10 Banks Agree to Pay $8.5B for Foreclosure Abuse

10 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Fed, Foreclosure Crisis, Fraud

Ten major banks agreed Monday to pay $8.5 billion to settle federal complaints that they wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners who should have been allowed to stay in their homes.

The banks, which include JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC), will pay billions to homeowners to end a review process of foreclosure files that was required under a 2011 enforcement action. The review was ordered because banks mishandled people’s paperwork and skipped required steps in the foreclosure process.

The settlement was announced jointly by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve.

Separately, Bank of America agreed Monday to pay $11.6 billion to government-backed mortgage financier Fannie Mae to settle claims related to mortgages that soured during the housing crash.

The agreements are the banks’ latest step toward eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars in potential liabilities related to the housing crisis that crested in 2008. When they release fourth-quarter earnings later this month, the banks hope to reassure investors that they are making progress toward addressing those so-called legacy claims.

But advocates say the foreclosure deal allows banks to escape responsibility for damages that might have cost them much more. Regulators are settling at too low a price and possibly at the expense of the consumer, they say.

“This was supposed to be about compensating homeowners for the harm they suffered,” said Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. The payout guidelines already allowed wronged homeowners less compensation than the actual damages to them, she said.

Under the settlement, people who were wrongfully foreclosed on could receive from $1,000 up to $125,000. Failing to offer someone a loan modification would be considered a lighter offense; unfairly seizing and selling a person’s home would entitle that person to the biggest payment, according to guidelines released last summer by the OCC.

The agreement covers up to 3.8 million people who were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010. All will receive some amount of compensation. That’s an average of $2,237 per homeowner, although the payouts are expected to vary widely.

About $3.3 billion would be direct payments to borrowers, regulators said. Another $5.2 billion would pay for other assistance including loan modifications.

The companies involved in the settlement also include Citigroup (C), MetLife Bank (MET), PNC Financial Services (PNC), Sovereign, SunTrust (STI), U.S. Bank (USB) and Aurora. The 2011 action also included GMAC Mortgage, HSBC (HBC) and EMC (EMC).

The deal “represents a significant change in direction” from the original, 2011 agreements, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry said in a statement.

Banks and consumer advocates had complained that the loan-by-loan reviews required under the 2011 order were time consuming and costly without reaching many homeowners. Banks were paying large sums to consultants who were reviewing the files. Some questioned the independence of those consultants, who often ruled against homeowners.

Curry said the new deal meets the original objectives “by ensuring that consumers are the ones who will benefit, and that they will benefit more quickly and in a more direct manner.”

“It has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners and also needlessly delay the dispensation of compensation to affected borrowers,” Curry said.

Thompson agreed that the earlier review process was deeply flawed and said the move toward direct payments is a positive development. But she said the deal will only work if it includes strong oversight and transparency provisions.

“It’s another get out of jail free card for the banks,” said Thompson. “It caps their liability at a total number that’s less than they thought they were going to pay going in.”

Citigroup said in a statement that the bank is “pleased to have the matter resolved” and believes the agreement “will provide benefits for homeowners.” Citi expects to record a charge of $305 million in the fourth quarter of 2012 to cover its cash payment under the settlement. The bank expects that existing reserves will cover its $500 million share of the non-cash foreclosure aid.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said the agreements were “a significant step” in resolving the bank’s remaining legacy mortgage issues while streamlining the company and reducing future expenses.

Leaders of a House oversight panel asked regulators for a briefing on the proposed settlement on Friday. Regulators refused to brief Congress before announcing the deal publicly.

Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed” in the regulators’ actions.

“I have serious concerns that this settlement may allow banks to skirt what they owe and sweep past abuses under the rug without determining the full harm borrowers have suffered,” Cummings said. He said regulators have failed to answer key questions about how the settlement was reached, who will get the money and what will happen to others who were harmed by these banks but were not included in the settlement.

The settlement is separate from a $25 billion settlement between 49 state attorneys general, federal regulators and five banks: Ally, formerly known as GMAC; Bank of America; Citigroup; JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will help you challenge these fraudsters and save your home from foreclosure visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

What Florida Homeowners Need to Know About Mortgage Assignments

05 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, MERS, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, Assignment (law), Business, Florida Supreme Court, Promissory note, Securitization, UCC, Uniform Commercial Code

Today, a mortgage originator might make hundreds of loans and assign them as collateral to borrow money from a bank in a “mortgage warehouse facility.” The borrowed money is used to originate more mortgages. A mortgage warehouse is often only temporary, so the mortgages might be transferred from one facility to another. When the mortgage originator has a sufficiently large pool of mortgages, it may permanently “securitize” them by assigning them to a newly formed company that issues securities that are then sold to investors. In the end, the company owns the mortgages, and the investors receive payments on the securities which are based on the collections from the mortgage pool. In this manner, mortgages are effectively packaged as securities, which can more easily be traded than individual mortgages — hence the name “securitization.”

