Jan
30
Help Wanted | Wells Fargo “Robo-signing” Specialist 3 (Final Docs Dept. /Default Assignment Team) NO JOKE!
In the world of you just can’t make this stuff up… ~ Loan Servicing Specialist 3 (Final Docs Dept. /Default Assignment Team) From the job description… SHIFT AVAILABLE: The hours will tentatively be 7am-3:30pm. Shifts are subject to change based on business needs. The Default Assignment team is responsible for the creation, execution, and recordation … Read more
No related posts.
Sep
30
Video: Ron Paul condemns drone strike on Awlaki
"I think it's sad."
Not the only libertarian all-star troubled by this morning’s op in Yemen. Earlier on Fox, Gary Johnson confessed to mixed feelings that a U.S. citizen, degenerate though he was, had been targeted for execution without due process. Honestly, I’m conflicted too: Read the exchange between Andy McCarthy and Kevin Williamson at The Corner for sharp [...]
Feb
12
The Fannie Mae/Ben Ezra Fiasco- Another Taxpayer Funded Divorce
Like many of you, I learned with dismay that Fannie Mae abruptly terminated its relationship with yet another Florida foreclosure mill last week. Please read the full post from HousingWire that appears here.
Fannie Mae has terminated its relationship with Florida-based foreclosure default law firm Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A., according to a notice sent to mortgage servicers Thursday afternoon. The government-sponsored enterprise advised its mortgage servicers to move Fannie Mae matters to other law firms within its retained attorney network.
Fannie Mae said it became aware of certain document execution issues at the Ben-Ezra law firm regarding its processing of foreclosure cases on the agency’s behalf.
Hummmm, now just what were those, “certain document execution issues”? And how many tens of thousands of foreclosure cases across this formerly great State of Florida are tainted by “certain document execution issues”?
Fannie Mae said any matters concerning the agency that are being handled by Ben-Ezra must be transferred to a different law firm by Feb. 15. (Now I’m all for laying down the law, but think about the logistical aspect of transferring tens of thousands of files in FIVE, count ‘em FIVE days! What in the world has gone so wrong so quickly that this is a
CATEGORY FIVE EMERGENCY! GET THOSE FILES OUT NOW!)
Fannie Mae mortgage servicers are advised to:
- refer any foreclosure matters currently held with Ben-Ezra that have not been legally enacted to another attorney firm within Fannie Mae’s Retained Attorney Network in Florida
- notify Fannie Mae on the transfer location of these cases, and
- notify the new law firm of the transfer (HEY NEW LAW FIRM THAT BIG SEMI TRUCK OUT BACK WITH ALL THOSE FILES IN IT…THOSE ARE NOW YOUR CASES…HAVE FUN!)
- immediately suspend all payments outstanding to Ben-Ezra (Now this little diddy really got my attention and it’s got me thinking about a whole lot of other tings. Think about it….what’s happening here that they’ve made this little bit of their divorce public? This is a very, very interesting statement. Please someone dig into this and explain what this means. I’m going to do a whole post on thoughts that spring from this issue, but remember Fannie and Freddie are GSEs and the money they’re wasting is ultimately the public’s money. The public has a right to know what’s happening here.)
Speaking of a right to know….please read Ben Ezra’s public statement on the divorce, found here.
These are technical paperwork issues (What exactly is a technical paperwork issue?)– not a question of whether filing the foreclosure was appropriate. The question is whether the correct original affidavits were attached to each file. (Really, well all you’d have to do is submit a correct affidavit right? No harm, no foul, nothing any pesky defense attorney could do about that.) We created a remediation plan that we felt would have been in the best interest of Fannie Mae, the mortgage companies, the courts, and borrowers. (As a taxpayer, as an officer of the court and as an attorney who represents the borrowers whose best interests this firm is looking out for, I believe I’m very much entitled to know just exactly what this remediation plan is…please email the remediation plan to me. Thank you in advance.
When the problems of foreclosure files at other firms surfaced last fall, we hired an outside law firm to conduct an audit of our processes and procedures. (I wonder if the results of this audit, since it was prepared by lawyers, has been submitted to the Florida Bar or shared with any of the judges whose dockets are impacted by the results of that audit?)
I repeat again, and again, and again….
WE STILL DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE “PROBLEMS OF FORECLOSURE FILES” THAT SURFACED LAST FALL ARE. WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS WERE WITH THE ROBOSIGNING. HAS ANYONE TAKEN A SINGLE DEPOSITION, HELD A SINGLE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, GOTTEN ANY DISCOVERY ON THIS?
