War on the Home Front | Mortgage Loan Investigations | Securitization Audits

Mar

Edward J. Pinto

Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

An executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae until the late 1980s, Edward Pinto has done groundbreaking research on the role of government housing policies in the lead-up to the financial crisis. His data have revealed striking facts about the contributions of housing policy to the mortgage crisis.

Two of his major research papers have been submitted to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: “Government Housing Policies in the Lead-up to the Financial Crisis: A Forensic Study,” and “Triggers of the Financial Crisis.”

Today, Ed is continuing his work on how housing policies impacted the financial crisis and researching policy considerations and options for rebuilding our housing-finance sector. He earned his B.A. at the University of Illinois, and his J.D. at Indiana University.

Ed and I first came in contact with each other a couple of years ago, and although we haven’t always agreed on everything, I have followed his work closely and have come to have a great deal of respect for his work and for him as a person.

On this Mandelman Matters Podcast, I ask Ed about the results of his extensive research into the FHA, which he refers to as the “new sub-prime,” and “the next bailout.” His extensive study of the FHA’s data in terms of leverage and default rates will flat out shock you. And when you hear him explain how the government is perpetuating the foreclosure crisis… well, to say it’s infuriating would be an understatement.

Okay, so make sure your speakers are turned up and I’d make sure you’re sitting down to avoid falling over when you hear some of the things Ed Pinto has to say.

Two of Ed’s latest articles:

Truth in Government Lending is Long Overdue

Empty promise: The holes in the administration’s housing finance reform plan

~~~

And you can SUBSCRIBE to Ed Pinto’s blog and FHA WATCH bulletins.

He can be contacted via Email at: edward.pinto@aei.org

~~~

This Mandelman Matters Podcast is presented in two parts. Part 1 is just under 60 minutes and focuses on the FHA and the big picture facts about our government’s role in housing finance, and Part 2 is about 40 minutes, and goes further into the causes of the crisis, and where Ed sees us going from here.

Like I said, you may not always agree with his conclusions or cures, but his research is always fascinating, his facts are bulletproof, his experience as an “insider”at Fannie Mae is invaluable… and I don’t think there’s any question that his motives are pure.

Just click on PART ONE below to start listening to…

From Fannie Mae to FHA – Why Ed Pinto Wants Government Out of Housing Finance

A Mandelman Matters Podcast

And Coming Soon…

Mandelman out.

Mar

MM PODCAST: From Fannie Mae to FHA – Edward Pinto Wants Government Out of Housing Finance

By Mandelman | HAMP, Housing & Economic Research, Loan Modification, News for the Patriot

78609Leave a Comment2012-03-29+01%3A50%3A57Mandelman

Edward J. Pinto

Former Chief Credit Officer, Fannie Mae

Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Okay, so make sure your speakers are turned up and I’d make sure you’re sitting down to avoid falling over when you hear some of the things Ed Pinto has to say.

~~~

Just click on PART ONE below to start listening to…

From Fannie Mae to FHA –

Why Ed Pinto Wants Government Out of Housing Finance

A Mandelman Matters Podcast

And Coming Soon…

Two of Ed’s latest articles:

Truth in Government Lending is Long Overdue

Empty promise: The holes in the administration’s housing finance reform plan

~~~

And you can SUBSCRIBE to Ed Pinto’s blog and FHA WATCH bulletins.

He can be contacted via Email at: edward.pinto@aei.org

Mandelman out.

Mar

New Jersey Supreme Court’s Guillaume decision meaningless – Should foreclosure defense rethink its strategy?

By Mandelman | HAMP, Housing & Economic Research, Loan Modification, News for the Patriot

73193Leave a Comment2012-03-01+16%3A02%3A47Mandelman

The foreclosure wars have always had two easily identifiable sides. It’s homeowners in one corner… and banks and mortgage servicers in the other. In the beginning the battle was largely over TILA and RESPA claims. After that, we fell into loan modifications, and then into the HAMP guidelines that were never really followed by the servicers, or if they were on occasion, no one could tell.

Lawyers who went to court over HAMP “rules” quickly discovered that they were more like pointers, intimations, tips, or perhaps clues… but whatever they were, HAMP had no teeth, and if there was anything that could be construed as a rule or law, then there was no private right of action. And as far as the HAMP contract between Fannie Mae/Treasury and the participating servicers, well… forget about it because borrowers were not considered third party beneficiaries to that contract.

I never liked any of these decisions one bit… and I still don’t. But I’m no lawyer, so I went along with whatever the foreclosure defense attorneys thought best. Obviously, on these points at least, the fix was in, so I climbed on the bus and went on down the road.

We arrived at the battleground called “securitization fail,” and soon everybody on the homeowner side was learning to sing a new version of their ABCs that went like this… A to B, B to C, C to D, which represented the steps required to properly negotiate a note into a REMIC trust, steps that were almost never followed… or maybe never followed.

The argument, however, was a technical one and judges weren’t exhibiting much patience for the technical learning that was required to understand the argument. It seemed that the judges were having trouble seeing past the 300 cases on their dockets and the homeowner who hadn’t paid their mortgage payments in over two years. The argument may very well have been rock solid, but many lawyers came back from court reporting that their judges had heads that were solid as rocks.

Next up was the media darling “robo-signing,” a practice that created documents to be filed in the records that were forged or signed without knowledge of anything, or illegally notarized, or whatever else you could think of… the paperwork was all wrong.

This debate is still raging, but it hasn’t done a lot of good for many homeowners, truth be told. It certainly has delayed things, in certain instances, and it even slowed the number of foreclosures filed during the year… but it’s certainly not keeping people in their homes in any number.

The bank and servicer side of this argument says that it’s just sloppy paperwork, technicalities causing no harm to borrowers… to which the foreclosure defense side replies, “YOU’RE BREAKING THE LAW… and then in response we hear, “IT DOESN’T MATTER.” “YOU’RE BREAKING THE LAW.” “IT DOESN’T MATTER.” It’s annoying… I’ll certainly give it that.

Good Morning, New Jersey…

Well, yesterday the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in the Guillaume case, a much-anticipated decision, so I’d been told… and the ruling says that in addition to the servicer’s name and address, the lender’s name and address must appear on the document that states that a bank intends to foreclose on a mortgage. (You’ll find a copy of the case at bottom.)

Earth shattering news? Yes, I thought so too. File this one right next to “Brown v. The Board of Education,” or “Plessy v. Ferguson.” I’m sure law schools all over the nation are rushing to change their curriculums to add a class on the “Much Anticipated but Meaningless.”

140 Elmwood Ave, East Orange, NJ

The case involves an East Orange, New Jersey home owned by Maryse and Emilio Guillaume. The couple received a notice of intention to foreclose in May of 2008, and that notice included the name and address of the mortgage servicer, America’s Servicing Co., but it failed to include the name and address of the lender. And somehow, this issue made it all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.

The state’s high court ruled that because the foreclosure notice that the servicer sent to the Guillaumes did not include the name and address of the lender in addition to that of the servicer, it did fail to comply with New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act.

The court said that, failure to include such information creates the potential for “significant prejudice” to homeowners. According to the high court…

“A misunderstanding about a lender’s identity could prompt a homeowner to make a critical error at a time when he or she is struggling to avert foreclosure.”

From the sounds of that, you’d think that the decision represents some sort of a win for homeowners, right? Not so much.

While the court ruled that the lower court judge was wrong about the need to include the lender’s name and address on the notice of intent to foreclose in addition to the servicer’s, the ruling also said that the lower court was correct to order a default judgment against the couple. Specifically, the court ruled that the couple did not make a case for “excusable neglect” or a “meritorious defense” related to their foreclosure, so the Guillaumes still lose their home.

Additionally, the high court also reversed a separate appellate decision, known as “Laks.”

The Laks decision said that a foreclosure should be dismissed if the notice of intent to foreclose did not comply with New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act, and by reversing that decision, now trial court judges that find a notice that’s fails to comply, will be able to either dismiss the action, or simply order a corrected notice, or even select another solution they deem appropriate.

So, now… after all this… while it’s true that the lenders name and address has to be included on the notice of intent to foreclose along with the name and address of the servicer’s, in the event that the lender’s name is missing, that will no longer necessarily mean that the foreclosure will be dismissed and the servicer will have to start over. Now, the judge will have the discretion to simply order a corrected notice and allow the foreclosure will proceed.

Throughout last year, uncertainty over how the court would ultimately rule in this case led servicers to postpone foreclosures in New Jersey, and as a result foreclosures were down by 80 percent.

Now, I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, and if it were the goal, then I would call it a success. But, time is the natural enemy of a loan modification, because the longer the delay, assuming no mortgage payments are being made, the greater the amount of arrearages that have to be dealt with in order to modify the loan.

Now consider that reports all indicate that there are at least 100,000 New Jersey foreclosures that were stalled throughout last year, and that will now move forward. That’s 100,000 or more homes that have less chance of being modifiable today than they would have a year ago. So was the delay truly beneficial to homeowners?

I suppose for those that have no chance to save their home by getting their loan modified, they got an extra year living in the house, but even these people might have been better off dealing with it a year ago and today being one year closer to rebuilding their credit and buying their next home, assuming that’s they’re goal. The point is that a delay can be a dual edged sword, because it almost never leads to saving homes from foreclosure.

Lawyers that represent servicers all appeared quite happy with this decision because now a process that’s been clogged by uncertainty has been clarified by the court, and foreclosures will be free to move forward.

But it occurs to me… homeowners would not have been happy regardless of how this decision had gone.

I suppose I could be missing something, but I just don’t see a potential win in this case for homeowners no matter what. It was from its outset, a lose – lose scenario.

Bloomberg, covering news of the decision, quoted Rebecca Schore of Legal Services of New Jersey, an attorney for the Guillaumes, saying that…

“While she was pleased with the ruling on the need to name the actual lender in a notice of intention to foreclose, she was disappointed that the court didn’t require dismissal of the complaint.”

Okay, I hate to say this but… does any of this really matter to homeowners? Aren’t both positions merely a delay, and not much of a delay at that?

I mean, one way the notice of intent to foreclose includes the name and address of the lender in addition to the servicer, and the other way the notice doesn’t.

It seems to me that we’re pretty much exclusively fighting for delays, these days… in the hope of gaining leverage… all to achieve one thing… an affordable and therefore sustainable loan modification, because that is the only way homeowners are remaining in their homes in any number. Everything else seems to carry the odds of a Hail Mary at best.

Why are we giving our government a pass?

In February of 2009, our president introduced a plan that was to provide a path to precisely that, a sustainable loan modification, but when the participating servicers weren’t following that program’s rules, no one was willing to enforce them. And because of that entirely unacceptable and unforgivable unwillingness to enforce the programs rules, our entire nation has endured unspeakable suffering and financial pain.

But we didn’t turn to our legislature to demand that something be done to correct the unjust situation, we followed other paths instead, perhaps for good reason. But the fact remains that we have largely ignored the fact that the failure of HAMP is our government’s failure. As such, it is our government that should be held accountable. And as this is an election year, it seems the timing for such efforts is fortuitous.

I’m certainly not saying that people and their attorneys shouldn’t be doing whatever they can to protect their homes, and I’m sure there are times when a delay is advantageous. All I’m saying is that when the rules set forth by a federal program are being ignored it’s up to our elected representatives to do something to make damn sure those rules are followed because they were written in best interests of the program’s participants.