The recorded form assignment I prepared as a young associate is not well-suited to use in these transactions. Because transactions involve the assignment of hundreds or even thousands of mortgages, there is a temptation to skip the step of recording an assignment in the public records, particularly when the assignment is only a temporary collateral assignment. Transactions sometimes take the form of nothing more than an unrecorded pledge of the mortgages in bulk to the bank, together with delivery of the original notes to the bank for perfection. In many instances, even the task of holding possession of the notes is outsourced to a bailee who holds the notes for the bank’s benefit. The mortgages might be transferred many times by unrecorded assignment in bulk without physically moving the notes, but with the bailee simply signing a receipt changing the name of the lender for whom it holds the notes.

The attorneys who pioneered these transactions were comforted that the structure would work by legal conclusions they drew from Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the Official Comments to the UCC (Comments),² and favorable case law.³ The law was clear enough that attorneys were able to give legal opinions concerning perfection, but as the amount of securitized mortgages reached into the trillions of dollars, the uniform law commissioners decided to revisit Article 9 and make it safe for securitizations by officially sanctioning these practices.

It is useful to observe the simplicity of a mortgage assignment in its purest form. F.S. §673.2031(1) (2010), governing negotiable instruments, states that “[a]n instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.” Even before the UCC, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a mortgage can be transferred without a written assignment simply by delivering the note with intent to assign it.⁴ So at its core, between the parties to the assignment, assigning a mortgage is very much like selling a used lawn mower. What makes it more complex in practice is the potential for disputes and the precautions that must be taken to protect the parties. There are a number of contexts in which mortgage assignments might be considered:

1) The rights of a mortgage assignor and assignee vis-a-vis each other;

2) The rights of a mortgage assignee relative to the rights of its creditors, including lien creditors and bankruptcy trustees;

3) The rights of a mortgage assignee relative to the rights of a subsequent assignee;

4) The obligation of a mortgagor to make payment to the mortgage holder;

5) The right of the mortgage holder to foreclose in the event of default; and

6) The rights of a person acquiring an interest in the real estate.

The drafters of Article 9 focused primarily on problems one through three because these related to the issues that most concerned securitization participants and their attorneys. The rules the drafters set up treated mortgages as personal property that could be transferred without regard to the real estate records.⁵ Article 9 extends to sales of promissory notes, as well as assignments for security purposes.⁶ Although Article 9 recognizes some differences between collateral assignments and sales of notes, the UCC does not provide rules to distinguish a collateral assignment from an absolute assignment.⁷ Thus, the term “secured party” includes a collateral assignee as well as a purchaser of promissory notes,⁸ and the term “debtor” includes both an assignor of promissory notes for security and a seller of promissory notes.⁹

Problem 1 — Attachment
Article 3 governs the transfer of negotiable instruments. Article 9 governs security interests in and sales of both negotiable and nonnegotiable promissory notes. Thus, there is some overlap. The principal effect of extending Article 9 to sales of promissory notes was to apply the perfection and priority rules to those transactions.

F.S. §679.2031 (2010) determines when an assignment “attaches” or in other words, when it becomes effective between the assignor and assignee. That section requires that a) value be given; b) the debtor has rights in the collateral; and c) either the debtor has “authenticated a security agreement” describing the collateral or the secured party is in possession of the collateral pursuant to the security agreement.¹⁰

In the case of an assignment of a promissory note, the promissory note is the “collateral”¹¹ and the assignment is the “security agreement.”¹² Thus, the assignment becomes enforceable between the assignor and assignee when value is given, the assignor has assignable rights in the promissory note, and the assignor has either executed a written assignment describing the promissory note or the assignee has taken possession pursuant to the agreement of the assignor to assign the promissory note. Attachment of the security interest to the promissory note also constitutes attachment of the security interest to the mortgage, effectively adopting the pre-Article 9 case law that the mortgage follows the promissory note.¹³

A written assignment of the promissory note will satisfy the “security agreement” requirement whether the assignment is made pursuant to a sale or for the purpose of collateral. Similarly, an indorsement pursuant to Article 3 should satisfy that requirement.¹⁴ However, the implication of F.S. §§673.2031 and 679.2031 (2010), and of Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140 (Fla. 1938), is that the security agreement need not be in writing, so long as there is intent to assign and the promissory note is delivered to the assignee.¹⁵