WHO PREPARED THE AFFIDAVITS?
WHERE WERE THE AFFIDAVITS PREPARED?
WHERE WERE THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED?
WHO SIGNED THE AFFIDAVITS?
HOW DID THE AFFIDAVITS TRAVEL FROM SERVICER TO LAW FIRM?
These are the kinds of questions that we are all absolutely entitled to know. Remember these fiascos are costing the Florida economy millions of dollars. Foreclosures are not stalled because of defense attorneys or problems with the court, foreclosures are stalled due to issues within the firms themselves. Because we are a foreclosure based economy and because so much of this expense is ultimately borne by taxpayers one way or the other, there is a vital public interest in understanding what has gone wrong here.
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
Jul
26
Actual Fraud and Constructive Fraud and Other Fraud
From M. Solimon
Editor’s Note: Pretty Good Entry From M. Solimon discussing aspects of fraud. I would add the following:
- FRAUD: A false statement wherein the speaker knows it is false, intends for it to be relied upon to the detriment of the receiver, who does reasonably rely on it to his/her financial detriment.
- FRAUD IN THE EXECUTION: A trick where the signor believes he/she is signing something other than what the document says it is. Probably applicable in the mortgage mess because the truth is people did not know they were signing the equivalent of their own financial destruction whereas the parties presenting the document pretended it was a standard mortgage loan that had been properly subject to industry standard verification and underwriting standards.
- FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT: A lie causing a person to execute a document, and otherwise meeting the definition of FRAUD as above. Examples “This is the fair market value of your new house,” or “Housing prices always go up, nevr down,” or “we’ll be able to refinance the property, give you more money out of it, all before the time for reset of the payments.”
Deceit and fraud are defined separately in statutes. Under Civ. Code §§1709 and 1710, deceit is defined in simple terms. See Civ. Code §§1572 for both actual fraud and 1573constructive fraud.
Loook at Liability for actual fraud is limited to acts committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another party to the contract and induce that party to enter into the contract. Look under Civ. Code §1572
Deceit is appropriate under a material beach or perhaps cause of action. The notion of a lender, who willfully deceives its borrowers or customers leading to foreclosure so to remedy an investor issue and to avoid recourse.
]I suggest you use it there or for the servicing argument for showing the willful intent to induce the consumer homeowners of a right to modifications ad compliance with 2923. to alter his or her position towards litigation (and eat up the balance of legal reserves their intended for a defense and their attorneys). These guys, I know all too well and it’s all too much. The consumer’s injury or risk is liable for any damage suffered as a result of the deceit. [Civ. Code §1709] etc, etc.
My take on this is too isolate the actual fraud that consists of any of the following acts, committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract who is the assignor and its agents and not the successors.
The argument is it is with willful intent a lost beneficial interest woefully deceives a trustor or mortgagor to the contract, solely to induce the other party to enter into the contract [see Civ. Code §1572]:
Deceit and Actual Fraud combined
•Servicing rights violate SEC 1122 AB,
•Accounting rules violations under FAS 140, FIN 115,
•Trust assets are restricted to passive investments,
•Lenders controlling interest revoke the powers of sale and foreclosure,
•Parties lack standing to bring a foreclosure by appointment,
•Conspiracy to commit fraud where Trustee, Beneficiary and Transferee are all one in the same
•Bid rigging at trustee sale
•Fraud perpetrated against the country recorder
•A nominal interest has powers that conflict in the original assignment,
•Violations of the Code of federal regulations “CFR”
Your feed back will be critical and evident where I have gone as far as I can. It’s not getting through to skilled litigators that still don’t get it. Maybe I am lacking your codifications eloquence and ledger capacity to zero into the abuses of GAAP in more subtle terms; LOL!
he head of the OCC stated in 2009 “I don’t know why getting relief from offering modifications is not working?”
It’s simple “BECAUSE LENDERS FORECLOSING DON’T OWN THE ASSETS THEY SOLD ….for starters.
That said, even after the effort and inability for the US Secretary to further tweak FASB to get them to completely roll over.
Few are winning here. Even Judges who are deciding the matter favorably are commenting from a wrong perspective. There is no demand on UCC judicial interpretations for perfection in a bonefide sale.
The District Courts hearing these chapter proceedings provide comments after deciding the matter favorably are merely suggesting it’s all about “get it right next time”. That wrong where it says’s to a lender they can bring it back, even when a decision is favorable.
The key arguments come down to the fact the lender transfers each receivable as a “whole loan” sale. For Pete’s sake, looks at the general ledger where the asset was entered as a “Receivable” and “Loan Held for Sale”.
That’s not “Loan Held to Maturity” but “Sale”.
The cost to capitalize and reserve a 30 year loan held to maturity defeats the arguments lenders are making that “they did not sell the subject loan. It’s the old “blank assignment” gimmick. Its arguments are lost in court where the problem peaks the Judges curiosity and that’s about it.
We know the value of the open assignment argument is defining for the court where it’s a bank surety and liquidity play. It’s also a GAAP disclosure fraud.
Therein the consumer is disadvantaged arguing defects after being instrumental in a lenders shuffling of assets for maintaining REPO requirements and in its pursuit for shareholder earnings and profitability.
My take on the matter is to let them have the consumer’s home. The consumer then makes the lender pay the price of foreclosure claiming recognition, for reclassifying the sales as debt and restating earnings.
These UD attorneys are so smart that they may cost these bank power houses a debt load totaling about $3 trillion and more in liabilities left off the books. It’s a scary thought actually where you put Citigroup out while not looking and as they still struggle with a $65 billion tax tab carried by consumer taxpayers. BAC may end fighting for their life with a private right to call receivership.
Foreclosures cannot continue in violation of GAAP and where lenders circumvent basis accounting laws while continuing to force the sale treatment issue and while denying they are controlling assets.
It’s the best of both worlds with sale on the front side and as if it was leveraged borrowing upon liquidation and egress.
As we sit I’ll show you the subtle instances of apparently innocent manipulation and confusion befallen o to the courts from errors and omissions which lenders are getting away with. That is happening as the courts say . . . . So what!
The errors and omissions are the desperate means for seeking to maintain some semblance of SFAS140 adherence while employing lawyers as third parties appointed by agents of agents by a nominal interest.
I personally have given up on the right MERS arguments as MERS is entitled to act as an accommodation and even a nominal interest, possibly.
It’s just so easy for one to see the obvious that it has become lost. The nominee cannot execute instruments upon being replaced by the signature below it. Hello guys, right! That’s the purpose of the nominee! And, while one courts rules in favor of the consumer it misses the call.
Something basic is getting lost and I’m not getting through. Unique “floating” entities cannot appear from nowhere to execute assignments by virtue of meritless appointments.
If one of your cases is picked up by the Fed it should register a nice settlement . As one District court judge put it with disgust. . . “The SEC is turning into a penalty and fine system where they are to quick to settle the matter for a couple hundred million every time allowing the defendants’ to save face.”
“That’s not bad!
The US AG office thinks there is a case for bid rigging but I’m not sure the AG’s office knows where to look. Yet as one Judge told me in court “speak English.”
The precise and distinct GAAP and FASB rules violation are clearly demonstrated in each foreclosure. Lenders are violating GAAP even with the recent codification, including revisions and interpretation.
It’s all mind boggling when you consider the distance in communication here and counsel’s alternative to grab the lowest hanging fruit. . . .A RESPA audit (what is that anyway) and a QWR that together are just not going to cut it.
These bank execs fail to realize maybe that these and other Enron style crimes, like those stated in the Fastow confessional, will gets you 10 years . . .at least.
M.Soliman
Witness to Counsel
Expert.witness@live.com
Filed under: foreclosure
May
24
Another Strategy to Own Your Loan: Allocation of Third Party Payments to Your Loan Account
I’m told by some industry insiders that you can buy a piece of our loan for pennies on the dollar, much the same as NPR did when they wanted to track the money and documents through the securitization structure. That’s a good goal because it will give you “inside information” on what the pretender lenders SAY happened to your loan.
But it doesn’t give you the real facts and events because the paperwork was prepared, executed and delivered long before the loans were originated. If a Judge thinks that you are nit-picking and that the issues you raise are issues between creditors, it is because he mistakenly presumes that the transaction started with the origination of the loan. In fact, the transaction commenced BEFORE the origination of the loan with the execution of the securitization documents, without which nobody would have any loans and nobody would have made any money.
By re-orienting the Judge to the point that the documentation for the origination of the loan was WITHIN THE CONTEXT, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS, you will (a) be telling the truth and (b) bringing the case closer to a result that are seeking — that without the pretender lender PROVING its case in a judicial proceeding, the election of non-judicial sale is unavailable.