EPILOGUE…

The rules set forth under HAMP should be followed. Now, with whatever the AG settlement says, we’re about to have a new round of rules… and since it’s possible that Congress will again refuse to enforce those rules, I believe that we should be working to structure and demand a private right of action and attorneys fees to allow homeowners and trial attorneys to turn to the courts for relief.

To be blunt, it seems to me to be insane that our president should be allowed to announce and implement a $75 billion program designed to save homes from foreclosure, in order to rescue our economy and protect our middle class population, and then when program applicants are abused because program rules are not followed, that our legislature sit on their hands pretending that nothing can be done… as we go off to try other approaches.

It also seems ridiculous that a $75 billion program, three years after its launch, has only spent five percent of its budget, and no one says a word. If we had a $75 billion program for rats and mice, and three years later only five percent of the budgeted amount had been spent, there would be people screaming about how we’ve underserved the rats and mice. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a government program under-spending to this degree. Has it ever happened before?

Why is there no effort to hold the administration and member of Congress accountable for what has clearly been their failure related to the federal government’s loan modification initiative? Why are we accepting such utter failure and holding them accountable for nothing, when in point of fact, their failure has cost the country trillions, and destroyed the lives of millions?

Instead it seems that we’re being corralled into a position where almost all of our efforts, even if successful, only have the potential to lead to a delay… a delay that in most cases reduces the potential to save the home.

We still have a democracy of sorts, do we not? Isn’t it the responsibility of our elected representatives to protect us from abuses caused by inadequacies in federal programs? Aren’t we supposed to be holding them accountable and demanding they so something. That’s how democracy is supposed to function, is it not? Why are we not trying to force our democracy to function, as it was intended to function… as it has functioned for hundreds of years?

Or, what about at the state level? Our AGs settled and let us down. That much seems water under the bridge, so fine. Well, I for one want the “new” servicer standards or guidelines to be more than mere suggestions… can they be codified at the state level.

I’d certainly feel a lot less let down by the AG’s settlement if the servicer standards were made into law that had a private right of action and a provision for attorneys fees because that would save homes and stop foreclosures, and it would do so more effectively than any amount of money.

Let’s UNITE homeowners around fairness, instead of DIVIDING them over delays…

I’m not talking about bailouts for borrowers, I just want the rules associated with a federal program to be followed and enforced, and I think every homeowner in the country should and would want that too, regardless of whether at risk of foreclosure or not at this moment.

Every homeowner in America should have an interest in federal programs operating as they were intended to operate. It’s not about who is at risk of foreclosure and who isn’t. It’s simply about being in favor of basic fairness in our federal or state programs. And basic fairness, competence and accountability from our elected officials. No one should, and few would, oppose any of those ideals, and those that suffered as a result of being deprived such fairness would engender sympathy from others.

Technically deficient paperwork, on the other hand, as was the crux of the Guillaumes decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, is an entirely different matter. Guillaumes will appear to many to be a distinction without a difference. Who cares if the lender is mentioned on the notice or not… the answer is most assuredly not many people.

It will also appear to be a transparent a stall tactic, since even if the judge were to dismiss a foreclosure that failed to comply with the state’s Fair Foreclosure Act, the remedy would simply be to begin again. I realize that this would buy a homeowner some time, but it would not buy much, and the time it would buy would make it that much harder to get the loan modified, as time is the enemy of modifications.

The truth is, Guillaumes is what it appears to be… stalling… hoping for leverage, and losing a house to foreclosure. And that does not engender sympathy from homeowners not facing foreclosure. What it does is further divides those in foreclosure from those who are not.

Delays for technical reason are never going to make homeowners in foreclosure look good to those not in foreclosure. Don’t shoot the messenger, but it’s one thing if you’re being treated unfairly… screwed around by a government program where participating servicers who are receiving money from the program are not following the rules. That’s wrong in anyone’s book.

It’s quite another when it appears that all that’s happening is a delay of the inevitable based on what’s perceived as relatively trivial or technical, and that’s what comes to pass. This decision helps no one but servicers, and does significant further harm to the image of homeowners at risk of foreclosures as “deadbeats” postponing the inevitable.

I believe it is to large degree indicative of a need to re-think our strategy on behalf of homeowners and the foreclosure crisis. The track we’re on far too often has no win available, and can cause significant harm to the cause and the individual homeowners we’re trying to help.

I would appreciate responses to the ideas presented in this post, at least the Epilogue… Thank you.

Mandelman out.

US Bank National Association v. Guillaume

Feb

Attorney Wins “Free House” in Case Before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – A Mandelman Matters Podcast

By Mandelman | HAMP, Housing & Economic Research, Loan Modification, News for the Patriot

67764Leave a Comment2012-02-04+19%3A59%3A19Mandelman

When it comes to defending homeowners against wrongful foreclosure, or suing banks on behalf of homeowners, Attorney Nathan Fransen, of the firm Fransen & Molinaro in Corona, California is a very smart, experienced and dedicated attorney. This I know for a fact.

How do I know this? It’s simple. Over the last few years, I’ve watched him literally bang his head against the wall as California’s courts have unabashedly approved of MERS, disregarded flaws in the securitization process, not cared one bit who signed what, and in general ignored everything having to do with foreclosure cases except the fact that the borrowers hadn’t made mortgage payments in so many months. He argued complex legal theory and simple fraud… he was honing his approach, and although he had his share of frustrating days, he was careful which cases he took on, never following an unproductive path twice. I’d refer potential clients to him fairly often, and in most cases, he’d talk them out of filing suit against whoever they had thought they had wanted to file suit against.

Don’t tell him I said it, but he’s also just generally a very smart person, you know, paid attention in school kind of person… fairly well-read… knew about things outside his area of expertise… the whole bit. He also had both the patience and ability to explain things about the law to me when I was frustrated over how things weren’t working. When someone can keep complicated things simple, you know they understand them inside and out… and when they can hold their own in a debate with me… well, I’m sorry but that’s saying something.

So, he called me a few weeks back and told me quite nonchalantly that he’d had a very good week. I was happy to hear that someone had. What was so good about it? Well, he had won two of his cases and at least one would result in his client getting a “free house.” The other might be a free house too, or maybe just a pretty good size pile of money. It’s true… Nathan had gone in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals… his first time, by the way… and beaten US Bank, hands down… in Causey v. US Bank.

It seemed to me to be an impressive win, because he was appealing after losing in the lower court. He’s smart, patient and methodical… three things that tend to pay off eventually, but he wasn’t just going up against US Bank… no, he was going up against the dreaded “free house,” meaning that if the court ruled in his favor, his client would no longer have a mortgage secured by real property. At best, the amount owed would be unsecured debt, like credit card debt, and that would mean it could potentially be discharged in bankruptcy.

But, don’t jump to conclusions because it’s not what you’re thinking.

He showed me how I could actually listen to him argue the case in court, the 9th Circuit has audio files of the courtroom proceedings online, and listening to it was fascinating. So I figured out how to download it and then convert it to a file format that I could put inside a podcast. Then I asked him to comment before and after the case so listeners would really get valuable information and be able to learn from his experience.

I don’t want to spoil it, so I won’t say anything more… well, okay I’ll say one more thing. As I listened to him argue his case in court, one thing came through loud and clear: Judges hate the dreaded “free house.”

This is one Mandelman Matters Podcast that you definitely don’t want to miss. Nathan sets it up in the beginning, then you hear the audio of the actual courtroom arguments, both his and the lawyer for US Bank… and then he and I argue various topics such as whether robo-signing should be prosecuted and by whom, along with several other things that I know are frustrating homeowners today.

This is the real deal… you could call it “reality podcasting.” Turn up your speakers, sit back, relax, and listen as three justices from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struggle to balance the rule of law against the dreaded “free house.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did…

CLICK BELOW:

Mandelman Out.

Jul

Why 99% of All “Forensic Audits” are Scams

By LH | Featured, Forensic Loan Audits

28168Leave a Comment2011-07-12+04%3A45%3A03LH

Ok, it really bothers me… I’ve been wanting to write this post for a very long time. I’ve just been so stinkin’ busy it’s been put on the shelf several times. I’ve just tried to address this issue one by one as homeowners call me. But I cringe every time I hear the words “forensic audit” and I hate having to even say the words but sometimes I have to in order to help a homeowner or attorney understand what I (and a very select few others) do versus what the vast majority of these other individuals/companies out there are doing. That is why I have a category on this blog called “Forensic Loan Audits…” because the scammers that used to be in the “Loan Modification” business got put out of business by most Attorney Generals around the US after they saw millions scammed on that cottage industry. Nearly overnight, a new cottage industry of “retired” shall we say loan mod experts became “forensic auditors.”

Let me say this from the outset… there is a wide range of people and companies out there (including even some attorneys) who are selling “Forensic Audits.” They vary from outright scam artists to slick salespeople performing some [overly simplistic] level of some sort of a mortgage loan transaction audit but who charge exorbitant prices for the services and, ultimately, the work product they produce rises to the level of a scam as well because their fee and what they produce are universes apart – so I deem that a scam as well – that’s just my humble opinion of course.

There is one fairly high profile retired attorney out there operating a very popular blog selling extremely high-priced garbage [in my opinion]; unfortunately, many of his victims, I mean clients, have purchased this “audit” are left with many pages of virtual nothing-ness that they will never be able to use in a court of law. Quite ironic that it’s coming from an “attorney” or “counselor at law” – so to speak.

But, I don’t think any of you reading this right now are actually surprised of the story of another attorney or ex-banker taking advantage of people because they have a license, degree or bar number and using that “credential” to sell people on a scam. There are many prisons with such people calling those places home for these types of crimes.

So, now that I’ve spent a minute on the soap box, let me get to work to explain the difference between a “Forensic Audit” and a “Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis” because there is a difference – like night and day. I think it’s a good place to start to say that I come from the mortgage banking industry and I have over a decade in actual experience in the inner workings of this industry and I have had to demonstrate continued competence in the actual compliance with the very laws we are looking into to see if these loans complied with these laws. I challenge you to find a “forensic mortgage loan auditor” out there in or even around the mortgage banking or finance industry. You won’t. You will find compliance officers. You will find fraud investigators. You will find compliance analysts and underwriters and risk managers. The closest thing might be the field of Forensic Accounting. But you will never find a legitimate forensic mortgage loan compliance officer using the term “forensic audit” or “forensic auditor” or even “forensic loan audit.” This is simply some deceptive marketing term invented by slick scammers who could probably sell a lot of people a box of coal and pass it off as a box of diamonds.

“Forensic” literally means “suitable for use in a court of law.” So the layman’s translation means that whatever report or whatever you might get from a “forensic auditor” must, and I mean MUST, withstand the legal scrutiny of a judge, jury and opposing counsel.

So, I’ll just dive right in here and make a point: you can use the word “forensic” if – and only if – your work product is deemed suitable for use in a court of law. So that’s the lens that any and all investigation by YOU as a homeowner MUST use in conducting your due diligence if you’re in the position of needing help to defend yourself from foreclosure or the potential illicit collection of mortgage loan debt.