Problem 2 — Perfection
Third parties lacking notice are not bound merely because the assignor and assignee have agreed among themselves that the mortgage has been transferred to the assignee. To protect the assignee from claims of third parties dealing with the assignor, the assignment must be perfected. Perfection of the security interest in the promissory note operates to perfect a security interest in the mortgage.¹⁶ The assignee may perfect its rights against the conflicting rights of a lien creditor (including a judgment lien holder, bankruptcy trustee, or receiver)¹⁷ by taking possession of the original promissory note¹⁸ or by filing a financing statement in the applicable filing office¹⁹ (which for a debtor located in Florida is the Florida Secured Transactions Registry).²⁰ Possession may be effected by means of a bailee, provided that the bailee authenticates a writing acknowledging that it holds possession for the benefit of the secured party.²¹ However, not all modes of perfection are equal. As discussed below in connection with priority, possession of the promissory note generally offers more protection than filing a financing statement. All modes of perfection, however, provide protection against the rights of a subsequent lien creditor.²²

In the case of a sale of the promissory note (as opposed to a collateral assignment), perfection is automatic upon attachment.²³ Thus, neither possession nor filing is needed to perfect against the rights of subsequent lien creditors, provided that the assignment is a true sale rather than a secured transaction. However, for several reasons, absolute assignees often perfect by possession of the promissory note and/or filing, even though perfection is automatic in the case of a sale.²⁴

Problem 3 — Priority
The question of whether an assignee prevails over another assignee is one of priority. Pursuant to F.S. §679.322(1)(a) (2010), if both assignments are perfected, then priority is generally determined by the time of filing or perfection. Perfection is accomplished by filing automatically in the case of sales, or by possession of the promissory note. However, §679.322(3) refers to F.S. §679.330 (2010), which states in part: “[A] purchaser of an instrument has priority over a security interest in the instrument perfected by a method other than possession if the purchaser gives value and takes possession of the instrument in good faith and without knowledge that the purchase violates the rights of the secured party.”

Regardless of whether the assignee receives absolute ownership pursuant to a true sale or merely an assignment for the purpose of security, the assignee is considered a “purchaser.”²⁵ If the second assignee takes possession for value in good faith and without knowledge that it violates the first assignee’s rights, then the second assignee takes priority over an assignment perfected without possession. Mere filing of a financing statement by the first assignee (and even actual knowledge by the second assignee of such a filing) is not enough to charge the second assignee with a lack of good faith or knowledge that the second assignment violated the first assignee’s rights.²⁶ It is not clear precisely what facts might disqualify the assignee in possession from relying on §679.330(4) for its priority, but F.S. §671.201(20) (2010) provides a general definition of “good faith,” which requires honesty in fact (an actual knowledge standard), and observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. Given this nebulous standard, the party who perfects by filing or automatically should assume that it will not be protected against a subsequent assignee who takes possession.

The foregoing principles are demonstrated in American Bank of the South v. Rothenberg, 598 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In that case, the bank took a security interest in a note and mortgage, perfected by possession. The assignor then sold the same note to a second assignee. The second assignee recorded his assignment in the public records before the bank did, but received only a copy of the note. The court held that though he recorded first, the second assignee lost because the bank had possession. Although the case did not involve a UCC filing by the losing assignee, that would not have changed the result since possession generally trumps a UCC filing. In fact, because the mortgage was sold (rather than assigned as collateral), the second assignee’s interest was perfected automatically. However, like filing, automatic perfection does not generally protect the assignee from a conflicting assignment perfected by possession.

If the assignment is intended only as secondary collateral on unspecific assets, then possibly the assignee would be satisfied with such ethereal rights as are created by merely filing, but if the assignee is giving new value to acquire specific mortgages, then greater protection is usually required — namely, possession of the promissory note.

Problem 4 — Who Does the Mortgagor Pay?
Comment 6 to UCC §9-308 explains that Article 3 (not Article 9) dictates who the maker of a negotiable instrument must pay. F.S. §673.6021(1) (2010) states that with limited exceptions (knowledge of injunction or theft, etc.), the instrument is discharged upon payment to “a person entitled to enforce the instrument.”

F.S. §673.3011 (2010) states:

The term “person entitled to enforce” an instrument means:

(1) The holder of the instrument;

(2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or

(3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091 or s. 673.4181(4).

A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.

