Reply With Quote
Sounds more like banks knew about he wave of defective mortgages three or four years ago and instead of fixing the problem, redoubled their reliance on fraudulent practices. Charges should be pressed against the banks too.
Sounds like they have a problem, should fire and press charges against their employees who did this.
Sounds more like banks knew about he wave of defective mortgages three or four years ago and instead of fixing the problem, redoubled their reliance on fraudulent practices. Charges should be pressed against the banks too.
And Franklin Raines walked away with 100 of $Ms.
There ya go, WC, punish the individual, never the ins ution
The originators/sellers of the fraudulent mortgages have to eat the bad mortgages. Estimates this week are that F&F's hit on the taxpayers could approach $300B in the next couple years.
btw, liar borrowers of "liar loans"/stated income are also federal criminals.
The Elephant In The Foreclosure Fraud Room: Second Liens
There’s been plenty of recent media attention to the prospect of investor lawsuits over fraudulent mortgages and mortgage securities. But investor lawsuits against mortgage servicers could be even more damaging than these other lines of legal inquiry. The four largest banks hold nearly half a trillion dollars worth of second-lien mortgages on their books—loans that could be decimated if investors successfully target improper mortgage servicing operations. The result would be major trouble for the financial system. The result would be major trouble for too-big-to-fail behemoths.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup service about half of all mortgages in the United States. They also have multi-trillion-dollar businesses whose interests often conflict with those of mortgage security investors.
The most glaring conflicts involve second-lien mortgages. Much of the foreclosuregate coverage has focused on first-liens—ordinary mortgages that people take out when they want to buy a home. But during the housing bubble, banks frequently sold second-lien mortgages in an effort to cash-in on inflated home prices.
even when home prices have declined dramatically, losses from foreclosure on first liens only eat up about 58 percent of the value of the loan, according to Valparaiso University Law Professor Alan White. The second lien, by contrast, is 100 percent gone.
Many investors believe that banks are servicing first-lien mortgages for the benefit of second-liens. That’s because the megabank servicers own the second liens, while mortgage security investors own the first liens. This is a conflict-of-interest. A servicer is supposed to maximize the value of the first-lien for the investor. But it’s conceivable that servicers–JPMorgan Chase, BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo– are systematically screwing over both borrowers and investors in order to maximize profits on second-lien mortgages that are, by any reasonable economic analysis, already worthless
investors are organizing to go after improper mortgage servicing itself, not just fraudulent loan and security sales. That means investors are trying to sack banks with second-lien losses—and second-lien losses could easily dwarf the other losses that analysts have focused on so far.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...second-liens/#
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...eaturedstoriesSome judges chastise banks over foreclosure paperwork
By Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 9, 2010; 12:07 AM
EAST PATCHOGUE, N.Y. - A year ago, Long Island Judge Jeffrey Spinner concluded that a mortgage company's paperwork in a foreclosure case was so flawed and its behavior in negotiations with the borrower so "repugnant" that he erased the family's $292,500 debt and gave the house back for free.
- Your Take: Could regulators have done more to prevent the foreclosure mess?
- Some judges chastise banks over foreclosure paperwork
- Foreclosure Nation
- Timeline: The foreclosure debacle
- Full coverage: Foreclosure system in chaos
- Thousands of foreclosures are put on hold
The judgment in favor of the homeowner, Diane Yano-Horoski, which is being appealed, has alarmed the nation's biggest lenders, who say it could establish a dramatic new legal precedent and roil the nation's foreclosure system.
It is not the only case that has big banks worried. Spinner and some of colleagues in the New York City area estimate they are dismissing 20 to 50 percent of foreclosure cases on the basis of sloppy or fraudulent paperwork filed by lenders.
Expect the newly elected Repug state A/G's to pull out of the group of state A/G going after the lenders. That's why the VRWC financed their campaigns.
Eh, we'll see.
Your emphasis on second-lien financing was more on point. Still, thanks for momentarily staying on topic.
THREAD DRIFT ALERT!!
Judge Dismissed $292,500 in Debt Due to Shady Lender Practices -- Wall St. Freaks Out
Last year, Long Island judge Jeffrey Spinner dismissed a foreclosure case––and $292,500 in debt––because the paperwork was so haphazard, reports the Washington Post. He called the lender's behavior "repugnant" and gave homeowner Diane Yano-Horoski's her house back. The ruling is being appealed by lender OneWest Bank, but if it sets a legal precedent it could have strong implications on the future of foreclosure cases
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...t._freaks_out/
lol
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010...-rmbs-lawsuit/
Citi slapped with subprime RMBS lawsuit
Posted by Tracy Alloway on Nov 05 16:19. No sooner had rumblings over Citigroup’s “toxic mortgage pipeline” began — than the bank becomes the next in line to be embroiled in a mortgage-related lawsuit.