I will say this… if you see ANYONE pitching a “Forensic Audit,” I would just turn and run. Even the simple use of that title – forensic audit – should set of alarm bells. What is it a forensic audit of? What does that even mean? Really, it doesn’t even tell you anything – other than it’s a slick marketer using a buzz term to sell you something. The question really is or should be – “will it be suitable in a cour of law?”

Conversely, a Mortgage Loan Compliance Analysis is EXACTLY what it’s name implies plus a bit more. What do we do? We analyze the mortgage loan documents for actual compliance with Federal Lending Laws. Did the original lender provide the borrower with the mandated loan disclosures from the date the borrower applied for the loan through to the closing or ratification of the mortgage loan transaction and were the material Truth in Lending Disclosures such as the APR, Amount Financed, Finance Charge, Amount of Payments and Payment Schedule were properly and accurately computed – this is a mathematical process that requires a very comprehensive understanding of Regulation Z, Section 226.4 along with the Official Staff Commentary for that section. It’s also an investigation and analysis of the transaction to see if the original lender [and any mortgage broker involved] that may have been involved complied properly with underwriting guidelines and a look into any possible mortgage fraud or predatory lending violations such as bait and switch tactics or even forgery of the borrower’s initials or signature on loan disclosures or loan closing documents. Finally, it’s also an investigation into whether the lender and/or broker was properly licensed. All of these issues are examined, documents analyzed, TILA disclosures re-computed for accuracy and comparison and then all of this is [or should be] rendered in a report or affidavit format along with any and all supporting exhibits such as the loan documents and other components of the investigation.

Now, here’s the clincher… a “Forensic Audit” is almost always going to be a collection of boiler plate fluff with a few specifics strewn throughout the template to pass this garbage off as legitimate. However, any real scrutiny of these documents by someone who knows what to look for – or worse, a judge or creditors rights attorney – will easily reveal the fact that 99% of these “forensic audits” aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on [ie. utter worthlessness]; which is real shame seeing that the homeowners who get suckered into these scams have precious few economic resources. They deserve a real service and a real work product that will actually stand up in a court of law.

A real mortgage loan compliance analysis and investigation will be highly CASE SPECIFIC. For it to be considered “forensic” in any sense of the word, it MUST be specific to YOUR CASE, not boiler plate. And judges HATE boiler plate, non-specific pleadings and if you try to throw a boiler-plate, template of a “forensic audit” at a judge in your case, you are asking for his/her wrath not to mention being completely discredited which never has a happy ending. I always tell people who are inquiring to hire me that there is no shortcut to these analyses and investigations. A mortgage loan transaction and any corresponding foreclosure case is like a fingerprint… no two of them are the same. Yes, you have a set of laws and guidelines that apply to all transactions but no two transactions are the same, period. Any and all work product must reflect that level of specificity if it is to be considered “forensic” in any way and has any chance of actually helping you make valid claims in a court of law.

So here’s my tip to help any homeowners facing foreclosure reading this: ASK for attorney references even IF they are an attorney. Ask to see their credentials. Ask for actual samples. Ask to see actual court cases their work product has been filed in and/or used in. Ask for customer references. Two words: DUE DILIGENCE… plus four words: DON”T BELIEVE THEY HYPE. Because your money can either be completely wasted or put to very good use depending on WHO you hire and what they produce. Finally, call or email me… I’ll send you a couple samples with borrower info redacted so you have something to compare the garbage to. Hopefully this helps a bit… Good luck and happy hunting.

Jun

INVESTORS SUE FOR INFLATED HOME APPRAISALS, WHY DON’T YOU?

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

9389Leave a Comment2010-06-21+13%3A14%3A17LH

The model concluded that roughly one-third of the loans were for amounts that were 105 percent or more of the underlying property’s value. Roughly 5.5 percent of the loans in the pools had appraisals that were lower than they should have been.

In one pool with 3,543 loans, for example, the CoreLogic model had enough information to evaluate 2,097 loans. Of those, it determined that 1,114 mortgages — or more than half — had loan-to-value ratios of 105 percent or more. The valuations on those properties exceeded their true market value by $65 million,

EDITOR’S NOTE: POINTS TO BE MADE:

Investors’ are proving the case for appraisal fraud, aligning themselves with borrowers. They are doing the borrower’s work. Get yourself copies of these complaints, discovery etc., send them to me and use them in your own case.

The little guy is starting to get attention. The court’s are getting the point that these loans were fraudulent. In my surveys I have found that appraisal fraud accounts for nearly all the loans 2003-2008, and that the amount of the fraud was a s much as 150% in some cases with an average of around 35%. The moment you closed, whatever down payment you made was lost and you were underwater.

The obligation to present a proper appraisal is on the lender not the borrower.

Just like the investors, borrowers were deprived of vital information about their loan that would have prevented any reasonable person from closing. Thus whether the Court’s like it or not, rescission, is a proper remedy, if not under TILA then under fraud statues and common law doctrines of fraud. Combine that with damages available, and the prospect of getting loan reduction and adjustment of loan terms comes into clearer view.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INVESTOR’S ADVANCE OF FUNDS AND THE HOME APPRAISAL IS PRESUMED AND ALLEGED. THUS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INVESTOR WAS THE CREDITOR AND THE BORROWER IS THE DEBTOR IS CORROBORATED BY THE PLEADINGS OF THE INVESTORS.

June 18, 2010

The Inflatable Loan Pool

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

AMID the legal battles between investors who lost money in mortgage securities and the investment banks that sold the stuff, one thing seems clear: the investment banks appear to be winning a good many of the early skirmishes.

But some cases are faring better for individual plaintiffs, with judges allowing them to proceed even as banks ask that they be dismissed. Still, these matters are hard to litigate because investors must persuade the judges overseeing them that their losses were not simply a result of a market crash. Investors must argue, convincingly, that the banks misrepresented the quality of the loans in the pools and made material misstatements about them in prospectuses provided to buyers.

Recent filings by two Federal Home Loan Banks — in San Francisco and Seattle — offer an intriguing way to clear this high hurdle. Lawyers representing the banks, which bought mortgage securities, combed through the loan pools looking for discrepancies between actual loan characteristics and how they were pitched to investors.

You may not be shocked to learn that the analysis found significant differences between what the Home Loan Banks were told about these securities and what they were sold.

The rate of discrepancies in these pools is surprising. The lawsuits contend that half the loans were inaccurately described in disclosure materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These findings are compelling because they involve some 525,000 mortgage loans in 156 pools sold by 10 investment banks from 2005 through 2007. And because the research was conducted using a valuation model devised by CoreLogic, an information analytics company that is a trusted source for mortgage loan data, the conclusions are even more credible.

The analysis used CoreLogic’s valuation model, called VP4, which is used by many in the mortgage industry to verify accuracy of property appraisals. It homed in on loan-to-value ratios, a crucial measure in predicting defaults.

An overwhelming majority of the loan-to-value ratios stated in the securities’ prospectuses used appraisals, court documents say. Investors rely on the ratios because it is well known that the higher the loan relative to an underlying property’s appraised value, the more likely the borrower will walk away when financial troubles arise.

By back-testing the loans using the CoreLogic model from the time the mortgage securities were originated, the analysis compared those values with the loans’ appraised values as stated in prospectuses. Then the analysts reassessed the weighted average loan-to-value ratios of the pools’ mortgages.

That means inflated appraisals were involved in six times as many loans as were understated appraisals.

David J. Grais, a lawyer at Grais & Ellsworth in New York, represents the Home Loan Banks in the lawsuits. “The information in these complaints shows that the disclosure documents for these securities did not describe the collateral accurately,” Mr. Grais said last week. “Courts have shown great interest in loan-by-loan and trust-by-trust information in cases like these. We think these complaints will satisfy that interest.”

The banks are requesting that the firms that sold the securities repurchase them. The San Francisco Home Loan Bank paid $19 billion for the mortgage securities covered by the lawsuit, and the Seattle Home Loan Bank paid $4 billion. It is unclear how much the banks would get if they won their suits.

Among the 10 defendants in the cases are Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide and UBS. None of these banks would comment.

As outlined in the San Francisco Bank’s amended complaint, it did not receive detailed data about the loans in the securities it purchased. Instead, the complaint says, the banks used the loan data to compile statistics about the loans, which were then presented to potential investors. These disclosures were misleading, the San Francisco Bank contends.

The selling document for that pool said that all of the mortgages had loan-to-value ratios of 100 percent or less, the complaint said. But the CoreLogic analysis identified 169 loans with ratios over 100 percent. The pool prospectus also stated that the weighted average loan-to-value ratio of mortgages in the portion of the security purchased by Home Loan Bank was 69.5 percent. But the loans the CoreLogic model valued had an average ratio of almost 77 percent.

IT is unclear, of course, how these court cases will turn out. But it certainly is true that the more investors dig, the more they learn how freewheeling the Wall Street mortgage machine was back in the day. Each bit of evidence clearly points to the same lesson: investors must have access to loan details, and the time to analyze them, before they are likely to want to invest in these kinds of securities again.

Filed under: bubble, CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: CoreLogic, Credit Suisse, David J. Grais, DEUTSCHE BANK, GRETCHEN MORGENSON, HERS, Home Loan Banks, investment banks, investors, Merrill Lynch, mortgage securities, San Francisco Home Loan Bank, Seattle Home Loan Bank, UBS, VP4

Jun

LINKING SECURITIZATION AND TILA

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

9265Leave a CommentLINKING+SECURITIZATION+AND+TILA2010-06-19+11%3A12%3A48LH

NOTE: Working on one of my expert declarations I figured I would share my computations with the readers. In order to protect privacy I am deleting any identifying information.

In this case there was a $1 billion offering of non-certificated mortgage backed securities, which is a fancy way of saying there was no certificate, just a book entry. The Master Servicer is the one with all the power to write-down the value of the pool to what the Master Servicer deems to be fair market value. You might call that a license to steal. The use of proceeds does not list any specific uses. It merely says that the money is going for general operational purposes.That is contrary to the usual standards of an offering prospectus which gives at least some specifics on use of proceeds. Thus it didn’t take much effort to see $1 billion worth of non-certificated mortgage backed securities and only use 75% of it to invest in mortgages.

So it is easy as in this case to take $747,000 from an investor, lend out $377,000, pocket the rest. Then when the guaranteed to fail loans start failing, the Master Servicer announces that the pool is no longer viable and the Master Servicer buys it at a small percentage of the nominal value of the mortgages.

Then because the pool is deemed a failure, say by Goldman Sachs (who bought credit default swaps against the pool), the Master Servicer collects on the insurance and other credit enhancements. Since the investors no longer own anything they don’t have a claim, or so the scheme says.

So even if a particular loan does NOT fail on schedule, they can still declare the pool as failed, and still collect the third party payments that were originally promised to the investors. But none of this takes away from the fact that all these institutions were part of a single securitization chain which is to say a single transaction in which the investor was the lender and the homeowner was the borrower. If they collected money and didn’t give to the investor it still doesn’t mean that the profit should not be allocated to the debtor’s loan account.

And if, as in this case, they collected a yield spread premium (Yield spread premium #2 in prior posts) created as a result of cheating the investor, well, whether the investor wants to press that claim or not, it is a yield spread premium, it is a single loan transaction, and TILA says you must disclose it — or give it back. Since the originating “lender” is the face they put on the transaction and since the originating “lender” is the only party of record in the title records, the yield spread premium must be applied to the benefit of the borrower. In this case, the YSP is almost the same as the loan amount, and with interest, vastly exceeds it. And then there is the issue of treble damages.