In general, it is the “holder” who is entitled to enforce the instrument. “The person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession” is a “holder.”²⁷ In some instances, a nonholder may enforce the instrument. The comment to UCC §3-301 states that a “person who under applicable law is a successor to the holder or otherwise acquires the holder’s rights” can enforce the instrument under subsection (2), even though not a holder. This would include an assignee from the holder who for some reason did not become a holder, perhaps because it did not receive a proper indorsement.²⁸ Subsection (3) would include an assignee who is not a holder because the instrument was lost.

One might wonder whether these provisions make any sense. The mortgagor cannot be expected to ascertain the holder by demanding exhibition of the promissory note whenever it makes a payment,²⁹ nor would the lender likely accommodate such a demand, even if made. Usually, the note expressly waives presentment, so that the original need not be exhibited on demand for payment.³⁰ In the real world, the mortgagor simply pays whomever the note says should be paid (often a servicer), until the mortgagor receives a notice to pay someone else. The law of contract and agency will often lead a court to give effect to payments made in this manner, despite Article 3.³¹ Nevertheless, unless the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed otherwise, Article 3 requires the mortgagor to ascertain the status of the payee as holder by demanding exhibition of the promissory note, and the holder must comply as a condition for demanding payment.

Article 3 does not control payment of nonnegotiable notes.³² The common law of contract generally applies. The common law rule is that payment of a nonnegotiable promissory note can be made to the payee without demanding delivery of the original promissory note, and will be effective so long as the maker does not have notice that the payee has transferred the promissory note to a third person.³³ In other words, the result is not very different from the “real world” practice of making payment on a negotiable promissory note, as described above.

Problem 5 — Who Has Standing to Foreclose the Mortgage?
The provisions of Article 3 speak in terms of who is entitled to “enforce” an instrument. Thus, the solution to problem four must also be the solution to problem five. Unlike problem four, however, there are a number of reported cases concerning standing in foreclosures that must be considered. It should come as no surprise that the holder of the promissory note has standing to maintain a foreclosure action.³⁴ Further, an agent for the holder can sue to foreclose.³⁵ The holder of a collateral assignment has sufficient standing to foreclose.³⁶

Failure to file the original promissory note or offer evidence of standing might preclude summary judgment.³⁷ Even when the plaintiff files the original, it might be necessary to offer additional evidence to show that the plaintiff is the holder or has rights as a nonholder. In BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), for example, the court reversed a summary judgment of foreclosure, saying the plaintiff had not proven it held the note. The written assignment was incomplete and unsigned. The plaintiff filed the original note, which showed an indorsement to another person, but no indorsement to the plaintiff. The court found that was insufficient. Clearly, a party in possession of a note indorsed to another is not a “holder,” but recall that Johns v. Gillian holds that a written assignment is not needed to show standing when the transferee receives delivery of the note. The court’s ruling in BAC Funding Consortium was based on the heavy burden required for summary judgment. The court said the plaintiff did not offer an affidavit or deposition proving it held the note and suggested that “proof of purchase of the debt, or evidence of an effective transfer” might substitute for an assignment.³⁸

In Jeff-Ray Corp. v. Jacobson, 566 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the court held that an assignment executed after the filing of the foreclosure case was not sufficient to show the plaintiff had standing at the time the complaint was filed. In WM Specialty Mortgage, LLC v. Salomon, 874 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), however, the court distinguished Jeff-Ray Corp., stating that the execution date of the written assignment was less significant when the plaintiff could show that it acquired the mortgage before filing the foreclosure without a written assignment, as permitted by Johns v. Gilliam.³⁹

When the note is lost, a document trail showing ownership is important. The burden in BAC Funding Consortium might be discharged by an affidavit confirming that the note was sold to the plaintiff prior to foreclosure. Corroboratory evidence of sale documents or payment of consideration is icing on the cake, but probably not needed absent doubt over the plaintiff’s rights. If doubt remains, indemnity can be required if needed to protect the mortgagor.⁴⁰

In the case of a defaulting mortgagor, someone presumably has a right to foreclose. Excessively strict standing requirements might result in a windfall to the mortgagor at the expense of the lender. At the same time, courts must ensure that the mortgagor is not subjected to double liability. A review of the cases shows that while there are a few cases in which mortgagors paid the wrong party and were later held liable to the true holder, there is a dearth of cases in Florida where a mortgagor was foreclosed by one putative mortgagee, and later found liable to another who was the true holder. The lack of such nightmare cases is a testament to the fine job courts have done in enforcing the standing requirements, but it also begs the question whether the risk of double liability may be overstated. Given the long foreclosure process in Florida, a defaulting borrower is unlikely to remain unaware of conflicting demands long enough to complete a foreclosure. It seems that in such an event, either the borrower must have ignored conflicting demands, or one of the putative mortgagees sat on its rights. While both are plausible scenarios, they each present clear equities that should assist a court in positioning the loss.