One way to have the goods before your opposition has them is to buy, through a broker, a mortgage backed security that is based on a pool of assets and tranches, one of which is your own loan.
As an MBS owner you have every right to demand information about the rest of the owners and the status of the pool. One of the dirty little secrets is that a lot of pools have been closed out and dissolved which means that the party claiming to be the “trustee” for the SPV pool is claiming powers to represent an entity that no longer exists with investors who no longer are holders of MBS.
You can even ask whether any of the parties in the securitization chain or their agents, servants, employees, underwriters, affiliates ever received third party payments on “toxic” mortgages or mortgage backed securities or pools of assets in which a high percentage consists of loans that are non-performing, or on the representation that the receiver (usually the investment banking house or some subsidiary or affiliate).
As a holder of the mortgage backed securities you ask why the distribution reports did not include an allocation third party insurance, counterpart y or Federal money to your pool of assets and why the there was no allocation to individual loans in that pool. You can ask why they did not allocate those third party payments to the loans that were non-performing, which might include yours.
You can also ask whether such allocation to the pool and then to the individual loans in the pool and then to the nonperforming loans, has been applied to the obligation owed to the you as an investor. You should ask whether these third party payments are applied to the balance owed to you as an MBS owner, or whether it should be applied to payments that have been reduced or missed. And finally you should ask whether the third party payments would, if properly applied, make your payments, as an MBS owner, current or if they would still be behind. If behind, then how much behind and where did the rest of the money go? If ahead, then there is no longer any default to you as MBS owner.
Remember that the answer you are going to get (after stone-walling) is going to be a total of all such payments, since they never made any allocation. So your central question is how much did they get in third party payments and when. It is then up to you to decide on the proper with the help of an accountant familiar with generally accepted accounting principles.
You the take the report of your accountant, your expert, and your forensic analyst and attach it to a pleading in which you “intervene” as the “real creditor” and state that the loan (a) was never in default because the MBS holders got their money that was due including a profit and/or (b) that the default was not in the amount as represented and that you, as creditor, would like to work out an arrangements with the debtor (you) in which you will (a) disclose the identity of the other creditors (b) disclose the true balance of the obligation after the above allocation (c) remove the predatory aspects of the loan, including the loss from appraisal fraud and (d) arrive at a thirty year fixed payment starting thirty days after the second closing at market rates for top tier debtors on the newly disclosed principal balance reduced by all relevant factors.
It’s all about transparency, truth ,justice and the American way.
Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: accountant, allocation to the pool, appraisal fraud, default, expert, forensic analyst, generally accepted accounting principles, individual loans in the pool, MBS holders, SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS, third party payments, true balance of the obligation
Apr
27
Trustee May Not Delegate But Usually Does
Most “Trustees” or Substitute Trustees get a package from some unknown source with everything already prepared and instructions to proceed. That is the exact opposite of the protections intended by the legislature in this statute under Arizona law. Your state is probably the same.
33-803.01. Trustee of trust deed; delegation of duties
A. A trustee shall not delegate the following duties:
1. The preparation and execution of any of the following:
(a) The notice of trustee sale.
(b) The cancellation of notice of sale.
(c) The trustee’s deed upon sale.
2. The receipt and response to requests for reinstatement or payoff amounts.
B. This section does not prohibit the trustee from using clerical or office staff employed by the trustee and under the trustee’s direct and immediate supervision to assist in the duties prescribed by subsection A.
Filed under: CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: 33-803.01. Trustee of trust deed; delegation of duties, cancellation of notice of sale, clerical or office staff employed by the trustee, Delegate, delegation of duties, notice of trustee sale., preparation and execution, trustee's deed upon sale, TRUSTEES, under the trustee's direct and immediate supervision
Apr
08
Notarized MERS Assignment of DOT as Nominee: Forensic Analysis and Motion Practice
I was looking at an assignment signed by Margaret Dalton, “Vice President”, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) “as nominee” for “Hoecomings” (sic) Financial Network, Inc. with an execution date of March 5, 2010 and a notarization date of the same date, notarized by D. Pakusic in Duval County, Florida, naming United Independent Title as Trustee under the Deed of Trust and purporting to assign the Deed of Trust to JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association.