What many lawyers are missing because they are intimidated by the complexity of this thing, is that there are a lot of damages that can be collected from deep pockets and there is also a recovery of attorney fees.

Let’s see what happened in this case:

$1 billion (approximate) in securities offering. No showing of actual proceeds or any limitations on issuer. Second yield spread premium may exist in this unknown spread or in the spread between the offering amount and the unknown actual amount funded.

Extrapolating from yields disclosed in the prospectus the actual yield promised to investors was approximately 7%, with the right to reduce same under a variety of circumstances wholly in control of the underwriters. The nominal yield weighted average is stated in several different ways in order to confuse the reader and make computation more challenging. Based upon computations made directly from the prospectus and comparing it with similar prospectuses involving most of the same parties, the nominal actual average interest was sold to the SPV at approximately 9.6%. Thus, rounding down, the yield spread premium was 2.5%. 2.5% is 26% of the nominal 9.6% rate. Applying 26% to the declared proceeds, the dollar yield spread, undisclosed to either the investors or the borrowers, was approximately $250,000,000. The nominal principal of the debtor’s note is approximately $377,000.

The non-weighted yield spread premium at this level of the lending chain should therefore be expressed as either $94,250 or $82,500 (25%, non-weighted, or dollar weighted without regard to actual rates and data from this particular case). Applying an average between the two methods, the estimated non-weighted yield spread premium on this loan is approximately $88,000 without weighting for the actual rate spread. Applying the customary weighting using the actual nominal rate sold on this debtor’s loan (14.1%), the estimated yield spread premium earned by participants in this lending chain from this level of the lending chain was in fact approximately $369,460 (almost equal to the loan itself). Adding customary interest ($232,759.80) and treble damages ($1,108,380) under the Federal Truth and Lending Act the net actual dollar liability for yield spread premium at said level due from the lending chain on debtor’s loan would therefore be expressed as $ $1,341,139.80 due to borrower. This amount is subject of course to a determination of all other claims and defenses each or any of the parties may have.

Filed under: foreclosure

Apr

Berating the Raters and Appraisers

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

6889Leave a CommentBerating+the+Raters+and+Appraisers2010-04-29+17%3A09%3A22LH

“of AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006, 93 percent — 93 percent! — have now been downgraded to junk status.”

Editor’s Note: What homeowners and their lawyers, forensic analysts, and experts need to realize is that the ratings scam on Wall street was only one-half of the equation in a scheme to defraud homeowners. If you don’t understand how an appraisal of a home is the same thing as the rating of the security that was sold to fund the home, then you are missing the point and the opportunity to do something meaningful for borrowers.

TILA and Reg Z make it clear that the LENDER is responsible for verification of the appraisal. The LENDER is responsible for viability of the loan, NOT THE BORROWER. IT’S THE LAW! Instead the media and Wall Street PR and lobbyists are drumming a myth into our heads — that 20 million homeowners with securitized loans cooked up a scheme to get a free house. Where did they meet?

We have ample evidence that the entire scheme depended upon reasonable reliance upon those who were in fact not reliable and who were lying to us. If you bought a house for $600,000, the odds are:

the house was actually worth less than $400,000

the appraiser put the value at $620,000

the rating agency called it a triple AAA loan

you thought the house was worth what you were paying

the house is now worth $300,000

your mortgage is at least $500,000

Even if you can afford the payments, you will not be able to sell your home for more than the amount owed on it until at least 15-18 years have passed.

You will not be able to sell your home for what you paid for at least another 25-30 years, and that is only with the help of inflation

Counting inflation, you will never sell your home for what you paid for it or the amount you thought it was worth when you refinanced it

Besides obvious violations of federal and state lending statutes it is pure common law fraud. You are now faced with options that go from bad to worse, UNLESS you sue the people who caused this and your lawyer understands the basic economics of securitization. Your opposition knows all of this. That is why the cases, for the most part ,never get to trial. These cases are won or lost in demanding discovery, enforcing your demands, and relentless pursuit of the truth.

REGISTER NOW FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE WORKSHOP MAY 23-24

April 26, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist

Berating the Raters

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Let’s hear it for the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Its work on the financial crisis is increasingly looking like the 21st-century version of the Pecora hearings, which helped usher in New Deal-era financial regulation. In the past few days scandalous Wall Street e-mail messages released by the subcommittee have made headlines.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that most of the headlines were about the wrong e-mails. When Goldman Sachs employees bragged about the money they had made by shorting the housing market, it was ugly, but that didn’t amount to wrongdoing.

No, the e-mail messages you should be focusing on are the ones from employees at the credit rating agencies, which bestowed AAA ratings on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of dubious assets, nearly all of which have since turned out to be toxic waste. And no, that’s not hyperbole: of AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006, 93 percent — 93 percent! — have now been downgraded to junk status.

What those e-mails reveal is a deeply corrupt system. And it’s a system that financial reform, as currently proposed, wouldn’t fix.

The rating agencies began as market researchers, selling assessments of corporate debt to people considering whether to buy that debt. Eventually, however, they morphed into something quite different: companies that were hired by the people selling debt to give that debt a seal of approval.

Those seals of approval came to play a central role in our whole financial system, especially for institutional investors like pension funds, which would buy your bonds if and only if they received that coveted AAA rating.

It was a system that looked dignified and respectable on the surface. Yet it produced huge conflicts of interest. Issuers of debt — which increasingly meant Wall Street firms selling securities they created by slicing and dicing claims on things like subprime mortgages — could choose among several rating agencies. So they could direct their business to whichever agency was most likely to give a favorable verdict, and threaten to pull business from an agency that tried too hard to do its job. It’s all too obvious, in retrospect, how this could have corrupted the process.

And it did. The Senate subcommittee has focused its investigations on the two biggest credit rating agencies, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s; what it has found confirms our worst suspicions. In one e-mail message, an S.& P. employee explains that a meeting is necessary to “discuss adjusting criteria” for assessing housing-backed securities “because of the ongoing threat of losing deals.” Another message complains of having to use resources “to massage the sub-prime and alt-A numbers to preserve market share.” Clearly, the rating agencies skewed their assessments to please their clients.

These skewed assessments, in turn, helped the financial system take on far more risk than it could safely handle. Paul McCulley of Pimco, the bond investor (who coined the term “shadow banks” for the unregulated institutions at the heart of the crisis), recently described it this way: “explosive growth of shadow banking was about the invisible hand having a party, a non-regulated drinking party, with rating agencies handing out fake IDs.”

So what can be done to keep it from happening again?

The bill now before the Senate tries to do something about the rating agencies, but all in all it’s pretty weak on the subject. The only provision that might have teeth is one that would make it easier to sue rating agencies if they engaged in “knowing or reckless failure” to do the right thing. But that surely isn’t enough, given the money at stake — and the fact that Wall Street can afford to hire very, very good lawyers.

What we really need is a fundamental change in the raters’ incentives. We can’t go back to the days when rating agencies made their money by selling big books of statistics; information flows too freely in the Internet age, so nobody would buy the books. Yet something must be done to end the fundamentally corrupt nature of the the issuer-pays system.

An example of what might work is a proposal by Matthew Richardson and Lawrence White of New York University. They suggest a system in which firms issuing bonds continue paying rating agencies to assess those bonds — but in which the Securities and Exchange Commission, not the issuing firm, determines which rating agency gets the business.

I’m not wedded to that particular proposal. But doing nothing isn’t an option. It’s comforting to pretend that the financial crisis was caused by nothing more than honest errors. But it wasn’t; it was, in large part, the result of a corrupt system. And the rating agencies were a big part of that corruption.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, 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: Appraisal, appraisers, lender, Moody’s, PAUL KRUGMAN, Raters, rating agencies, Reg Z, Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Standard & Poor’s, TILA, verification

Apr

MICHELE REAGAN SENATE CANDIDATE GETS IT AND GETS SUED FOR HER TROUBLES WITHOUT DEFAULT!

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

6223Leave a Comment2010-04-06+18%3A10%3A01LH

SEE MICHELLE REAGAN, ARIZONA STATE SENATE CANDIDATE

Finally a politician who puts principle ahead of politics!!

Michele Reagan, currently an Arizona legislator, deserves support not only for her campaign for Arizona State Senate, but for her battle with her lender. Her lender, Colonial Savings, decided to sue her for asking too many questions about how her loan was securitized. That’s right. She never missed a payment but she became concerned that her title and her money might be going the wrong way. So she did the only sensible thing — she asked. Enforcing her TILA and RESPA rights she asked a lot of questions about who holds her note, who owns her loan, who is the current beneficiary on her deed of trust, all of which seem to be different entities.

Colonial did what you’d expect. Stonewalled. And when she pressed the point they sued the lawmaker who has sponsored dozens of bills dealing with finance, tax and other issues for her constituency and the State of Arizona. I don’t endorse candidates usually. This is the first time. Representative Reagan did the right thing — she went public with it and spoke for tens of thousands of Arizonians and Millions of Americans who have been treated the same way by their servicers, the parties they thought were lenders, the courts and the government in general.

Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: ARIZONA, Colonial Savings, HERS, Michelle, Michelle reagan, Reagan, RESPA, State Senate, TILA

Apr

Reg Z TILA Amendment requires new owners and assignees of mortgage loans to notify consumers of the sale or transfer

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

60721 Comment2010-04-01+13%3A31%3A54LH

The Federal Reserve Board has issued an interim final rule under Regulation Z to implement the recent Truth in Lending Act (TILA) amendment that requires new owners and assignees of mortgage loans to notify consumers of the sale or transfer.

While mostly helpful in foreclosure defense, the rule leaves open the question of ownership of the loans. Because of the practice of “assignment” of the loans to a special purpose vehicle, the Fed stopped there in its inquiry. If it had taken one step further it would have seen that the indenture to the mortgage backed bond conveyed an ownership interest in the loans supposedly assigned. it also leaves open the problem of whether the loans were accepted into the pool or were time-barred or were defective for failure to meet the requirements of recordation or recordable form set forth in the enabling documents.

The TILA requirement has been in effect since the May 20, 2009, enactment of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Compliance with the specifics of the new rule is optional until January 19, 2010. As a result, new owners may (but need not) rely on the new rule immediately to ensure they are in compliance with TILA. Violations give rise to liability for statutory damages, including up to $4,000 per violation in individual actions or up to $500,000 in a class action.

The transfer notice requirement applies to all closed-end and open-end consumer-purpose mortgage loans secured by a consumer’s principal residence. It requires any person that acquires more than one mortgage loan in any 12-month period to provide a transfer notice without regard to whether the new owner would otherwise be a “creditor” subject to TILA. Mere servicers of mortgage loans and investors in mortgage-backed securities or other interests in pooled loans do not acquire legal title to loans and are not subject to the new rule. However, trusts or other entities acquiring legal title to the securitized loans are subject to the rule. The notice requirement is triggered by a transfer of the underlying loan, regardless of whether the assignment is recorded. Thus, assignees are not exempt from the duty to provide notice merely because the mortgage (as opposed to the note) is in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), for example.

The new rule does not affect the separate notification requirement under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for servicing transfers on mortgage loans. Accordingly, new owners who acquire both legal title to a mortgage loan and the servicing rights will need to satisfy both the TILA and RESPA notification requirements.