Spotted in Citi’s just-filed third-quarter 10-Q:
In addition, beginning in July 2010, several investors, including Cambridge Place Investment Management, The Charles Schwab Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, have filed lawsuits against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates alleging actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities. As a general matter, the plaintiffs in these actions are seeking rescission of their investments or other damages. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 10 Civ. 11376 (D. Mass.) (Gorton, J.), 10 Civ. 4030 (N.D. Cal.) (Illston, J.), 10 CH 45033 (Ill. Cook County Cir. Ct.), LC 091499 (Cal. L.A. County Super. Ct.) and 10 PL 045071 (Ind. Marion County Super. Ct.).A sharp-eyed Wall Street Journal has picked up the story, and reports that Charles Schwab has no fewer than 10 other ‘big bank’ mortgage lawsuits pending.
The subprime-mortgage-related proceedings described above are in their preliminary stages. Accordingly, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these actions or predict the timing of their eventual resolution.
We’re guessing there’s lots more to come.
Read more: BofA Tally on Mortgage Securities: $375 Billion (BAC) - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2010/11/05/bofa...#ixzz15ZEElstfBank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) filed its quarterly report with the SEC today as its 10-Q. Generally speaking these filings are often nebulous and contain many factoids that are often taken as both good and bad. After looking through the litigation and legal proceedings sections, Bank of America has quantified the size of its mortgage-fraud related suits. The company has not admitted any guilt and it did not quantify or project any expected outcome. The figure is a shocking $375 billion.
House Tries To Bailout Foreclosure Fraudsters, Again
A month ago, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have made it far more difficult for borrowers to prove that banks were engaging in foreclosure fraud. The bill was a complex, highly technical bailout for megabanks that have defrauded millions of borrowers, flaunted the rule of law and and driven our economy off a cliff. The legislation passed both houses of Congress quietly and without much attention, but once consumer advocates sounded the alarm, Obama rejected the legislation, and the bill appeared dead.
( boutons brilliance: looking for diff bewteenr Dems and Repugs? dubya or McLiar would not have vetoed the bill)
Not anymore. Despite widespread public anger and presidential rejection, the House will vote on the issue again today in an attempt to override Obama’s veto. The legislation was reintroduced by Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. The bill would require every state to accept notary signatures from any other state. This essentially defeats the purpose of notarization itself, since a notary is supposed to attest to having first-hand knowledge of a specific case. If two parties sign a mortgage contract in Ohio, a notary from New York probably wasn’t there to watch it happen.
In foreclosure fraud, this is important because banks are robo-signing do ents in order to cover-up problems with their loan do entation. In the GMAC scandal that ignited the recent controversy, a robo-signer named Jeffrey Stephan had hundreds of thousands of these do ents notarized in Pennsylvania, even though they concerned foreclosure cases all over the country. If courts have to accept out-of-state notarizations, it becomes much more difficult to demonstrate that GMAC is committing rampant fraud.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#
========
America never ceases to amaze how fast it's going down the toilet, flushing itself it faster than any right-wing external fantasy threat.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-17-2010 at 02:19 PM.
Is there some reason you didn't post the update, boutons?UPDATE:
Rep. Scott’s PR guy just told me the Congressman just happened to be around to make a procedural vote. He says Scott “was in the wrong place at the wrong time” and does not support the legislation. David Dayen at Firedoglake argues that this entire reconsideration of the bill is likely a separation of powers dispute between Congress and President Obama regarding the technical procedure Obama used to veto the bill. The legislation may not even come up for a vote. Or it might, for separation of powers purposes, and the result might be bad.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/...ion-of-powers/Looking back at George W. Bush’s 2007 claim of a pocket veto, the situation there was that a House-originated bill met with Bush’s disapproval at a time when the House was adjourned, but the Senate was holding pro forma sessions — exactly as is the case with H.R. 3808. Thing is, Bush actually returned the bill as well, just to be sure it wasn’t enacted, but he claimed that it was a pocket veto anyway, because he wanted to prevent any chance at an override.
By what logic did Bush claim a pocket veto if he returned the bill? He said that the House, which originated the bill, was in adjournment and that Senate pro forma sessions didn’t count for the purposes of determining if the Congress was in session. That’s a view rejected at the time by Speaker Pelosi’s office:
“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.
This is procedural rigamarole, boutons. The bill won't pass, but Congress will assert its override privileges.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-08-2011 at 04:29 AM.
I posted the link to the article.
Disingenuous. It changes the whole tenor of the article.
that's the "brilliance" of boutons.
I wonder why boutonski is ginning up bogus alarm on a subject he putatively cares about.
Maybe he's a Repug disinfo agent, sent to poison the well.
The point was not exec/legislative mechanics, but that the bill gives the criminally fraudulent, predatory financial sector a stay-out-of-jail card, ing over citizens and property law, which used to be sacred until they were buggered.
Sure. And you clipped the supporting article in such a way that suggested the bill was about to pass. Misleading.
Funny, I thought the point was looking for differences between dems and repugs.
Nevermind that small detail about the bill breezing through two dem controlled houses without debate.........( boutons brilliance: looking for diff bewteenr Dems and Repugs? dubya or McLiar would not have vetoed the bill)
Myopic troll is myopic.
It doesn't matter who passes it.
the financial sector's crimes are going to be unprosecuted/absolved by the govt at the expense of the citizens.
and we won't hear a peep out of Fox, the Repugs, Beck, Palin, etc.
nor the House Democrats.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions