It seems the mortgage servicer giants, while claiming they’ve done nothing wrong and their processes are pristine, are hiring “documentation experts” by the thousands.  Seeing as how the banks never checked the records (i.e. backgrounds) of the mortgages they foreclosed on, I doubt they’ll check the backgrounds on these newly hired “documentation experts.”  So fear not… no experience needed.  It’s just one small way the mortgage servicers are doing their part to help the economy.

Read more about this here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39987283.

- 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.)

This is a perfect example of how the mortgage servicers, like Ocwen, don’t really care about helping homeowners in regards to short sales.

We take calls all day long in our office from homeowners and Realtors who are frustrated with the short sale process.   HELLO!!   It is easier for the bank to simply foreclose. It takes serious firepower to get them to behave.

We have been battling and beating these guys for years but frankly it at times requires hauling them off into court to get them to “see the light”.   If you have Ocwen as your mortgage servicer you already know how difficult it is to deal with these numskulls.   Read on with “disbelief”.

- The Bank Slayer

In the email published below you will see the truth, straight from Ronald Farris, the president of Ocwen.  Below the email is the link to the video & credits for the entire story.

In a nutshell, agent Brian Gubernick, a Arizona agent, listed a home for a short sale.  He got short sale approval on Feb 26 but the approval was only good until March 1.  His efforts to have it extended until the end of the month and postpone the March foreclosure sale led him to contact multiple levels in Ocwen all the way up to the president. Ron Farris’s response to the request is shocking to those that think the bank wants to help homeowners.

Before reading the email here is an excerpt from Ron Faris published not long ago in the Palm Beach Post.

Reporter: What misperceptions do people have about your business?

Ron Farris:   Many people think that we originated the loans we service or they think we own the loans.  In most cases, we didn’t originate the loans, and we don’t own the loans. People also think that we make money by foreclosing on a home. Foreclosure is not only bad for the homeowner, but it is also bad for the investor in the loan because foreclosure almost always results in a loss. Foreclosure is also bad for Ocwen because we lose our ongoing serving fee revenue.

————————————————

Email from OCWEN President Ron Faris to Brian Gubernick on 3/13/10…

From: Faris, Ronald [mailto:Ronald.Faris@ocwen.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 8:59 AM
To: Brian Gubernick
Cc: Coykendall, Joshua
Subject: RE: OCWEN LN#XXXXXXXXXX – SHORT SALE for Borrower: XXXXX

Mr. Gubernick,

Can you help me understand how a short sale will help the homeowner?   My goal is to find a solution that keeps the borrower in their home.  If that is not possible, then there is no meaningful difference between a short sale and a foreclosure sale.  If you have a buyer for the property, we can always sell them the property post foreclosure sale.  As it looks like you are a real estate agent I can understand that you are concerned about losing your sales commission.

I suggest you have the borrower contact Mr. Coykendal to see if there is any way for us to do a loan modification.

Regards,

Ronald M. Faris

——————————————————–

View the entire story here in video format.

Yes it is true.  I have seen it with my own eyes and IN WRITING.  In our office we have on record a statement from Freddie Mac, which they submitted to the courts, that “Freddie Mac has made all relevant and required payments to the investors on behalf of the borrowers.” Did you catch that?!?!

Yes, Freddie Mac acting as the Master Servicer, has been making payments to the debt owners of a mortgage.  How can the borrower be in default?

Thanks to Timothy McCandless for his article highlighting how this happens.  In his example the servicer made payments.

This homeowner “might” owe the money to somebody, but not the creditor as the creditor has received the payment in full. Remember – this is from a public STATEMENT filed with the SEC to the investors describing what they were PAID. The party foreclosing is not entitled to power of sale as they are not the creditor. The creditor has received all payments and the homeowner has not defaulted.

- The Bank Slayer

No Default The Servicer is making the payments !!!

In the sercuritization game there are many co-obligors and you may not be in default after all. In the pooling agreement the servicer must agree to advance payment in the event of a missed payment by debtor.

Who is the obligor? Is there a default? Remember – this is financial engineering at its best. This is the American way to be creative and inventful. These guys are so good that homeowners can stop paying their loan and the creditors get paid anyway. They just forgot to tell the homeowners – and the courts. Some people call this forgetfulness fraud upon the court.