The notice must be given on or before the 30th calendar date after the date the new owner acquires the loan, with the acquisition date deemed to be the date that the acquisition is recognized in the new owner’s books and records. In the case of short-term repurchase agreements, the acquirer is not required to give the notice if the transferor has not treated the transfer as a loan sale on its own books and records. However, if a repurchase does not occur, the acquirer must give the notice within 30 days after it recognizes the transfer as an acquisition on its books and records.
The notice must be given even where the new and former owners are affiliates, but a combined notice may be sent where one company acquires a loan and subsequently transfers it to another company so long as the content and timing requirements are satisfied as to both entities.
The notice must contain the information specified by the new rule, including contact information for any agents used by an owner to receive legal notices and resolve payment issues.
The required information also includes a disclosure of the location where ownership of the debt is recorded. If a transfer has not been recorded in the public records at the time the notice is provided, a new owner may satisfy this requirement by stating that fact.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: agents, AGGREGATOR, consumer protection, contact information, creditor, foreclosure defense, legal notices, MERS, mortgage backed securities, mortgage loans, principal residence, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Reg Z, resolve payment issues, RESPA, secured, statutory damages, TILA, violation

Mar

White Paper Declares Securitization Illegal

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

5423Leave a Comment2010-03-14+18%3A24%3A10LH

Title: SECURITIZATION IS ILLEGAL. see Securitization is Illegal
AUTHOR: MICHAEL NWOGUGU, Certified Public Accountant (Maryland, USA); B.Arch. (City College Of New York). MBA (Columbia University). Attended Suffolk Law School (Boston, USA). Address: P. O. Box 170002, Brooklyn, NY 11217, USA. Phone/Fax: 1-718-638- 6270.

Email: datagh@peoplepc.com; mcn111@juno.com.

Editor’s Note: I find this compelling. On the other hand there seems to be no political appetite, even in the judiciary to accept it as a whole. So it is up to each and every litigant to make their mark on this scheme so that in the end, the full truth is known.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: deceptive lending, Mortgage, note, Obligation, RICO, securitization, TILA, usury

Jul

HOEPA Loans and TILA Mortgage Rescission

By LH | Featured, Truth in Lending

5912 Comments2009-07-10+02%3A46%3A20LH

HOEPA Stands for the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act

HOEPA is an amendment to TILA that deals with the substantive abuses of creditors offering higher costing home loans to residents in certain geographic areas. The statute was enacted to ensure that consumers most vulnerable to abuse would be afforded a safety net without impeding the flow of credit altogether.

There are certain trigger points to determine if a loan is a “HOEPA or Section 32″ Home Loan.

Triggers for HOEPA Coverage

APR more than 10% above comparable Treasury security rate (8% on first-lien loans closing on or after October 1, 2002) on the 15th day of the month before the lender received the loan application. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(a)(1)(i); 66 Fed. Reg. 65,617 (2001).

“Points and fees” exceeding 8% of the “total loan amount.” 12 C.F.R. 226.32(a)(1)(ii).

Some examples of Points are:

All prepaid finance charges. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(i);

All compensation paid to mortgage brokers. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(ii);

All items paid to the lender or to a lender affiliate. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(iii);

Disclosure Requirements

A special HOEPA disclosure notice must be delivered to the consumer at least three business days prior to the closing of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(b); 12 C.F.R. 226.31(c). A signed statement to the effect that the consumer received the HOEPA notice creates a rebuttable presumption only. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c). The notice must inform the consumer that he/she need not enter into the loan, and that if he/she does enter the loan, he/she could lose the home and any money put in it. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(1).

The notice must also include an accurate statement of APR, monthly payment and balloon payment amount, and maximum payment amount on a variable-rate loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a)(2); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(2)-(4); Official Staff Commentary 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(3)-2.

Prohibited Terms

The following terms or actions are prohibited (or limited) by the statute and Regulation Z: prepayment penalties, default interest rate, balloon payments, negative amortization, prepaid payments, negligent lending, direct payments to home improvement contractors. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(c)-(h); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d).

Remedies

Failure to deliver the required HOEPA notice or inclusion of a prohibited term triggers an extended (three-year) right of rescission (described above; also called TILA Mortgage Rescission). 15 U.S.C. § 1639(j); 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3) n.48.;

In addition to regular TILA monetary damage remedies, HOEPA violations give rise to “enhanced” monetary damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(4), namely, all payments made by the borrower.

PLEASE NOTE: Remember that if you have a HOEPA rescission case, this effectively gives you a double deduction– you get to deduct all payments made twice before getting to your “HOEPA-adjusted” tender amount (once in calculating the TILA tender amount, and once in calculating HOEPA damages). Also, if you’re beyond three years and can’t rescind, you can still raise a HOEPA claim and deduct all payments made in the nature of defense by recoupment.

As with any TILA violation, the rescission remedy runs against any assignee of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(c). In addition, where the loan documents demonstrate that the loan is covered by HOEPA coverage, assignees “shall be subject to all claims and defenses with respect to that mortgage that the consumer could assert against the creditor.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(1). This provision mirrors the FTC Holder Rule and creates assignee liability for all state and federal claims and defenses. For monetary damages claims under TILA, it provides an exception to general rule that violations must appear on the face of the documents.

Statute of Limitations

1 year for affirmative claims.15 U.S.C. § 1640(e);
3 years for rescission.Beach v. Ocwen, 523 U.S. 410 (1998);
Unlimited as a defense to foreclosure in the nature of a claim in defense by recoupment

Jul

Beware of Scam “Forensic” Loan Auditors/Companies

By LH | Featured, Forensic Loan Audits, Truth in Lending

586157 Comments2009-07-09+01%3A59%3A43LH

Ok, here we go go again… now the scams have hit the loan auditing industry. Most of these fakers are ex-mortgage brokers who didn’t make it in the mortgage industry and are now looking for a new way to make money. There are a few good auditors out there who have really put in the time, effort and research to actually know the laws and know how to properly state the elements of these violations in a manner that can actually help a homeowner in a foreclosure matter (and can help an attorney bring these violations as affirmative defenses or counterclaims in a foreclosure case).

TILA or supposed “Forensic” Audits that use standardized check-off lists without providing a mathematical determination of the TILA Disclosure Statement and amounts are NOT Forensic Audits. A check-off list or automated/software-driven TILA Audit describing potential violations as “Serious,” or “Moderate” is incompetent and useless. A Forensic TILA Audit must provide accurate TILA; Regulation Z citations, case law precendent, as well as actual computation of all settlement service fees properly allocated in the TILA Disclosure Statement or the Audit will NOT withstand scrutiny by legal authorities. Do not be fooled by imitations using standardized check-off lists.

There is absolutely nothing “forensic” about plugging loan data into some software and having it spit out a report. But that is exactly what most of these fakers are doing and they are charging anywhere from $395 to $995 based on what I have seen so far.

If the loan audit will NOT stand up to legal scrutiny then you have wasted your money and someone has scammed you into believing you were paying for something that would help you. Why would you pay for a loan audit that would not stand up to legal scrutiny?

The software driven report serves a limited purpose and I use a popular banking compliance software for my audits as well but this software-driven report is only a small piece of my actual audit and findings report. A true forensic auditor examines every document relevant to the loan and looks at signatures, dates, parties on the documents, who provided those disclosures or documents and also obtains the story from the client because every loan is a story. It involved people and usually quite a bit of communication between the borrower and the indispensable parties to the transaction.

I have myself setup for Google Alerts on a number of search terms so I go to these other websites pretty frequently. I also get clients who have dealt with some of these fraudsters and now want my help to clean up the mess and the wasted money. Hopefully this post will cause those who read it to really do some good checking before they part with hard-earned money.

Bottom line is to make sure you follow your gut. Do your homework, ask questions, ask for references. A good auditor will most likely have attorneys they work for and consult for.

Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions on this topic or would like a sample of my audit reports. You’ll be able to see the true forensic nature of a good audit vs. these computer-generated reports.

May

Foreclosure Rights – Basics in Homeowner Foreclosure Defense

By LH | Foreclosure Defense Research, Foreclosure Rights, Forensic Loan Audits, Truth in Lending

5623 Comments2009-05-19+13%3A50%3A29LH

By Lane Houk
May 19, 2009

I realized this morning that it’s been a while since I’ve covered the basics of foreclosure defense. For those of you readers who are behind in their mortgage and trying to work something out with the lender (who is usually just the servicer of your loan, not the owner), you should beware that MOST of these institutions do not deal with you, the homeowner in good faith. Every time I see the news media covering some ridiculous thing they call “reporting” of the facts, fair and balanced or whatever, what they “report” is that banks are hurting, the government is going to save the “people” from this mess and servicers are doing everything they can to help. Call this number, call that number and you’ll get help. Go to this government site, or that for more information… yadda yadda yadda.

If you’re reading this right now then you or someone you know is in serious hard times, you’re thinking that it must just be you and your family having such a hard time because the news is telling you how many people are getting help, you’re just not one of them.

Try again. I’m in this fight everyday with regular American people. Hard working types… and they’re trying to survive right now. But it’s not easy. Hopefully this blog can help you get pointed in the right direction…

Regarding foreclosure, you first need to know: If you’re state is a judicial state or non-judicial state. It makes a big difference in HOW the foreclosure process plays itself out. CLICK HERE for a great resource chart on this.

Basically, if you’re in a judicial state, the party claiming a right to foreclose files a lawsuit in the local court system and you’ll get served with that lawsuit. Defend yourself. In what other lawsuit would you just lay down and die. A wise person defends them self against any and all lawsuits that are filed against them. Right?

If you’re in a non-judicial state, no court case is needed. It usually starts by the part serving you with a Notice of Default. The deed in your name is probably being held in trust and will be turned over within a statutory time frame once the state laws have been followed to do so.

My expertise is in the Florida process. Florida is a judicial state. So for this article’s sake, I’ll go through the foreclosure process for Florida.

Step Two: You’ve been served with foreclosure papers (ie. the complaint). Now what? You have 20 days to respond to this lawsuit (30 days in some states). You also have 30 days to dispute the debt under your federal rights found in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (you may also have state collection laws that afford your rights as well). So, in other words, you have a right to dispute the exact amount they claim that you owe THEM.

Remember. You have 20 days to respond. Don’t mess around with this. If you’re in danger of missing that deadline, at least file a Motion for Enlargement of Time which is legalese for “I need more time to get my answer filed because I’m still searching for counsel to take my case.”

Which leads me to Step Three: Get an attorney! Hire one, find one but please make sure they know foreclosure defense, really. Ask them how many cases they’ve taken. Be wise, hire an attorney. If they’re being fair to you and not gouging you on the fees, hiring them will save you money, not cost you. Contact me if you don’t understand why or how…

Step Four: Read the entire complaint you were served. You need to read it and try to understand it. Don’t be fool in life… there are far too many people who just don’t take the time to learn and understand how things work. Some because of fear, some become of laziness. Neither is good, ever, but especially when you’re being sued for a lot of money.

What comes next is kind of like a game of ping pong. They file the complaint… you answer the complaint, ball is back on their side, you wait to see what they hit back at you, etc. etc.