Problem 6 — Real Estate Transactions
The UCC deals with problems one through five, but the Article 9 Comments expressly disclaim intent to deal with problem six because it is an issue of real estate law beyond Article 9’s scope.⁴¹ In Florida, a mortgage is not an interest in real estate, but rather personal property.⁴² On the other hand, the statutes permit persons taking an interest in real estate to rely on the real estate records to determine ownership of a mortgage without regard to the UCC. F.S. §701.02 (2010) says in part:

701.02. Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of document; applicability

(1) An assignment of a mortgage upon real property or of any interest therein, is not good or effectual in law or equity, against creditors or subsequent purchasers, for a valuable consideration, and without notice, unless the assignment is contained in a document that, in its title, indicates an assignment of mortgage and is recorded according to law.

(2) This section also applies to assignments of mortgages resulting from transfers of all or any part or parts of the debt, note or notes secured by mortgage, and none of same is effectual in law or in equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice, unless a duly executed assignment be recorded according to law.

*****

(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2), and (3) governing the assignment of mortgages, chapters 670-680 of the Uniform Commercial Code of this state govern the attachment and perfection of a security interest in a mortgage upon real property and in a promissory note or other right to payment or performance secured by that mortgage. The assignment of such a mortgage need not be recorded under this section for purposes of attachment or perfection of a security interest in the mortgage under the Uniform Commercial Code.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), a creditor or subsequent purchaser of real property or any interest therein, for valuable consideration and without notice, is entitled to rely on a full or partial release, discharge, consent, joinder, subordination, satisfaction, or assignment of a mortgage upon such property made by the mortgagee of record, without regard to the filing of any Uniform Commercial Code financing statement that purports to perfect a security interest in the mortgage or in a promissory note or other right to payment or performance secured by the mortgage, and the filing of any such financing statement does not constitute notice for the purposes of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “mortgagee of record” means the person named as the mortgagee in the recorded mortgage or, if an assignment of the mortgage has been recorded in accordance with this section, the term “mortgagee of record” means the assignee named in the recorded assignment.

One can accept that a person taking an interest in real estate should be charged with notice only of what appears from the real estate records. However, the statute seems overly broad in that it says an assignment must be recorded to be effectual against creditors and purchasers. Subsections (1) and (2) seem to contradict the rules of Article 9, which permit perfection against lien creditors merely by taking possession of the note or filing a financing statement. Also, under Article 9, a good faith purchaser with possession takes free of a prior assignment, even if recorded. Although subsection (4) says the statute does not alter the perfection requirements of Article 9, what does the statute mean if not that an unrecorded assignment of mortgage is not enforceable against creditors of the assignor?

One might argue that §701.02 means that an absolute assignment must be recorded in the real estate records, while a collateral assignment need not be recorded.⁴³ Subsection (4) discusses perfection of a “security interest,” but it does not specifically mention a sale of the mortgage.However, the term “security interest” in the UCC includes an assignment pursuant to a sale,⁴⁴ and the term “assignment” in subsections (1) and (2) is not, on its face or in the case law, limited to absolute assignments.⁴⁵ Such a limitation would undercut the §701.02 protections given to real estate purchasers (particularly considering the case law holding that a collateral assignee in possession may enforce the mortgage). Likewise, requiring a sale to be recorded in the real estate records for validity against subsequent purchasers from the mortgagee would undermine the protections for purchasers of mortgages under the UCC. Clearly, the statute says that an assignment need not be recorded to be perfected under the UCC, but that does not necessarily mean that an unrecorded assignment will be effective against a person taking an interest in the realty in reliance on the real estate records.

Perhaps the term “creditors” refers only to creditors of the fee title owner of the land — not to creditors of the mortgage assignor. There is no need to protect creditors of a mortgage assignor with this statute. The priority of a lien creditor of the assignor is adequately addressed by Article 9. By contrast, creditors of the fee title owner are not protected by Article 9 and might rely on the real estate records in acquiring an interest in or lien on the real estate.⁴⁶ Also, the subsection (5) phrase “purchaser of real property” supports that interpretation. There is no mention of purchasers of the mortgage.