A forensic analysis report would or should state as follows:
- The title chain reveals the property is located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and contains a purported assignment signed by Margaret Dalton, “Vice President”, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) “as nominee” for “Hoecomings” (sic) Financial Network, Inc. with an execution date of March 5, 2010 and a notarization date of the same date, notarized by D. Pakusic in Duval County, Florida, naming United Independent Title as Trustee under the Deed of Trust and purporting to assign the Deed of Trust to JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association. in public records book ____, at page ____ of the County of _________, in the State of Florida. The document appears on its face to have been prepared by Malcolm-Cisneros, a Law Corporation located at 2112 Business Center Dr., Irvine, California 92612. Given the location of the property in California, the location of the law firm that prepared it in California and the location of of the other parties, the fact that it was “notarized” in Florida raises numerous forensic questions requiring production of additional documentation and facts.
- Location Issues: The property is located in the State of California, as are the Trustors under the Deed of Trust (DOT). Margaret Dalton is believed to be located in Irvine, California, possibly employed by or on the premises of the above-referenced Law Corporation. The Notary is located in Duval County, Florida which has no known connection with any of the parties. MERS offices are reported to be located in states other than California and the IT platform is reported to be located in the Midwest. Homecoming Financial Network, Inc. (which undersigned believes was intended by the referenced instruments and title chain) is authorized to do business in the State of California, but upon research does not appear to be a chartered bank, financial institution or lender. HFN is a mortgage originator acting on behalf of unknown sources of funds who may be located anywhere, since they are neither disclosed nor described in the closing documentation nor any document on record. Accordingly there is a question as to the identity of the creditor at the time of the origination of the loan, the identity of the creditor at the current time, and the identity of the creditor at all times between the origination of the loan and the present. There are also questions requiring additional documentation and fats to reveal whether the purported assignment was executed by or on behalf of anyone in Duval County, Florida where the instrument was notarized or in Irvine, California where the instrument may have been executed.
- Margaret Dalton’s employment is unknown but it does not appear that she has ever been an employee of MERS, nor that MERS is located where Margaret Dalton apparently signed the document. Previous investigations by the undersigned indicate that MERS is an electronic database privately owned and operated by fewer than 17 employees, which do not include Ms. Dalton. According to information received from MERS, the database platform operated by MERS for its members, has an access procedure consisting of a user ID and password. With such information any person could enter, alter or amend any entry in the MERS database. The procedure also provides access to an automated procedure wherein the user may name a person to serve as “vice-president” or “limited signing officer” for MERS. No record has been produced for this analysis indicating that Ms. Dalton was named as “vice-president” or whether she did so herself, nor whether she was authorized to do so or from whom said authority would be claimed. There is accordingly a question as to whether the document was in fact signed by Ms. Dalton, and if so whether she had authority to sign a document that conveyed an interest in real property.
- Given the above information, there is also a question as to whether the notarization was valid or void. Florida law provides that if the Notary knows that the person signing does not possess authority to sign or knows that the person is ignorant of their authority, that the oath administered is invalid and that the instrument is construed to be not notarized, despite the signature and stamp. Recording laws require notarization. Thus there is a question as to whether the document is or would be construed as a recorded instrument despite its obvious appearance in the title record. If it is not construed as a recorded instrument, then the chain of title should be amended to remove this document.
- The chain of title, as stated above, reveals a Deed of Trust (DOT) in favor of MERS as nominee. No issues are readily apparent as to the execution of the Deed of Trust. However, the content of the DOT raises factual issues that require further examination and the production of additional documents and information. Since MERS is an IT platform operated for the purposes of its private owners, it is not authorized by Florida Statutes nor California Statutes to serve as the equivalent of a recording record for instruments in the public records. It is a data entry and retrieval system that is private, not public. Since MERS was named as nominee and the MERS documentation available on the internet clearly state that under no circumstances will MERS ever claim an interest in the real property, the DOT, the note, nor will ever be the actual lender, beneficiary or mortgagee in any transaction, the effect of naming MERS raises factual issues since there are questions regarding title raised by the conflict between naming MERS and MERS disclaiming any such interest. There is no record of MERS accepting the position as nominee and if so under what circumstances. Those terms exist in agreements executed between members of MERS and one of the MERS corporations and are unavailable to the undersigned forensic analyst.
- The DOT and the above-referenced purported assignment refer to MERS as nominee for HFN, which was neither the creditor nor the lender at the time of the origination of the loan. Thus the DOT appears to name MERS (who disclaims any interest in the loan) on behalf of HFN (who served as a conduit for a table-funded loan transaction, probably as part of the securitization of the subject loan transaction) both of whom served principals that were not disclosed at the time of the origination of the loan nor, to the knowledge of the undersigned, to the present. The effect of misspelling the name of HFN on the purported assignment is unknown, but based upon advice from title agents consulted, it would be ordinarily required in any subsequent transaction, that the document be re-executed with the proper spelling. Whether this affects the legality of the instrument is unknown to the undersigned analyst.