This is also the point where every case takes on a life of its own. There’s really no set way that a foreclosure case goes from here. However, generally speaking, the Plaintiff in the case is going to attempt to get a “Summary Judgment” in the case. This is legalese for quick judgment against you. No issues of material fact present. They win, you lose and you have future financial liability with the deficiency if one will exist after they sell the home.

I’ll make the biggest point of the article right here: Most of the Plaintiff’s in these cases DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT own the Note that they say you defaulted on. These plaintiffs are either servicers or trustees – both agents for a securitized trust. More than this, I see sloppy, missing and even fabricated paperwork filed by the attorneys representing these big institutions; or they have outsourcing companies to do their dirty (paper) work. You know, plausible deniability stuff. Just beware… if they don’t own the loan, they’ll act like they do and create documents (like an assignment of mortgage) out of thin air to make it look like they do. If you think I’m kidding, just CLICK HERE to read an article by Peg Brickley from Dow Jones and posted online at the Wall Street Journal; this article briefly exposes just a bit of what companies like Fidelity National Information Services are doing in the loan default business boon.

A good auditor/investigator knows what to look for, what documents to inspect and where to find the securitized trust documents – or how to get them.

If you and your attorney are successful in defeating summary judgment, this is a big victory. This is what a good attorney is going to do first. Win the smaller battles and you might win the war. Summary judgment is the first battle in a foreclosure case. Look at every other type of civil or criminal case in our court systems and you’ll find that Summary Judgment is rarely granted. I said rarely and you can check that.

Now compare that with civil foreclosure cases… what you’ll find is that Florida judges are granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in MOST cases. Foreclosure is just another type of civil case… why the MAJOR disparity in this? You think the judges don’t have an opinion about this. There are some rare good ones who actually appreciate the law and respect due process rights of citizens and aren’t going to let these institutions just walk into court and do whatever they want with no respect for the lawful process a foreclosure is supposed to go through.

So to have the best chance at defeating summary judgment, the defendant needs to establish (for the record) genuine issues of material fact. These are your affirmative defenses and there are many standard ones that attorneys should be using and there are some “big bullets” if you will that can be quantified through a forensic analysis and audit of all loan documents, notices and disclosures by the lender, servicer, broker, title company, etc. It’s a rare occasion that I don’t find violations. These violations are absolute issues of material fact. Summary judgment would be improper and there is well established case law on this in Florida.

Once summary judgment is denied, this foreclosure case has to go to a full trial. A good attorney files comprehensive discovery on your case. I mean comprehensive too. I want every document that pertains to this loan. It’s all material… I want the transfer records of the Note, the PSA, the Prospectus and Registration Statement, the accounting records, etc. etc. etc.

These documents once requested need to be produced or the court can be moved to compel the plaintiff to produce. Yes, their attorney will try to make some garbage up about the information requested is proprietary or can’t be produced due to privilege or whatever. This is when you can tell these guys just thumb their nose at due process and say we don’t think the consumer deserves it or has a right to it. This is also when you know they’re hiding something. First off, it’s not proprietary knowledge, its PUBLIC DISCLOSURE! It’s a loan that you say some six to seven figure number is owed by the defendant, the documents for these transactions have to be disclosed to the SEC, the IRS, shareholders, certificate holders, trustees, servicers, custodians, master servicers, depositors, issuers and several other federal agencies. But the borrower has no right to see these documents and have them produced for the record in the lawsuit against them. Right. Give me a break.

This game of ping pong can carry on for many months and often times a year and more. The bottom line to this: YOU HAVE FORECLOSURE RIGHTS! You have a right to due process. You have a right to defend yourself and you should! Find the professionals to help you and fight the war on the home front!

May

Recoupment: A Powerful Claim in Foreclosure Defense

By LH | Foreclosure Defense Research, Foreclosure Rights, Forensic Loan Audits, Homeowner Resources, Truth in Lending

495Leave a Comment2009-05-18+01%3A51%3A49LH

By Lane Houk
May 18, 2009

If you are a practicing attorney: Are you using Defense by Recoupment under 15 U.S.C. 1640(e) as a strong affirmative defense for your clients?

If you are a consumer: Have you had your loan (from day of application to current) audited by a forensic consumer debt analyst?

I get a fair amount of “conspiracy theory ” calls or emails people who would swear that the CIA was covertly involved in the loan they signed for and that all measures of fraud occurred against them by everyone involved and… you get the point. My first question to this person is always: “Great, so are you prepared for the $15,000+ retainer a good attorney is going to want to spend their time investigating, quantifying, pleading and trying a case like that? Well, you know the answer…

Others have read (or have heard) that a loan audit and violations of the TILA can only help you if it’s a refinance loan on a primary residence in the last three (3) years. To have the EXTENDED RIGHT TO RESCIND, these conditions must be in place but rescission isn’t the only thing that can help someone in (or in danger of) foreclosure.

When it comes to defending yourself against foreclosure the first order of business is to establish clear and genuine issues of material fact in the case. In a Florida foreclosure defense strategy, the client wants to quantify these genuine issues of material fact in the foreclosure case because no judge should ever grant a motion for summary judgment. Why?

In the state of Florida, there is extensive established law that prevents summary judgment from being granted when there are outstanding issues of material fact. Johnson v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 985 So.2d 141, Murphy v. Young Men’s Christian Association of Lake Wales, Inc., 974 So.2d 565. A “material fact,” for summary judgment purposes, is a fact that is essential to the resolution of the legal questions raised in the case, Continental Concrete, Inc. v. Lakes at La Paz III Ltd. Partnership, 758 So.2d 1214.

Successfully defeating summary judgment is a big score in favor of the consumer and can greatly improve the chances of obtaining a viable and fair workout and thus ultimately, avoiding foreclosure.

So, one area of practice Lane Houk and his team help consumer attorneys with is by completing a forensic loan audit on the client’s loan documents from the day they applied for that loan through to current day. Why would a foreclosure client want this done? Let’s think about it…

Often times, the client did not receive proper “pre-closing disclosures” under both Truth in Lending laws (TILA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA);
Especially when there was a mortgage broker or interim lender involved
The actual “lender” in the transaction was under same timeframe obligations to make specific disclosures to client from the day they received application
The many servicing abuses which could have taken place from day of closing to current
Insufficient amount of certain disclosure violations
Escrow mishandling abuses (I’ve seen people nearly lose their house to a bona fide mistake the bank made but wouldn’t budge until a good attorney got involved)
The list goes on…

Under the TILA civil liability section [15 U.S.C. 1640(e)] regarding violations it says that any action under that section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation. But, that subsection does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment…

A consumer can only bring an action for damages within one year from the date of closing. However, the consumer is not barred from bringing a claim as a “matter of defense by recoupment” in a foreclosure action because a foreclosure action is an action to collect the debt. (ie. almost all foreclosure complaints are served with some level of disclosure that “this is an action to collect on a debt”) however NOT disclosing that does not necessarily preclude that any such action is NOT an attempt to collect on the debt.)

Any such quantified claim of a violation of the TILA (Truth in Lending Act) from an expert audit report should be brought as an affirmative defense by the attorney. This is a rock solid issue of material fact. No summary judgment. The lender will have to bring the action all the way through to trial. This should give you much greater leverage to obtain a workout. At the very least, this give you/your client much greater time in the house and time to try to work something out that works for both parties; something that is much needed these days because I still see a great deal of servicer abuse/misprepresenations happening every single day.

When it comes to auditors, remember that as with any professional, most often you will get what you pay for. If you have some company offering you an audit for a couple hundred bucks, you’re going to get that level of expertise and report back. A good expert auditor and their service should be in the $750.00-1000 price range. More or less than that just be careful.

I hope this little insight gives you some ideas on how you can help yourself in a foreclosure case. If you want more information on forensic loan audit, please call me at (800) 985-4685 ext. 2 or by email at Lane@thePatriotsWar.com

May

TILA Mortgage Rescission – How to Stop a Foreclosure

By LH | Featured, Forensic Loan Audits, Homeowner Resources, Loan Modification, Truth in Lending

52515 Comments2009-05-08+01%3A10%3A48LH

If you want to know HOW to STOP a Foreclosure, a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Mortgage Rescission is the key.

I was on the phone yesterday with a loss mitigation rep from Washington Mutual Bank. I was calling to get the specific address to send a “Notice of Rescission” to for WAMU. Every lender/bank/servicer has specific addresses for these types of correspondence.

I asked the lady in Loss Mitigation for the “address that I can send a rescission notice to.” At first, she said, “a what?” “A notice to rescind the loan” I said. “Sir, you can’t rescind a loan” she said. I said, “ma’am, please just give me the address I can send an official notice to rescind the loan to.” She says, “why? did you just close on this loan within the last three days because I’m pretty sure you can’t just cancel a loan.”

I said, “ma’am you most certainly can, up to three years from the date of closing actually if it’s a refinance loan of a primary residence and there are certain violations of the truth in lending act; but I’m not going to argue with you, just give me right address!”

This little back and forth madness just goes to show how even the banks don’t know the damn law! A legal right to TILA mortgage rescission can extend up to three (3) years out from the date of closing if:

It’s a REFINANCE loan transaction
It’s on your PRIMARY residence
It was closed in the last THREE years
A forensic loan audit reveals a MATERIAL disclosure violation

Many people ask me how to stop a foreclosure… folks, TILA mortgage rescission is a COMPLETE defense to foreclosure. In fact, it is the most POWERFUL foreclosure defense you could have. Why?

When you effect a TILA mortgage rescission, you are literally and legally canceling the loan. Here’s exactly what Regulation Z says,

12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. (“Reg. Z”)
(a) Consumer’s right to rescind. (1) In a credit transaction in which a security interest is or will be retained or acquired in a consumer’s principal dwelling, each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject to the security interest shall have the right to rescind the transaction, except for transactions described in paragraph (f) of this section.

(2) To exercise the right to rescind, the consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail, telegram or other means of written communication. Notice is considered given when mailed, when filed for telegraphic transmission or, if sent by other means, when delivered to the creditor’s designated place of business.

(3) The consumer may exercise the right to rescind until midnight of the third business day following consummation, delivery of the notice required by paragraph (b) of this section, or delivery of all material disclosures,⁴⁸ whichever occurs last. If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer’s interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first. In the case of certain administrative proceedings, the rescission period shall be extended in accordance with section 125(f) of the Act.

⁴⁸ The term “material disclosures” means the required disclosures of the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total payments, the payment schedule, and the disclosures and limitations referred to in §226.32 (c) and (d).

TILA mortgage rescission is real. But I haven’t explained to you yet WHY TILA mortgage rescission is a complete defense to foreclosure. Here’s what Reg. Z says, then I’ll explain:

12 C.F.R. § 226.23(d)
(d) Effects of rescission. (1) When a consumer rescinds a transaction, the security interest giving rise to the right of rescission becomes void and the consumer shall not be liable for any amount, including any finance charge.

(2) Within 20 calendar days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return any money or property that has been given to anyone in connection with the transaction and shall take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest.

(3) If the creditor has delivered any money or property, the consumer may retain possession until the creditor has met its obligation under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. When the creditor has complied with that paragraph, the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value. At the consumer’s option, tender of property may be made at the location of the property or at the consumer’s residence. Tender of money must be made at the creditor’s designated place of business. If the creditor does not take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the consumer’s tender, the consumer may keep it without further obligation.