If that is the intent of the statute, then the unqualified use of the term “creditors” is unfortunate. The statute should say the protection extends to creditors, purchasers, or other persons acquiring an interest in the real property, but not to persons acquiring a mortgage from the mortgagee (whose rights are determined instead by the UCC). Even though it could be clearer, the foregoing interpretation is not plainly refuted by the statutory language. Moreover, there is case law support. In American Bank of the South v. Rothenberg, 598 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), also discussed above, the bank received a collateral assignment and took possession of the note. However, the note was sold to a second assignee who recorded first in the real estate records and argued that §701.02 gave him better title. The court disagreed, stating:

The confusion in this case arises from the failure of both parties to recognize that section 701.02…is inapplicable. This case, involving as it does the competing interests of successive assignees of a note and mortgage, is governed by negotiable instruments law, not the recording statute. Section 701.02 was enacted to protect a creditor or subsequent purchaser of land who has relied on the record satisfaction of a prior mortgage, which satisfaction was executed by the mortgagee after he made an unrecorded assignment of the same mortgage. Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. People’s Holding Co., 110 Fla. 451, 149 So. 5 (Fla. 1933).⁴⁷

The court’s reading is unduly narrow in that §701.02 protects more than just persons relying on mortgage satisfactions, but the idea that it governs only real estate transactions seems correct.⁴⁸

However, some courts have confused the rules applicable to problem six with those applicable to problems one through five. In JP Morgan Chase v. New Millennial, LC, 6 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), rev. dism., 10 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 2009), for example, the closing agent in a real estate transaction telephoned AmSouth Bank concerning two mortgages that it appeared to own of record and was told they had been paid. AmSouth Bank faxed a printout to the closing agent showing a balance of $0 and stating “PD OFF.” In fact, AmSouth Bank had merely sold the loans to JP Morgan, which failed to record an assignment. The transaction closed in reliance on the fax. Later, JP Morgan sought to foreclose, and the purchaser argued that JP Morgan’s unrecorded assignment was ineffective under §701.02. JP Morgan argued that §701.02 protected only assignees of the mortgagee, not grantees of the land owner, and the court agreed.⁴⁹ In other words, the court’s interpretation was exactly opposite that in American Bank of the South. Yet, the idea that persons acquiring the land may rely on §701.02 seems required by the statute and the case law.⁵⁰

Although JP Morgan Chase’sinterpretation of §701.02 seems wrong,one might argue the case was correct for another reason. The court said the closing agent never received a satisfaction, but simply relied on the fax. Although F.S. §701.04 (2010) permits the purchaser to rely on an estoppel letter, the court said the fax did not qualify for that protection. Arguably, the true holding of JP Morgan Chase is that the party relying on the real estate records must obtain a satisfaction, and informal assurances are inadequate. Nevertheless, JP Morgan Chase will add to the confusion until the Florida Supreme Court rules decisively on the meaning of §701.02.

Even if one accepts the interpretation in American Bank of the South, one must admit there is inherent tension between §701.02 and Article 9. The tension is demonstrated in Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In that case, South 41 Corp. gave a mortgage to Harrell and deeded the land to Rucker. Harrell assigned the mortgage to the bank as collateral, which recorded the assignment, but did not notify Rucker. Rucker then paid the mortgage to Harrell. After not receiving payment, the bank foreclosed on Rucker. On appeal, Rucker argued the collateral assignment was not perfected under Article 9. The court erroneously said that Article 9 does not govern a collateral assignment, but came to an arguably correct result, affirming the judgment of foreclosure.

A threshold issue not discussed was whether Rucker, having acquired the real estate from South 41 Corp., was entitled to rely on the real estate records, or whether she simply paid the mortgage pursuant to the UCC. Clearly, Rucker did acquire the real estate, but that was months earlier, so perhaps by the time of payment, the real estate records were no longer relevant.

The Rucker court seemed to rely on both problems one through five and problem six rules. The court said that Rucker did not demand surrender of the mortgage,⁵¹ which is irrelevant under §701.02. However, the court also relied on the assignment recorded in the real estate records, which is not important to problems one through five, but is important to problem six. Even though the court did not clearly state which rules applied, it came to the correct result. Rucker lost because she did not comply with either set of rules. She would have become aware of the assignment to the bank if she had checked the real estate records, and she would have (presumably) discovered that Harrell did not have the note, if she had demanded surrender of the note. The court did not discuss when it is that a person acquiring an interest in the land (entitled to rely on the real estate records) ceases to be such a person and becomes instead a person acquiring or paying the promissory note who must follow the UCC, but the case shows the issue will inevitably arise, creating tension between §701.02 and the UCC.

