Banks Put Linda Green Behind Them With $10 Billion Robosigning Settlement
The chapter on robosigning, i.e., Fraudclosure, is now closed with a $10 billion wristslap on US banks, of which a whopping $3.3 billion in the form of direct cash and $5.2 billion in "other assistance." The banks who are now absolved from any and all Linda Green transgressions in the past include: Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. And so, banks can resume to resell properties with mortgages on which the original lien may or may not have been lost in the sands of time.
From the Fed:
Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance
Ten mortgage servicing companies subject to enforcement actions for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing have reached an agreement in principle with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board to pay more than $8.5 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help borrowers.
The sum includes $3.3 billion in direct payments to eligible borrowers and $5.2 billion in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments. The payments involve mortgage servicers operating under enforcement actions issued in April 2011 by the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of Thrift Supervision. The agreement ensures that more than 3.8 million borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 with the participating servicers will receive cash compensation in a timely manner.
Eligible borrowers are expected to receive compensation ranging from hundreds of dollars up to $125,000, depending on the type of possible servicer error.
This agreement includes Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. For these participating servicers, fulfillment of the agreement would meet the requirements of the enforcement actions that mandated that the servicers retain independent consultants to conduct an Independent Foreclosure Review.
As a result of this agreement, the participating servicers would cease the Independent Foreclosure Review, which involved case-by-case reviews, and replace it with a broader framework allowing eligible borrowers to receive compensation significantly more quickly. The OCC and the Federal Reserve accepted this agreement because it provides the greatest benefit to consumers subject to unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices during the relevant period in a more timely manner than would have occurred under the review process. Eligible borrowers will receive compensation whether or not they filed a request for review form, and borrowers do not need to take further action to be eligible for compensation.
A payment agent will be appointed to administer payments to borrowers on behalf of the servicers. Eligible borrowers are expected to be contacted by the payment agent by the end of March with payment details. Borrowers will not be required to execute a waiver of any legal claims they may have against their servicer as a condition for receiving payment. In addition, the servicers' internal complaint process will remain available to borrowers.
The agencies continue to work to reach similar agreements in principle with other servicers that are not parties to the agreement announced today, but that are also subject to enforcement actions for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.
OCC and Federal Reserve examiners are continuing to closely monitor the servicers' implementation of plans required by the enforcement actions issued in April 2011 to correct the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.
* * *
The signatures below have now been "indemnified":
(9 votes)
- advertisements -
»
- 10422 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- The Banks' "Penalty" To Put Robosigning Behind Them: $300 Per Person
- Banks To Get Away Scott-Free Again? Mass Fraudclosure Settlement To Be Announced Today Without Financial Penalties
- No More Wire Hangers WaMu's... Ever!
- Moody's Puts Too Big To Fail Banks On Outlook Negative Over Laughable Concerns Barney Frank May Just Let Them Fail
- The CDS Market And Anti-Trust Considerations
Quite simply this is a Travshamockery. Nuff said.
Be careful what you wish for. Increase in government power!
http://confoundedinterest.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/10-billion-foreclosur...
this was inevitable...who could be surprised? The money BOA used came from FNM or the Fed in the FIRST PLACE. It's a circle jerk.
They gave FNM some money that FNM will now give back to them for newly-sanitized mortgages.
Why should anyone obey any laws? We have banks which are clearly guilty of fraud by every possible legal definition of the word. We have bankers who are guilty of theft. (Corzine is still free after *STEALING* one billion dollars of client funds).
This is outright lawlessness. The moral of the story which is being CLEARLY communicated by our legal system is simple: Crime pays and *will not* be prosecuted.
ANY crime and ONLY a fine!
You make me want to cover Samy Davis Jr's Baretta theme song and change the words to fit this act of fascism.
The government collects the penalty from the miscreants and those harmed see no benefit.
Whatever happened to the good olde restitution and time resulting from fraud?
See: Jon Corzine
10 billion? that's a whole 5 minutes of QE
One of my properties has a BONY loan on it, and wouldn't you know those sneaky effers aren't party to any of this crap though I don't doubt they are just as guilty.