(4) The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d) (2) and (3) of this section may be modified by court order.

Don’t know if you caught that above but I bolded it for you. Yes, that’s right the mortgage (the security interest) becomes VOID. Further, the borrower is NOT responsible for ANY finance charge. That means any/all closing costs and interest paid on the loan from closing to current is refunded to the borrower as a credit against the original loan amount.

So, let’s get to the foreclosure defense issue… the mortgage gives the owner of the Note the legal authority to foreclose. If the mortgage is voided, there is no longer any legal instrument to foreclose on. The creditor becomes unsecured just like a credit card creditor. The security interest has been voided by operation of law. Foreclosure becomes a legal impossibility.

The lenders don’t just roll over and go away but folks, if they violated the federal law in your loan transaction, its black and white. It’s not some subjective he said, she said issue. It’s recognizable and quantifiable. You absolutely want a forensic loan audit done by a knowledgeable analyst. If you’d like to retain me for my audit services, go to my contact page and get a hold of me.

Hopefully, this short post will help you see that a valid TILA mortgage rescission is the best remedy and defense to foreclosure if you qualify for it!

Apr

What is a “Forensic Loan Audit?”

By LH | Forensic Loan Audits, Truth in Lending

4962 CommentsWhat+is+a+%22Forensic+Loan+Audit%3F%222009-04-28+02%3A52%3A49LH

Definition of the word ”Audit“

A systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining evidence.
formal examination of an organization’s or individual’s accounts or financial situation. An audit may also include examination of compliance with applicable terms, laws, and regulations.
The physical review of practice records to determine if the practice has been (and is being) compliant with carrier requirements.

Definition of the word “Forensic”

Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
Relating to the use of science, specific methods or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law:a forensic laboratory.

Loan servicing complaints

Section 6 provides borrowers with important consumer protections relating to the servicing of their loans. Under Section 6 of RESPA, borrowers who have a problem with the servicing of their loan (including escrow account questions), should contact their loan servicer in writing, outlining the nature of their complaint. The servicer must acknowledge the complaint in writing within 20 business days of receipt of the complaint. Within 60 business days the servicer must resolve the complaint by correcting the account or giving a statement of the reasons for its position. Until the complaint is resolved, borrowers should continue to make the servicer’s required payment.

A borrower may bring a private law suit, or a group of borrowers may bring a class action suit, within three years, against a servicer who fails to comply with Section 6′s provisions. Borrowers may obtain actual damages, as well as additional damages if there is a pattern of non-compliance.

According to the Truth in Lending Act even a small mistake with calculating the borrower’s annual percentage rate could be an actionable violation, enabling the borrower to rescind the loan. Therefore, the threat of a lawsuit is often sufficient to persuade an otherwise uncooperative lender to negotiate an attractive work out with the borrower. Because the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) requires all attorney fees to be paid by the predatory lender (in which a new servicer is now the responsible party ), the vast majority of cases settle out of court quickly.

Even non-material disclosure violations or violations over a year old can still be used as claims and defenses in recoupment in a foreclosure defense. (See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)) – these claims and affirmative defenses raise genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive any motion for summary judgment.

Until recently Forensic Loan Examinations were only made available to large banks and lending institutions wanting to determine their own exposure to risk and potential legal liabilities prior to purchasing large pools of mortgage loans.

Providing the loan audit gives homeowners more ammunition so they can stand a chance in negotiating a decent modification with lenders who have far more resources than the average borrower and often play hardball unless they are faced with the risk of a costly lawsuit.

A Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit using Lane Houk’s Proprietary Methods and Technology results in the most comprehensive and thorough audit reporting process of its kind that reveals ALL violations of Federal and State Codes including RESPA, TILA, HOEPA and ECOA along with detailing EVERY VIOLATION, its severity, and the specific law/regulation in violation in an easy to read format. ALL of the forensic loan audits reports can reveal these guiding queries:

Was fraud involved?

Constructive Fraud
Misrepresentation
Victim of Bait and Switch
Straw Buying Victim
Steering
Appraisal Fraud

Common Abuses:
Predatory mortgage lending involves a wide array of abusive practices. A brief description of some of the most common are:

Excessive Fees
Hidden Fees
Abusive Prepayment Penalties
Kickbacks to Brokers (Yield Spread Premiums)
Loan Flipping
Unnecessary Products
Mandatory Arbitration
Steering & Targeting
Breach of Contract

We can help you find out…

Did the loan officer accurately disclose the loan terms to you?
Did you sign a separate broker fee agreement?
Was your home’s value inflated by the lender’s appraiser?
Did the lender fail to verify your ability to repay the loan?
Were you given all federal and state disclosures?
Were you properly notified of your right to cancel the loan?
Do your closing documents contain any technical errors?
Were you charged excessive or undisclosed fees?
Has your loan been sold without your knowledge?
Any and all applicable federal and state law violations
The real terms of your loan
Outline of hidden fees and/or commission earned by your broker or lender
A complete assessment so you can pursue possible legal claims against your broker and/or lender
Report of all factual findings of the forensic audit

In my experience, there are very few auditors out there who truly know the “forensic” aspects of the loan audit process. The real litmus test is to ask the auditor where most of their business comes from? If it’s not from consumer law attorneys walk away. Ask for attorney references at all times.

Jan

Loan Modification: It’s All About “Leverage”

By LH | Featured, Loan Modification, Truth in Lending

3053 Comments2009-01-25+23%3A15%3A21LH

Leverage: the power or ability to act or to influence people, events, decisions, etc.; sway; to exert power or influence on.

We all know by now that the lenders and loan servicers are acting in bad faith with borrowers. What’s new? Many of these loans were given to un-suspecting borrowers in bad faith to begin with. It always was, and is, about money with the root being greed. I am working with a borrower right now, a pastor and his wife, who were given a refinance loan back in 2006. They were looking for some cash out on a fixed rate loan. Unknowingly they were put into a “Pick a Payment, Option ARM” loan. A loan that adjusts monthly but has a “fixed payment” option. The broker who sold them loan sold it to them as a fixed “payment” loan – they were looking for a fixed rate.

Should they have read the loan closing documents more carefully? Sure, hindsight being 20-20. But they trusted this individual and the integrity of his company. Have you ever read every document in a closing package? I have. But most mortgage brokers and closing agents haven’t even done that… a typical borrower is reading a foreign language -practically speaking.

So, back to the word “leverage.” I have found that there’s only ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH A LENDER OR SERVICER… with the gloves off. Meaning you have to treat them as an adversary and deal with them the way they are truly dealing with you. Don’t believe what you are hearing from some voice on the other end of the 800# you called. Folks, it’s just this simple: they don’t care one iota about you. Their only motivation is money and they do NOT deal in good faith.

So what’s this issue of Leverage? I have found one thing to be true in dealing with these institutions… the little guy needs leverage to win. They hold the cards until you start putting some in your hand. Shifting the deck simply takes a methodical and strategic approach to dismantling their case – in other words, building leverage. Gaining the “ability” to influence or “sway” their decisions (on your loan).

So, if you want a “workout” of your loan, a loan modification, you need to gain this ability to influence and sway their decision making process. How you ask? Find all the holes in their case, find all the violations of state and federal laws and put them to task. They will fail most of the time because they don’t think that it matters. Why? Because they don’t think you have what it takes to take them on? They don’t think you belong at the same poker table.

The question that really matters? Are they right or wrong?

I start with a very sophisticated Qualified Written Request – QWR. They have very strict timelines to adhere to on a QWR and must answer your bona fide questions of fact. Next I go after the loan closing and disclosure documentation. 8 out of 10 or more loans have violations. Let’s start itemizing those violations, 1, 2, 3, 4… and so on. These are federal violations and usually one can find some state law violations such as Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices. Look for a fraudulent appraisal, look for kickbacks to other settlement providers. Every violation is a shift of the deck. Leverage.

If you want help modifying your loan… if you want help shifting the deck… if you want to find the violations and put them to task, email me. “I’m your Huckleberry.”

Jan

Your best chance at a real Loan Modification – TILA Rescission

By LH | Loan Modification, Truth in Lending

1464 Comments2009-01-17+18%3A12%3A02LH

I wrote a post similar to this yesterday. It was a post on TILA rescission that referred to a married couple who rescinded their loan AFTER foreclosure was filed. They subsequently filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy as well. The lender (Option One Mortgage Corp. – division of Wells Fargo) balked and refused to honor the rescission. The borrowers filed an Adversary Proceeding in bankruptcy court and won. CLICK HERE to read the full post.

This post is focused on alerting America’s homeowners who want to stay in their homes (but cannot afford the payment anymore) of the BEST REMEDY you may have. This is not for the proverbial “deadbeat” who just wants to cheat the system and live for free. However, there are much fewer of those kinds of people than those that can afford the payment might think. Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, being laid off, having their salary and overtime cut back while the costs of living have increased. The cost of living has been increasing (ie. inflation) for quite a while. From insurance costs to groceries to the costs of labor. Because of this cost of living increase, many fixed income families were forced to start living partly on credit cards. By the way, had this “credit” not been available in the first place, I don’t think we’d be where we are today. Supply and demand will keep the economy in check unless you can artificially fuel demand with borrowed money that someone can’t really afford to pay back.

Because of these extra credit payments and loss of income or a job, millions of families are on the verge of foreclosure or already there. If this is where you (or a friend/family member) is at, you MAY have one very powerful remedy to force the lender/servicer to work with you.

This remedy is called “TILA Rescission.” TILA stands for the “Truth in Lending Act.” It is the major piece of federal legislation that regulates lending practices of financial institutions. A borrower may have the “extended right to rescind” a loan for UP TO THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CLOSING.

It is important to note that a loan can ONLY be rescinded when:

The loan is a refinance transaction;
Funded in the last three years
On the borrower’s primary residence;
When a “material disclosure violation” is found

The term “material disclosure violation” is a very important component. Many people (including self-proclaimed experts in loan auditing) think that “any” violation of the Truth in Lending Act gives someone the right to rescind. That is patently wrong. The four conditions above must be true in order for the borrower to have the possible “extended right to rescind” the loan transaction. There are only 4 potential “material disclosure violations.”

Many homeowners don’t want to just “walk away.” They want to stay in their home. The bad news is that these lenders are run by criminals. Literally. They’re getting billions in bailout money. They’re getting millions to billions more in insurance payouts on defaulted debt. Homeowners who are trying to save their homes are running into the brick wall of GREED. Loss mitigation departments are being run by a bunch bungling fools who don’t even know how to answer a phone much less deal with a homeowner with dignity and respect. The corporate bottom-line is driving our country to the bottom.

So, if you’re like me, when you’re backed into a corner, you take the gloves off and you come out swinging. I think that Congress and corporate America really does underestimate the average American patriot. That’s their first and biggest mistake.

If you want to fight the battle to save your home… if you want to go on the offense, then TILA Rescission is one great weapon to fight with. You need to have an audit of your loan file done by someone who really knows what they’re doing. Most of the businesses and people out there claiming to know what they’re doing, don’t. Beware. If someone is trying to charge you over $750 for an audit, don’t just beware, don’t do it.

With a professional audit of your loan closing file, the auditor is investigating for material disclosure violations. If one is found, you have the right to rescind the loan – if the loan has been closed in the last three years and it was funded on your primary residence.