Summarizing, the UCC attempts to solve problems one through five and §701.02 attempts to solve problem six. There is some overlap and potential for conflict, causing confusion in the cases. Courts should interpret those statutes so that they are consistent, limiting the protection of §701.02 to persons taking an interest in the real estate, and the protection of the UCC to persons taking an interest in the promissory note and mortgage.

Conclusion
Ironically, while the drafters of Article 9 sought to make mortgage assignments as simple and foolproof as possible, the handling of mortgage assignments is now at the center of the foreclosure crisis that has gripped the nation’s financial system. To be fair, the changes to Article 9 did not really cause the problem. In fact, the changes mostly codified existing case law and served to lessen the chaos by eliminating uncertainty. However, the revisions to Article 9 fostered confidence that the “simple, foolproof” rules intended to protect parties’ rights in mortgages would in fact do so. The false sense of certainty led to an increase in the number of transactions accomplished with minimal documentation designed to meet the attachment and perfection requirements of Article 9, but not the standing requirements in foreclosures. Moreover, missing or irregular indorsements or lost instruments compounded the problem by leaving gaps even in this minimal documentation. The result was a deluge of disputed cases fortuitously stopping or delaying foreclosures while the mortgagees struggled to reconstruct a document trail proving ownership.

Despite the sloppy practices of the mortgage industry, attorneys practicing in this area should not find themselves on the losing end of a court decision holding that their client does not have standing to foreclose. The question of whether the client has standing should be addressed before filing the case. If the documentation is inadequate, then missing documents should be located, or if necessary, re-executed before filing suit. An attorney unavoidably faced with ambiguous documentation might take comfort that, as shown by Johns v. Gillian and the UCC, Florida law concerning standing is not very demanding. Nevertheless, the requirements for standing must be proved, and the attorney should determine before filing that these requirements can be met.

¹SeeFla. Stat. §673.2041 (2010).

²See National Bank of Sarasota v. Dugger, 335 So. 2d 859, 860-861 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1976), cert. den., 342 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1976) (citing Comments as interpretive guide).

³ Florida has long held an assignment of a note includes an assignment of the mortgage. See Taylor v. American Nat. Bank, 57 So. 678, 685 (Fla. 1912); First Nat. Bank of Quincy v. Guyton, 72 So. 460 (Fla. 1916); Collins v. W.C. Briggs, Inc., 123 So. 833 (Fla. 1929); Miami Mortgage & Guaranty Co. v. Drawdy, 127 So. 323 (Fla. 1930); and Warren v. Seminole Bond & Mortgage Co., 172 So. 696, 697 (Fla. 1937). Thus, a recorded assignment seemed surplusage. By contrast, a mortgage assignment without the note has been held ineffectual. Sobel v. Mutual Development, Inc., 313 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1975).

⁴Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140, 143 (Fla. 1938).

⁵Fla. Stat. §679.1091(4)(k)(1) (2010) (Article 9 extends to a transfer of a lien in real property).

⁶Fla. Stat. §679.1091(1) (2010).

⁷See UCC §9-109, Comment 5.

⁸Fla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(sss) (2010).

⁹Fla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(bb) (2010).

¹⁰Fla. Stat. §679.2031(2) (2010).

¹¹Fla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(l) (2010).

¹²Fla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(ttt) (2010) and §671.201(38) (2010) (“security interest” includes the interest of a buyer of a promissory note).

¹³Fla. Stat. §679.2031(7) (2010).

¹⁴Fla. Stat. §673.2041(1) (2010), defining “indorsement.” Fla. Stat. §673.2011 (2010) requires an indorsement for a transferee to become a “holder,” if the instrument is payable to a specific person, but even a nonholder transferee may often enforce the instrument. SeeFla. Stat. §673.2031(2) (2010).

¹⁵ The delivery requirement has also been weakened by some cases. See Beaty v. Inlet Beach, 9 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1942); Harmony Homes, Inc. v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 907, 913 (M.D. Fla. 1996), aff’d,124 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 1997).

¹⁶Fla. Stat. §679.3081(5) (2010).

¹⁷Fla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(zz) (2010).

¹⁸Fla. Stat. §679.3131(1) (2010). Florida law applies to a security interest perfected by possession if the promissory note is located in Florida. SeeFla. Stat. §679.3011(2) (2010).

¹⁹Fla. Stat. §679.3121(1) (2010) (perfection by filing where the collateral is instruments). The term “instrument” under Article 9 includes non-negotiable promissory notes, unlike the same term defined in Article 3. CompareFla. Stat. §679.1021(1)(uu) (2010) withFla. Stat. §673.1041(2) (2010), and see Comment 5(c) to UCC §9-102.