BoNY acted as trustees for pension funds and other parties where they committed fraud via markups on foreign exchange contracts undisclosed and other fraudulent practices along with Mellon Bank an affiliate
depending on the bank specialty - the line of business - ALL include Fraud as a business tool
What happened to all the county recorders whom were going to go after the banksters and MERS for not paying recording and transfer fees? There were billions owed to local governments for non-payment of fees? Anyone have an update, or did the banksters some how throw them a few bucks to settle that too?
exactly...i will never buy a property again.....nobody and i mean nobody knows whether there is clear title...you will be told...dont worry, you have title insurance, what could possibly go wrong?....
Title insurance only covers up to the original purchase price and has all sorts of "outs" for the insurance company. If your house goes up in value due to the market and improvements, and you have a defective title you could be SOL. Here they are issuing "special warranty deeds" that won't cover prior transactions defects. Yes, the chains of title will be FUBAR for many years to come.
Great. And by waiting rates have come down to the basement and house prices are up which has made banks whole again. Just 2 weeks ago I bid 351K above ask on a foreclosure. It went for 450K above ask with 17 offers.
All the offers were cash. The bank foreclosed in July with an outstanding loan, interest, penalty balance of about 1.1M. This sale netted the bank about 350K.
Is anyone going to actually live in the house? Wait are you that guy that works for Citadel that overbid by millions on the beachfront property?
You are just playing the greater fool game. Investments aren't tangible assets, they are tools to find the greater fool.
Speculators are only bidding above ask for real estate because they believe an even richer fool will bid above them at a later date.
Maybe PSY was spotted in the area, giving a quick 20% gain to every house in the neighborhood.
It's always been the civil suits that will bring this thing down... the big issue is informing courts as to what all has been going on. Quite simply, courts don't believe that the banks (or anyone else) could have been that fraudulent, etc. It takes some educating.... but, once aroused, there have been plenty of courts (and juries) that will break it off in them. In other words, all is not lost, yet.
I understand that the law is your area of expertise and that I'm completely out of my element here.
That said (foot now firmly planted in my mouth) I can't help but wonder......if what you say might happen and that the courts (and juries) become "informed", that "national security" might be invoked at some point and just wipe those nasty suits right away.
We seem to be seeing a whole lot of extralegal shenanigans lately.
Robosigning is not the problem, only a symptom of the problem. The banks that come to court with the note are the ones committing fraud as in 99% of the cases, it was deposited in the REMIC without recourse.
It is funny that after 3 years, the majority of people are still missing the whole problem. How can a bank or other show up when it is part of a mortgage back security?
There is no collectivism in the law, if you do not stand up for yourself, be prepared to get back in line.
One of my fathers friends is virtually bankrupt but had a $700k home outside Boston. They foreclosed on his home but they couldn't provide any paper documentation that the bank owned the home, so he gets to keep it.
That scenario is the only reason we have a robust refinancing drive in this country. MERS fucked up the chain of ownership with respect to mortgages and notes. Without it, people are paying down notes that are in some cases not attached to mortgages. Remember that notes are the loans and mortgages describe the collateral (your home). MERS and MBS unintentionally severed notes from mortgages making your father's friend situation possible and a very common story around the country.
..
Bingo! You got Bingo!
15 USC 1641(f) 2)
Given the very first opportunity to break the law - they did. REMIC Failure cannot be cured...and all the mortgages within the trusts are no longer "qualified".
Yup! To me the robo-signers are the least dishonest... the ones that show up with all the paperwork that should be with the REMIC are even worse.
yes it is...wtf, haven't you been paying ATTENTION the past 10, 15, 30 years?
Fraud like this will be papered over. Too many civil suits and they will just pass a law and sweep it under the rug. It will be yet ANOTHER chance for the deadbeat leeches who "bought" the houses to get even MORE free crap.
Yes on a macro level, no on a micro level discussing the specific topic at hand...
