lose. That’s what is happening.

JPMorgan Brings Foreclosure Case In Mortgage In Which It Was Just A Servicer, Court Finds Bank Committed Fraud

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/16/2010 16:37 -0500

• Fannie Mae
• Florida
• WaMu

An interesting development out of Jean Johnson, Circuit Judge in Duval Country, Florida, where in a case filed by JPMorgan/WaMu, as Plaintiff, and law firm of Shapiro and Fishman, attempted to evict defendants Hank and Marilyn Pocopanni. As basis for the legal case, WaMu had submitted an assignment of mortgage, which however the court just found never actually belonged to WaMu, and instead was carried on the books of Fannie Mae.

Once this was uncovered is where this case gets really interesting: In point 5 of the filing we read that the “plaintiff predecessor counsel made “clerical errors” when it represented to the Court that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage rather than the servicer for the owner.”  Which means that only Fannie had the right to foreclose upon the Pocopannis, yet JPM, as servicer, decided to take that liberty itself.

And here the Judge got really angry: “The court finds WAMU, with the assistance of its previous counsel, Shapiro and Fishman, submitted the assignment when [they] knew that only Fannie Mae was entitled to foreclose on the Mortgage, and that WAMU never owned or held the note and Mortgage.” And, oops, “the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that WAMU, Chase and Shapiro & Fishman committed fraud on this Court” and that these “acts committed by WAMU, Chase and Shapiro amount to a “knowing deception intended to prevent the defendants from discovery essential to defending the claim” and are therefore fraud.

While the Judge in this case did not also find declaratory damages against the plaintiff, and while the case of the defendants is unclear (we would expect Fannie to file a foreclosure act on its own soon enough), the question of just how pervasive this form of “fraud” in the judicial system is certainly relevant. Because if JPM takes the liberty of foreclosing on mortgages as merely servicer, when it has no legal ground for such an action, who knows how many such cases the legal system is currently clogged up with. The implications for the REO and foreclosures track for banks could be dire as a result of this ruling, as this could severely impact the ongoing attempt by banks to hide as much excess inventory in their books in the quietest way possible.

Our advice to any party caught in a foreclosure process is to immediately go to www.fnma.com and use the Lookup Tool to see if Fannie is still mortgage owner of record, if a foreclosure suit has been brought up by a plaintiff other than the GSE. (Neil  Garfield’s Note: He’s not exactly right here. All you will know is that FNMA claims on its site that it is the owner. The “owner of record” is the party who shows up in the title search of the only place that counts — the county recording office — which is why we tell everyone to get that from us or another party. 99 times out of 100 the “owner of record” is the originating lender who is often out of business — and THAT is why I insist on repeating that these loans are not and never were secured and that no security instrument has ever or could be filed for perfecting a lien on the home.)

Show Me The Note!  Produce the Note!  This strategy has been circulating for a few years now and in many cases can give real pause to the mortgage servicer AND in some cases slow down the foreclosure process.  But this is not always a silver bullet.

Why?  Quite simply they may be able to either:

1. Produce THE ACTUAL note the borrower signed with proper indorsements.
2. Produce a FAKE note which looks like the real note.

Recently, an attorney for a foreclosure mill here in Texas walked into court and “produced” the note the day of opening remarks for trial.

Amazingly, they had been unable to produce even a copy with the proper indorsements for almost a year but then “poof” like magic they suddenly had the note?  Seriously?

Neil Garfield addresses this in a recent post below:

- The Bank Slayer

WHEN THE NOTE SHOWS UP

FROM T BROWN:

To all, I don’t see why we are getting mad at each other , we need solutions. I’m fighting just like everyone else is; but everybody i tell my story too, tells me I’m ahead of the “game”. I have the original NOTE signed in blank in my hands. I’m not the bank the original NOTE has not helped me one bit, and no one not even Neil has made a suggestion as to what I do next. The NOTE is all powererful in the hands of the bank , but when it is in the hands of a “layman” it is worthless and before anyone asks I’m in South Carolina.

FROM THE EDITOR: Actually I CAN tell you what to do when the note shows up.