- The purported assignment refers only to the DOT, which raises several questions. It is unknown whether an assignment of the note, as evidence of the underlying obligation, was executed at the same time as the purported assignment of the DOT. It is unknown whether all the necessary parties executed instruments required to authorize the assignments, and if so when this was accomplished. If there were no such other assignments then there is a question as to whether the instrument was effective, and if so, whether it intended to provide ownership of the security instrument (DOT) to one party while the ownership of the note remained or was transferred to another party, while at the same time the underlying obligation to yet another party may have existed between the Trustor as debtor and the source of funds for the origination of the loan, as creditor. Additional documentation and facts would be required to make these determinations.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: 2010, 2112 Business Center Dr., 92612, access procedure, as evidence of the underlying obligation, assignments, authority to sign, CALIFORNIA, California Statutes, chain of title, County of Los Angeles, creditor, D. Pakusic, Dalton, data entry and retrieval system, DEBTOR, DEED OF TRUST, DOT, Duval County, Florida, Florida Statutes, HERS, HFN, identity of the creditor, Inc., Irvine, IT platform, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, Malcolm-Cisneros, March 5, Margaret Dalton, MERS, MERS disclaiming, MERSCORP, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, necessary parties, nominee, notarization, note, oath administered is invalid, Obligation, origination of the loan, ownership of the note, Public records, Recording laws, security instrument, signature and stamp, source of funds, Trustor, United Independent Title, unknown sources of funds, vice-president
Dec
24
Treasury Buys More Time for HAMP Modifications… I’m Not Surprised
I was not the least bit surprised to see that the Treasury Department yesterday, notified lenders and servicers that participate in the President’s HAMP loan modification program, that the homeowners with trial modifications that are set to expire on or before January 31, 2010, cannot be cancelled before that date, except for property eligibility reasons. So, in other words, unless you applied for a loan modification related to an apartment building or something like that, you can’t be cancelled before the end of January.
Here’s what it says on the HAMP admin site:
Supplemental Directive 09-10 establishes a temporary review period for all active HAMP trial modifications scheduled to expire on or before January 31, 2010, during which servicers must confirm the status of borrowers and, if necessary, notify borrowers of any payment or documentation deficiencies that could jeopardize the borrower’s eligibility for a permanent HAMP modification.
In addition, servicers may not cancel an active HAMP trial modification during this period for any reason other than failure to meet the HAMP property eligibility requirements.
Here’s a link to the Treasury’s directive:
https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/docs/hamp_servicer/sd0910.pdf
In addition, Bloomberg ran a story under the headline: Homeowners Get More Time for Mortgage Modifications
Mortgage servicers must give U.S. homeowners more time before kicking them out of the government’s loan-modification program, reflecting further struggles in the execution of the plan.
Servicers can’t cancel an active Home Affordable trial modification scheduled to expire before Jan. 31 for any reason other than property eligibility requirements, according to a posting today on a government Web site. They must write to borrowers to inform them about missed payments or needed documents, and give them at least 30 more days to submit them.
“The Treasury Department believes that this further guidance and associated requirements will provide more certainty and transparency regarding the final determination of eligibility for borrowers in trial modifications,” Meg Reilly a department spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
Well Meggy, you disingenuous toady… I have no more patience for you or your “department”. Who wrote that sentence? Do you even sense how completely out of touch you are with the rest of the country? Any idea? I have but one word for you, Meg… elections, Meg… the word is elections… midterms are okay, but the good old presidential kind are going to be great.
There’s more in the Bloomberg story, but the whole thing just gives me a headache at this point, so you can find it here: Homeowners Get More Time for Mortgage Modifications
Oh, I see… is that who got more time? The homeowners got more time? The homeowners. They got more time. They needed MORE time? The homeowners that actually have trial modifications have all been jerked around by their lender or servicer for at least 10 months just to find themselves in the world’s longest line of government Barackracy… THEY needed more time?
I don’t know… I’m guessing THEY’RE ready to go. It’s you pricks at Treasury and at the lenders and servicers that needed more time… don’t you think everyone realizes that? It’s Christmas Eve… go to hell.