Well it seems like they are getting off for past transgressions, but does this do anything to solve the problem of banks fubaring the collateral process, putting blank notes through the REMICs, fractional reserve MSBs, etc?
Robosigning was a very small part of the whole RE fiasco.
What are your thoughts?
pods
No. The government cannot speak for or take private rights or property without first offering just compensation (the government can change the law, however, that typically does not invalidate pre-existing causes of action). As a result, the extent of the government's settlements is for the government to agree not to prosecute either in criminal or civil matters associated with the settlement topic... and, even then, only specifically for the topic agreed [I think fraud and some other exceptions might be present; not that it matters]. This also has nothing to do with States' causes of action (criminal or civil)... so they had to pony up and pay the AGs too.
Private suits are still wide open... however, the big issue is the cost of discovery... if the governments' (all kinds/levels) investigations were... diligent in the slightest, then every attorney in the country needs a copy of all the discovered documents/results...
There is also the issue of breaking international laws... I suspect some foreign governments may get in on the hunt, but settle for pennies on the dollar (like states) given they are beholden to the mighty printing press the same.
Thanks MM.
I cannot see how they could wave a wand and (ex post facto) make this whole mess go away. I think what they are going to try to do is wait for all the toxic sludge to purge from the system, as most mortages last like what, 7-10 years. Add in the Maiden Lane backstop and the FED purchasing MBSs, the banks are just hoping to keep the status quo while the pool of toxic sludge slowly shrinks.
pods
Yep. FED is bad bank... how long it can weather the storm while full of toxic assets is anyone's guess, but I'd be long ink. You are correct as best I can tell...
About the only thing, remedially speaking, that is possible are putbacks... the GSEs need to putback everything and then the FED needs to do likewise... with the loans eventually residing at their issuer or close thereto (letting all those along the line play hot potato). Basically one big do-over... all the money "sitting in banks" gets paid out in settlements to make whole those who were defrauded, etc.
Of course, all this might have some perverse effects on velocity.
MachMan and or Chunga,
I received the following e-mail from Chase Mortgage, my original servicer for my note from Freddie Mac:
Hello Mark,
My name is Wendell Berry and I am a Mortgage Banker at Chase. The reason for this email is that Chase is currently in the process of complying with a mandate to contact all current mortgage customers who have been deemed eligible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac HARP program. It has been determined that the loan you have with us is eligible for this program. You can review details for this program on the attached flyer or at the program website, www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.
The benefits of this program are as follows:
- You will be able to refinance your primary mortgage to a new conventional FNMA/FHLMC loan even if your credit score is below the normal threshold of 660
- An appraisal may not be required under certain circumstances
- Debt-to-income (DTI) limitations are waived in most circumstances
- This program requires no income or asset verification in most cases
- If you currently are not paying mortgage insurance then it will not be added even if your new loan-to-value (LTV) is over 80%
- There is no loan-to-value (LTV) limitation
Based on my preliminary review of your loan there is currently an opportunity to lower your rate and payment and possibly shorten your term. It is extremely important that I speak with you regarding it. In today’s rapidly changing economy it is important that we investigate all available options to save our customers money on their mortgages. I encourage you to call to discuss your options. As always, thank you for doing business with Chase!
If you are not 100% satisfied with my service or your experience with Chase at any time, please let me or my manager know right away. Our contact information is below. Thank you for choosing Chase.
L. Wendell Berry II, Mortgage Banker
NMLS ID 497967
Mortgage Banking
Chase
4660 E. Main St, Whitehall OH, 43213
My original loan is 30 year fixed rate of 6% signed in May 2006. I do have PMI as I only put 10% down since i was not sure how long I would reside in Ohio. The house value is probably 5 to 10 % less than my mortgage. My credit score is high 700's and DTI is below 1.
I plan on asking Chase to provide documentation proving title is still with Freddie Mac and has not been assigned to a REMIC through MERS. I would like to refinance but want to make sure the title path has not been obscured.
Any advice would be appreciated.
QF
Whar? Whar civil suts?
No.
The bank and the 'courts' are all part of the same entity, the one that has hijacked everything else, so they ain't gonna do anything about it.