• First of all don’t assume it IS the note even if it appears to match the copy you have. When they come up with the “note” there is a high probability that technology (fabrication and forgery) was involved. Personally I was sitting on the witness stand as an expert witness when the opposing attorney handed me the “original note.” He said “I am handing you the original note.” And then he asked “You are holding the original note in your hands, isn’t that correct?” And I said I don’t know since I am not familiar with the signatures and I have not inspected the note. And he asked if I would concede that if the signatures were in fact those of the borrower, that this was the original note. Now I was a litigator for 30 years and I teach other lawyers how to litigate these issues. You have to think things through. Why would the lawyer ask a perfect stranger if this was the original note. Answer because he has nobody else to testify that it it is the original note. Why not? So he was looking to get the paper into evidence by an admission from the borrower’s expert that the note was the original when it was being presented (and had never been shown before that morning) for the first time. Something smelled fishy. “Wait a minute,” I said, “I need to inspect this.” After a few minute of looking carefully at the note I said “I am an opinion witness, and in my opinion this is not the original note. It is a printed fabrication using a color printer. The signatures appear deep and dark and yet the there is no impression on the back of the paper. In my opinion, based upon the facts of this case and the repeated attempts to get the original note, I believe this was literally printed this morning.” “No further questions,” he replied.
• As for the note being signed in BLANK, this is a common. And if you can prove that it was blank when you signed it, you can challenge its admission into evidence simply because the terms of the obligation were not on it when you signed it. The argument is idiot-proof: the note can’t be evidence of the obligation (which normally the note is used for) because the terms of the obligation were not on the note. If they want to prove the obligation, they must find another way — like with witnesses who will actually say that the would-be forecloser (pretender lender) has lent money to the borrower (not true) or that the pretender lender has paid the party who appears on the closing documents and therefore is a real party in interest with standing to make a claim (also not true). They never can get a live witness to say that because it would be perjury. They ALWAYS use affidavits that are worded carefully to avoid the charge of perjury but which give the impression that the affidavit it attesting to facts when it is in fact doing no such thing and the person signing has no knowledge of the transaction independent of what is on the affidavit which was prepared by the lawyer and possibly never read by the person who signed it.
• As for the real original note appearing in court, THAT doesn’t end the inquiry. How did they come into possession of the note. Where did it come from? Mere possession of the note doesn’t give any more rights that non-possession. If you give a note to a courier to give to someone else, does that mean the courier can stop off at the courthouse and sue you? And if the note reaches the recipient, why was it being sent? was it being sent for safe-keeping or an an incident to a monetary transaction in which the recipient was the the intended assignee or indorsee of the note? These are the right questions and if pressed you’ll probably get the answers you were looking for.

It’s about time that the government wakes up to the schemes some of these banks are pulling on borrowers and taxpayers.   Neil Garfield put it best…”Well you have to give credit to Sheila Baer.  She gets it. Here she is going after the IndyMac executives for making loans to developers that they knew would not be repaid. It is the first time that an important agency has recognized the link between the malfeasance of the originating lenders, the securitization intermediaries and the developers.

It is central to the issue of appraisal fraud. Anyone who moved into a new development knows that the developer was raising prices like crazy to create a a sense of urgency on the part of borrowers. Those prices from the developers were used an excuse to inflate the appraisals ona continual basis, so that a house of exactly the same model and features would be appraised one month for $350,000 and then a month later for $375,000 or more.

The developers knew they could do this because they knew the “lender” would approve it. It was a classic dysfunctional dance in which everyone was lying to everyone else. And everyone, except the borrower and the investor-lender knew it. Thus suits against the developer, especially those with mortgage offices on premises, can be expected to rise by both private actions and public actions from regulatory agencies and law enforcement. It was fraud.

FDIC and Sheila Blair sue IndyMac

LA Times

The agency accuses the managers of the defunct bank’s Homebuilder Division of acting negligently by granting loans to developers who were unlikely to repay the debts.
By E. Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times

July 14, 2010

Launching a new offensive against leaders of failed financial institutions, federal regulators are accusing four former executives of Pasadena’s defunct IndyMac Bank of granting loans to developers and home builders who were unlikely to repay the debts.