When they added the loans into the pool they attached numerous conditions to them. What might some of those conditions be? One of them is a condition for the servicer (making them an obligor). If the servicer doesn’t receive the homeowners payment, they MUST advance the payment (principal and interest) to keep the flow of revenue to the creditors (read this in the SEC filings). Don’t believe me? Think it can’t be proven? Read on …

The following is in regards to the IndyMac INDX 2xx5-xxx trust …

Let’s look at the April 2010 loan level files. Look at the these specific fields (for loan #xxxxxxxxx):

BEGINNING BALANCE SCHEDULED PRINCIPAL CURTAILMENTS PAYOFFS NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION ENDING BALANCE TOTAL PRINCIPAL SCHEDULED PAYMENT RELATED INDEX RATE NOTE RATE SCHEDULED INTEREST SERVICING FEE RATE SERVICING FEES NET RATE NET INTEREST TRUSTEE FEE RATE TRUSTEE FEES LPMI FEES OTHER FEES TOTAL FEES INVESTOR RATE TOTAL PTR INTEREST
523275.38 939.51 0 0 522335.87 939.51 2956.3 0.04625 2016.79 0.00375 163.52 0.0425 1853.27 0.000055 2.4 0 0 165.92 0.0424451 1850.87

Now look at the March 2010 loan level files. Look at these same specific fields (again for loan #xxxxxxxxx).

BEGINNING BALANCE SCHEDULED PRINCIPAL CURTAILMENTS PAYOFFS NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION ENDING BALANCE TOTAL PRINCIPAL SCHEDULED PAYMENT RELATED INDEX RATE NOTE RATE SCHEDULED INTEREST SERVICING FEE RATE SERVICING FEES NET RATE NET INTEREST TRUSTEE FEE RATE TRUSTEE FEES LPMI FEES OTHER FEES TOTAL FEES INVESTOR RATE TOTAL PTR INTEREST
524211.28 935.9 0 0 523275.38 935.9 2956.3 0.04625 2020.4 0.00375 163.82 0.0425 1856.58 0.000055 2.4 0 0 166.22 0.042445 1854.18

(Note the ending balance for March 2010 is 523275.38 – how come the balance is going DOWN?). On the March 2010 loan level files the servicer is also reporting the account is 90+ days delinquent. The homeowner is not and has not been making payments.

Beginning balance is 523,275.38 and ending balance is 522,335.87!!!

Scheduled Principal is 939.51 and the total principal is 939.51

523,275.38 – 939.51 = 522,335.87 (they show the principle has been reduced!)

Scheduled payment is 2956.30

Scheduled Interest is 2016.79 and net interest is 1853.27

939.51 + 2016.79 = 2956.30 (the scheduled payment)

Servicing fee = 163.52

2016.79 – 163.52 = 1853.27 (net interest)

Total PTR Interest is 1850.87 (Trustee fee is 2.40 so 1850.87 + 2.40 = 1853.27 which is the net interest)

The reason they have to ADVANCE the fees is because the fees are still paid and (apparently) come out of the interest portion of the payment.

This homeowner “might” owe the money to somebody, but not the creditor as the creditor has received the payment in full. Remember – this is a STATEMENT to the investors describing what they were PAID. The party foreclosing is not entitled to power of sale as they are not the creditor. The creditor has received all payments and the homeowner has not defaulted.

The method used seems to be inconsistent between deals. I checked for another homeowner in another IndyMac Trust (IndyMac xxxx 2xx7-xx) and the homeowner had interest only payments (so the principal didn’t go down) however, the interest looks like it is being paid. For other homeowners in this deal they are using the “curtailment” field and the ending principal balance is RISING.

This is just the statement to the certifiateholders. You can BET the sub-servicer and the master servicer are keeping full accounting records that they are NOT reporting to the homeowner, the investors or the courts.

Timothy McCandless Esq. @ http://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/about/

Citing the need to protect borrowers from mortgage payments that potentially balloon out of control, Fannie Mae is putting forward new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products.

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.

“There is no trust in this business” said the foreclosure trustee.  Scary huh?  This isn’t some fictional story.  This is real life in Harris County, Houston, Texas.

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.

IndyMac is a shady operation.  One of our staff used to be on the inside working against homeowners but (in my words…turned his life around) and now battles for home owners.

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

Can you levy a judgment win against a bank or creditor by applying it to your loan?  Your mortgage loan is an asset for the bank so in theory this will work.  It’s an interesting idea posed by Neil Garfield.

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.”