Legal land and the bank are the same thing.
They know, we (some of us) don't.
Legal is not Law.
Never was, never will be. The 'courts' are an invention of the elite/banks/.gov/etc. and they don't deal in fairness or justice. They're all in it for the money (that ain't real), they steal whilst pretending to be the guardians of justice and our ignorance enables them to do so.
Bending the meanings of words and spells is what they do. Trickery and deceit wearing a $mile.
Everything is not as it may seem, it is all bent.
Kind of... and I certainly agree with the bulk of your premise. The problem? Well, power didn't get all of the laws changed to benefit itself before it took a bite of the apple... As a result, courts can simply follow the express law (and mountains of case law, e.g. separation of note/mortgage) and get to a J6P favorable result... [although, everyone is fucked because this too benefits the imprudent, but I digress]. At the end of the day, courts have to follow the law. In these cases, there really aren't any fact questions... it's primarily a legal question [the facts can't really be disputed]. Even if the yokel court gets it wrong, the appellate court probably won't... It's really a simple equation... the big impediment at the present is the cost of discovery for individual suits. Once critical mass has been obtained of discovery (probably nearing it, although chunga is better suited to speak on the issue), then everyone can piggypack on old affidavits, depositions, etc. and have all the necessary materials to win their cases...
They can win anyway, regardless, in more than one way.
Mortgage is fraud. There is no equal consideration (amongst other things), so that means the contract is void, which means you don't owe anthying.
Also worth bearing in mind is, you can't sell something that isn't yours (fraud), so right from the go (more than likely) you buy your house off someone else who hasn't paid for it yet themselves, which means they can't sell it (fraud again) without owning it in the first place. Then we have the banks chopping up mortgages that are already fraud into derivatives and bundling them up to sell on again ... which is fraud, because you can't sell something that isn't yours, especially if you don't tell them about it first, only after you get busted.
But then, you own the monopoly board anyway so you can print 'get out of jail free' cards along with all of your dough.
Bank/legal land/.gov/fraud ~ same shit in different buckets.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on this site, but the issue of consideration is a misnomer... The only bank that does not give consideration is the initial mover, e.g. the FED. The remainder of the system (albeit feeders at the trough) consists of entities separate and apart from the FED. As a result, in order to procure the funds, these feeder banks must borrow from the FED. This constitutes legal consideration.
Although, this arrangement gets blurry post bailout nation... [also post sub-prime... despite repeated attempts to reblow the bubble].
It isn't just the consideration regarding the contract. That's just one, another one would be that the bank, knowing that there was no consideration, acted with aforethought of malice to deliberately defraud you, which is also a breach of contract, so that's two down out of four, but there are a couple or more still left. Contract void, you owe nothing.
I just explained why there was consideration... you act as though the concepts you're pontificating haven't been tried before (do you really think that lawyers wouldn't jump at the chance to argue their clients owe no money??? Give em a cut of the saved note costs and everybody wins, right?)... you've been the victim of misinformation.
The bank does not make representations about what the price of your home is going to do... and, frankly, even if it did tell you that your home would mercilessly appreciate in value so that you can HELOC yourself silly, then no reasonable person could rely upon such nonsense (thereby precluding fraud... aside from the fact that it would be a representation about a future event, which also isn't fraud). It fails the basic math/smell test. In other words, there is a huge divide between people thinking that their assets are going to increase in value and some third party promising you that they will... the former (as happened in this case) creates no legal cause of action.
The other issue is ratification/waiver... which, over time, can cure an otherwise void contract (e.g. used car salesman sells a car to a 16 year old, he drives it til he's 21 and then tries to invalidate the contract for his prior incapacity... no dice). Needless to say, there were plenty of payments made on these loans before they went south... or other actions which might constitute waiver/ratification.
We're also discussing moreso the ramifications of the liens on the property, rather than the notes themselves... in short, it's one thing to invalidate a mortgage (or have it rendered unenforceable)... it's a whole other ballgame to say that you owe nothing on the note. Big difference.
You're approaching the problem incorrectly...