The lawsuit by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. alleges that the IndyMac executives acted negligently and seeks $300 million in damages.  It is the first suit of its kind brought by the FDIC in connection with the spate of more than 250 bank failures that began in 2008.   Regulators said it wouldn’t be the last.

“Clearly we’ll have more of these cases,” said Rick Osterman, the deputy general counsel who oversees litigation at the agency.

The FDIC has sent letters warning hundreds of top managers and directors at failed banks — and the insurers who provided them with liability coverage — of possible civil lawsuits, Osterman said. The letters go out early in investigations of failed banks, he added, to ensure that the insurers will later provide coverage even if the
policy expires.

The four defendants in the FDIC lending negligence case, who operated the Homebuilder Division at IndyMac, collectively approved 64 loans that are described in the 309-page lawsuit.

They are:

•Scott Van Dellen, the division’s president and chief executive during six years ending in its seizure;

•Richard Koon, its chief lending officer for five years ending in July 2006;

•Kenneth Shellem, its chief credit officer for five years ending in November 2006;

•William Rothman, its chief lending officer during the two years before the seizure.

Through their attorneys, they vigorously denied the allegations.

“The FDIC has unfairly selected four hard-working executives of a small division of the bank … to blame for the failure of IndyMac,” said defense attorney Kirby Behre, who represents Shellem and Koon. “We intend to show that these loans were done at all times with a great deal of care and prudence.”

Defense attorney Michael Fitzgerald, who represents Van Dellen and Rothman, said no one at the company or its regulators foresaw the severity of the housing crash before it struck, and that IndyMac was one of the first construction lenders to pull back when trouble struck the industry in 2007.

Fitzgerald added that the FDIC thought Van Dellen trustworthy enough that it kept him on to run the division after the bank was seized.  The suit naming the IndyMac executives was filed this month in federal court in Los Angeles, two years after the July 2008 failure of the Pasadena savings and loan. The bank is now operated under new ownership as OneWest Bank.

IndyMac, principally a maker of adjustable-rate mortgages, was among a series of high-profile bank failures early in the financial crisis that were blamed on defaults on high-risk home loans and the securities linked to them.  But the majority of failures since then have been at banks hammered by losses on commercial real estate, particularly loans to residential developers and builders — and IndyMac had a sideline in that business
as well through its Homebuilder Division.

The suit alleges that IndyMac’s compensation policies prompted the home-building division to increase lending to developers and builders with little regard for the quality of the loans.   “HBD’s management pushed to grow loan production despite their awareness that a significant downturn in the market was imminent and despite warnings from IndyMac’s upper management about the likelihood of a market decline,” the FDIC said in its complaint. An investigation of IndyMac’s residential mortgage lending practices could lead to another civil suit, potentially naming higher-up executives, attorneys involved in the case said.

Separately, a criminal grand jury investigation into the actions of IndyMac executives continues, according to a knowledgeable federal official who was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. The bank, known mostly for providing home loans without requiring proof of income from borrowers, had operated its builder-loan division since 1994.   The lawsuit said IndyMac had about $900 million in land acquisition, development and construction loans on its books when the bank  collapsed. Losses on the portfolio are expected to total $500 million — minus whatever the FDIC can recover through litigation.

The FDIC’s Osterman said the government recovered about $5.1 billion from former bank and thrift executives and their outside professional advisors after the last major financial crisis devastated the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. Most of the money came from insurers that had written policies covering bank directors and officers against negligence or other misdeeds. Because the warnings of possible lawsuits are mailed out during the early stages of investigations, it’s frequently decided later that the cases aren’t strong enough to bring or aren’t likely to be cost-effective and so are dropped, Osterman said. FDIC spokesman David Barr said the agency generally had three years from the date of a failure to file civil cases.

Join us on Monday, June 14th at 7am CDT.  Tune into the broadcast and hear E.J. Simonsen, from Home Solution Counselors & Neil Garfield, from Living Lies take your calls regarding foreclosure defense and loan modification.  Listen live in the greater Houston area on 650 AM or live via digital feed anywhere at www.CNN650.com or simply click here to listen live.