The loan is rescinded by sending a “rescission letter” to the servicer, the originator of the loan and any special servicer(s) that may need to be notified as well.

This puts the screws to the lender immediately and they end up in a real quagmire. TILA is meant to be a “self-enforcing” statute. This means that the lenders are supposed to enforce it on themselves. They are not allowed to sue a homeowner to get around the self-enforcing nature of the statute. Doing so is another violation. The only thing a lender can do is to “seek judicial guidance” in a TILA rescission claim.

In practice, when a homeowner rescinds the loan and IF they have a competent attorney well-versed in TILA, they are going to be asked by the lender or opposing counsel to submit a “proposal.” Folks, this is legal-speak for we’re willing to modify your loan, send us a proposal.

If you truly want a loan modification, a workout of your existing loan, a payment reduction plan, this is THE best and most powerful remedy one can have. Not all homeowners qualify and not all loans will have a material disclosure violation. I can tell you that I find material disclosure violations in greater than 50% of all loan packages I audit.

You have to be very careful to ensure that the “chain of custody” of your loan documents is protected. This is one main area a lender’s attorney will try to attack in an attempt to discredit the claim by saying that the documents could have been lost or altered because the homeowner, auditor and/or attorney for the homeowner were careless in preserving the integrity of the original loan copy package they received from the closing agent. A good attorney and auditor should have procedures and systems in place to combat this potential attack and preserve integrity of the documents.

If you have any questions about the loan audit process or would like to inquire about a professional mortgage loan audit, contact me by email at Lane@LaneHouk.com

DISCLOSURE: I am not an attorney and nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice. Seek out an attorney for any questions pertaining to legal matters. I audit loan files for violations and have education and training in this area of practice. I work with competent consumer-based attorneys who handle legal matters for clients and provide audit report services for consumers and a select group of attorneys.

Jan

UPDATED! – TILA Rescission Case – Bankruptcy Judge Finds in Favor of Borrower

By LH | Court Cases, Truth in Lending

1305 Comments2009-01-17+04%3A06%3A36LH

Below is my original post from January 2009.

This case was just upheld in July 2009 so this is good case law for federal bankruptcy courts. Obviously there may be some judges in different districts who won’t like it or may not adhere to it because it’s not their district. This case should be good if you have to appeal if that’s the route the judge takes but this is great news for homeowners who have rescinded, tendered correctly and the lender/assignee did not respond as per the statute.

At the very least, a trail has been blazed and there is now a federal case which really follows the statute as it is truly written – which is in favor of the consumer.

CLICK HERE to read the case.

By Lane A. Houk
January 16, 2009

The Little Guy (David) vs. the Big Guy (Goliath). These classic battles are being waged in the “War on the Home Front” every single day. The subject of this post is a case that goes to the win column for the Little Guy. We are fighting for our freedom, our country, democracy… we are fighting against corporate and political corruption. I hope you are fighting too. This is a war for our rights and our homes and our American way of life. It’s all under siege folks. Don’t be fooled into complacency.

This is one of the most powerful cases I have read in a long time. CLICK HERE to read the actual case order from the Judge in the Adversary Proceeding. The borrower in this case rescinded the loan transaction because an audit of their closing documents revealed a “material disclosure” violation as is defined in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) and its implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. (“Reg. Z”).

Once the Consumer rescinds, the security interest arising by operation of law becomes void automatically. The promissory note is also voided since it is part of the same “transaction.”

The borrower in this case had foreclosure filed against them. After retaining an attorney for the foreclosure, the attorney advised them to have an audit of their loan closing file which revealed a material disclosure violation. It is important to note that a loan can ONLY be rescinded when:

The loan is a refinance transaction;
Funded in the last three years
On the borrower’s primary residence;
When a “material disclosure violation” is found

The borrower in this case was given an insufficient amount of the Notice of Right to Cancel. A borrower should receive two (2) copies of the Notice.

If a married couple is identifiable on a Universal Residential Application, then each consumer is entitled to rescind and must be given a copy of the TILA Disclosure Statement with all material information accurately and correctly disclosed, 15 U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z § 226.23(a)(3) n.48, and two (2) copies each of the rescission notice, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a); Reg. Z § 226.23(b), irrespective of whether both are obligated on the note (or either, for that matter).

In this case, the borrowers were married and received only 2 copies total. Material disclosure violation. Thus they rescinded. The lender Option One obviously contested the matter.

Once the Consumer rescinds, the security interest arising by operation of law becomes void automatically. The promissory note is also voided since it is part of the same “transaction,” see i.e., 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) and Reg. Z § 226.23(d)(1).]

This is powerful folks. This is a complete remedy to foreclosure. The mortgage is the security interest and it is the mortgage (and the mortgage only) that gives the lender the right to foreclose. In a rescission, the lender must void the mortgage within 20 days. If it does not, it is another violation of TILA.

After rescinding the loan the borrowers also filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The lender refused to rescind the loan. The borrowers filed an Adversary Proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. Bottom line: The judge heard all arguments from both Plaintiff (borrower) and the Defendant (Option One). The judge found in favor of the borrower/plaintiff and determined that they had the right to rescind. Victory number one.

But a BIG ruling in this case was that since they had rescinded the loan, the loan became an “unsecured” debt since the mortgage was automatically voided as per TILA. Since the debt became “unsecured” it was able to be discharged through bankruptcy like any other type of unsecured debt such as a credit card debt.

The moral of the story: TILA Rescission is the most powerful remedy to foreclosure if/when the borrower has this remedy afforded to them. The key is to obtain a loan audit by a real expert. Call/email me if this is something you want to do. I encourage you to read the Adversary Proceeding Case. It is highly enlightening.

Jan

Loan Rescission and TILA Violations

By LH | Court Cases, Foreclosure Defense Research, General, Homeowner Resources, Truth in Lending

797 CommentsLoan+Rescission+and+TILA+Violations2009-01-11+03%3A36%3A56LH

I recently started a blog post about TILA Violations and what these violations can mean for the financial institutions. This is a BIG can of worms for them because a large percentage of home loans were funded in violation of the federal TILA statute and its implementing regulations found in Regulation Z.

In short, if a TILA violation is found within 3 years of closing on a refinance transaction of the borrower’s primary residence, the debtor/borrower can “rescind the loan.” By serving notice to the lender of the debtor’s action to rescind the loan, the lender has “20 days to return all finance charges, downpayment monies, etc.” to the borrower and must also “remove all security interests on the property” in 20 days.

If the lender fails to do so, it is in violation of TILA requirements, mainly 15 USC §1635 and, according to paragraph “b” of this section, there are some huge implications for both debtor and creditor if the creditor does not comply with these requirements.

Here’s a sample case that you can read as evidence of how powerful this remedy can be: Belini v. WAMU

Call or email me if you want help pursuing a TILA violation against you. These are cases for attorneys to take up and we have an extensive network of attorneys that we can help you get in touch with.

Jan

And the Truth (in Lending) Shall Set You Free

By LH | Foreclosure Defense Research, Homeowner Resources, Loan Modification, Truth in Lending

61Leave a Comment2009-01-11+02%3A00%3A18LH

In the midst of the mortgage meltdown, I’m searching for every tool that might provide a lever to modify a mortgage. In every case involving a home, I’m inquiring about when the existing loans were made, since the borrower has three years from the transaction to rescind a loan for violations of the Truth in Lending Act – if it is their primary residence and a refinance loan.

The neat thing about TILA violations is that they are strict liability causes of action: the aggrieved borrower doesn’t have to prove they were defrauded or misled, or that they had actual damages. The fact that the disclosures were defective or inadequate in amount gives the borrower the right to rescind the loan and deprives the lender of the right to interest on the loan. Pretty powerful stuff.

Powerful stuff is what we need to keep people in their homes: tools to bring the lender to the table to revisit the loan and find an alternative to foreclosure. Because absent some sort of restructuring, a tremendous number of these impossible loans will otherwise be foreclosed. In the long run, a foreclosure benefits neither party.

My small, unscientific sample says that I am finding TILA violations in at least half of the loans I’m reviewing these days. TILA doesn’t apply to financing of investment property, but for me, it’s the family homes that I’m intent on saving.

So, if you have a loan taken out in the past three years, gather all of the documents you got at closing and give me a call at 1-800-985-4685 to get the transaction reviewed for Truth in Lending compliance. Once those three years are past, there is little that TILA can do for you.

You need to really read what I’m about to quote from part of TILA – otherwise known as The Truth in Lending Act. This excerpt comes from 15 USC §1635 (a)(b) and (f). With our expert attorneys in our network, we can help homeowners who have refinanced in the last three years look for TILA violations. If any are found, the below excerpt applies to your situation. This is POWERFUL!

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 1635Prev | Next

(a) Disclosure of obligor’s right to rescind
Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction (including opening or increasing the credit limit for an open end credit plan) in which a security interest, including any such interest arising by operation of law, is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter, whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so. The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Board, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section. The creditor shall also provide, in accordance with regulations of the Board, appropriate forms for the obligor to exercise his right to rescind any transaction subject to this section.

(b) Return of money or property following rescission
When an obligor exercises his right to rescind under subsection (a) of this section, he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction. If the creditor has delivered any property to the obligor, the obligor may retain possession of it. Upon the performance of the creditor’s obligations under this section, the obligor shall tender the property to the creditor, except that if return of the property in kind would be impracticable or inequitable, the obligor shall tender its reasonable value. Tender shall be made at the location of the property or at the residence of the obligor, at the option of the obligor. If the creditor does not take possession of the property within 20 days after tender by the obligor, ownership of the property vests in the obligor without obligation on his part to pay for it. The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court.

(f) Time limit for exercise of right
An obligor’s right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first, notwithstanding the fact that the information and forms required under this section or any other disclosures required under this part have not been delivered to the obligor

Edward J. Pinto

Two of Ed’s latest articles:

~~~

~~~

Edward J. Pinto

~~~

From Fannie Mae to FHA –

Two of Ed’s latest articles:

~~~

Good Morning, New Jersey…

The state’s high court ruled that because the foreclosure notice that the servicer sent to the Guillaumes did not include the name and address of the lender in addition to that of the servicer, it did fail to comply with New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act.

Additionally, the high court also reversed a separate appellate decision, known as “Laks.”

Okay, I hate to say this but… does any of this really matter to homeowners? Aren’t both positions merely a delay, and not much of a delay at that?

Why are we giving our government a pass?

EPILOGUE…

Let’s UNITE homeowners around fairness, instead of DIVIDING them over delays…

This is the real deal… you could call it “reality podcasting.” Turn up your speakers, sit back, relax, and listen as three justices from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struggle to balance the rule of law against the dreaded “free house.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I did…

CLICK BELOW:

The Inflatable Loan Pool

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

“of AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006, 93 percent — 93 percent! — have now been downgraded to junk status.”

Berating the Raters

Finally a politician who puts principle ahead of politics!!

If you have any questions about the loan audit process or would like to inquire about a professional mortgage loan audit, contact me by email at Lane@LaneHouk.com

Quick Browse | Pick A Category

Connect with Us Immediately

Daily Dose of Inspiration

Popular Tags & Terms Cloud

Need Internet Marketing?

**“of AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in 2006, 93 percent — 93 percent! — have now been downgraded to junk status.”**