Interrupting here - but quick quesiton. What about the recent LIBOR fraud scandals in relation to an ARM? Is that one being argued yet? It should be.
AFAIK, there are dozens if not hundreds of LIBOR suits... states/municipalities are jumping on the bandwagon...
The biggest issue I see with that argument is damages... considering rates have been monkeyhammered into the ground, I fail to see where J6P was hurt... in fact, J6P should probably give them a big hug for the help. Now, issuers of debt and purchasers of derivatives to hedge against interest rate changes might be a different story.
Further, even if one was damaged, I'm not sure that would invalidate the contract/note... rather, damages would be the difference between the market rate (outside of manipulation; whatever the fuck that is) and the actual payments... probably a small fraction of the monthly payment (and only for the interest portion). For the average mortgage, maybe $100-$200 (max) per month for??? 5 years? I know many lawyers that would take that kind of case, but $10k is not enough in controversy to even litigate the vast majority of the time.... for people that don't care about simply proving a point/having their day in court.
Mortgage: A French legal term literally meaning 'dead pledge'. Mort=dead: gage=pledge.
The dead cannot lawfully own property.
And the payoff to the judges and clerks of the 'court' comes from Court Registry Investment System managed by the Fed and JPM.
You're right about that, MachoMan. I fought for 2 years over a HAMP Fraud in the Inducement. Only a few judges like Judge Schack "get it". I had one who was somewhat fair-minded, but still didn't want to hold the banksters accountable for ANYTHING. I don't get this attitude. Is it because the judges are overwhelmed with cases? Are they actually bought-off? What on earth accounts for the attitudes of turning justice's alleged "blind eyes" to FRAUD? How can they "not believe" the fraud after they see it 100s of times in the courses of their daily cases? My case settled and I did squeeze some money out of the bankster - but they did end up with my property which they never did prove they owned - that's okay though - house falling apart. I'm in a better place now and have moved on.
It's a psychological impediment... I do believe that there is some corruption (probably well documented in Florida), but I think most of it is simply knee-jerk reaction/stereotyping, among other issues. The biggest issue though is that courts tend to make bad decisions when deciding between two deadbeats... (courts make bad precedent when there is only one deadbeat, e.g. a "result oriented" judiciary, ex. they want to make the judgment for granny stick, despite it being against established law). Here, we have a deadbeat creditor (totally fucking worthless pieces of shit) and a deadbeat homeowner (clearly in default). It's simply not very convincing to the court (nor anyone else for that matter) that you argue "I didn't pay my mortgage, but they can't foreclose on me." The entire purpose of the court is to administer justice... and, in these cases, it tends to be foggy because there's no love lost for either side. Another issue is that for the most part, these judges see deadbeat debtors all day every day and as soon as you walk in, you're lumped into the same category. In the vast majority of cases, the creditor should win where the debtor admits default... it's pretty simple... One strategy that's good to employ always is to make the court's decision easy... if you can offer a solution that lets the judge get to fishing a day earlier than scheduled, you make that argument!
The real argument, imo (from the academic side anyway) is to uphold the sanctity of the law... both sides suck, but not siding for the homeowner throws precedent out the window and takes a giant shit on procedural safeguards as well as rudimentary policy (figuring out who the fuck actually has a lien on the land). About the only time you can get a sympathetic court is to have a blue hair that got booted out on christmas or something... the rest is largely academic and mind numbingly boring.
Thanks for the reply.
Two words: Cognitive Dissonance. Or they're just paid off.
Tyler:
Could you supply a high resolution image of that pic.
I'd like to make a T-shirt out of it, and when sombody asks about it, I'll let 'em know how they got screwed, and the Banks got off with a slap on the wrist.
Thanks.
She junked you...
I believe you'll find her in the local (JP) Morgue under the anon "Jane Doe".
Brutally mugged by the TBTF, then left to die on the bloody sidewalk as pedestrians hurried by, afraid to look or even to care.
are you sure? I thought she had donned a 24K cloth of gold toga and was offering her wares to the banksters with the most coin.