²⁰Fla. Stat. §679.5011(1)(b) (2010). A registered organization organized in Florida is deemed “located” in Florida. SeeFla. Stat. §679.3071(5) (2010).

²¹Fla. Stat. §679.3131(3) (2010).

²²Fla. Stat. §679.3171(1)(b) (2010) (security interest is junior to the rights of a person who became a lien creditor prior to perfection).

²³Fla. Stat. §679.3091(4) (2010). This is one of the few areas wherein collateral assignments and sales are different. Purchasers of promissory notes had not in the past been required to file financing statements, and the drafters of Article 9 wanted to continue that practice. See Comment 4 to UCC §9-309.

²⁴ First, the priority rules determine if the assignee prevails over another assignee, and possession is more protective than automatic perfection. Second, courts may find what appears to be a sale is actually security that cannot be perfected automatically. See, e.g., Torreyson v. Dutton, 198 So. 796 (Fla. 1940); Hulet v. Denison, 1 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1941); Howard v. Goodspeed, 135 So. 294 (Fla. 1931). Also, the assignee usually wants possession to ensure standing to foreclose. See Abbott v. Penrith, 693 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1997); Pastore-Borroto Development, Inc. v. Marevista Apartments, M.B., Inc., 596 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1992); Figueredo v. Bank Espirito Santo, 537 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1989).

²⁵See definitions of “purchase” and “purchaser” at Fla. Stat. §§671.201(32) and (33) (2010).

²⁶See Comment 7 to UCC §9-330 (“a purchaser who takes even with knowledge of the security interest qualifies for priority under subsection (d) if it takes without knowledge that the purchase violates the rights of the holder of the security interest”). Fla. Stat. §679.3171(2) (2010) seems to adopt a different rule, saying that a “buyer, other than a secured party” takes free of a security interest if the buyer gives value and takes delivery “without knowledge of the security interest” and before it is perfected. However, a “buyer, other than a secured party” under Fla. Stat. §679.3171(2) (2010) is not a “purchaser” under Fla. Stat. §679.330(4) (2010). Comment 6 to UCC §9-317 says that unless the sale is excluded from Article 9, the buyer is a “secured party,” and §679.3171(2) does not apply, adding “[r]ather, the priority rules generally applicable to competing security interests apply.”

²⁷Fla. Stat. §671.201(21)(a) (2010).

²⁸C.f., Ederer v. Fisher, 183 So. 2d 39, 42 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1965) (unauthorized indorsement deprived plaintiff of holder in due course status, thus, permitting defense on instrument). As in Ederer, inability to prove holder status does not necessarily mean the plaintiff lacks standing under Fla. Stat. §673.3011 (2010), but may expose the plaintiff to additional defenses.

²⁹SeeFla. Stat. §673.5011(2)(b)(1) (2010), permitting the maker to make such demand.

³⁰SeeFla. Stat. §673.5041(1) (2010), giving effect to such waivers.

³¹See, e.g., Scott v. Taylor, 58 So. 30 (Fla. 1912) (payment effective if made to authorized agent); McChesney v. Herman, 176 So. 565 (Fla. 1937); Posey v. Hunt Furniture Co., Inc., 43 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1949); Fla. Stat. §671.103 (2010) (UCC does not displace law of agency).

³²Fla. Stat. §673.1041 (2010) determines negotiability. See, e.g., Locke v. Aetna Acceptance Corp., 309 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1975) (note stating “pay to seller” not negotiable because not payable to order of seller); City Bank, N.A. v. Erickson, 18 FLW Supp. 283 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2011) (home equity agreement not negotiable where amount not fixed); Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. v. Charter Bank, 314 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1975) (note incorporating terms of mortgage not negotiable).

³³Johnston v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1886).

³⁴Philogene v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc., 948 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2006); Fla. Stat. §673.3011(1) (2010).

³⁵Juega v. Davidson, 8 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2009); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Revoredo, 955 So. 2d 33, 34, fn. 2 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2007) (stating that MERS was holder, but not owner and “We simply don’t think that this makes any difference. See Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.210(a) (action may be prosecuted in name of authorized person without joining party for whose benefit action is brought)”).

³⁶Laing v. Gainey Builders, Inc., 184 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1966) (collateral assignee was a holder); Cullison v. Dees, 90 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1956) (same, except involving validity of payments rather than standing to foreclose).

³⁷See Fla. Stat. §673.3091(2) (2010); Servedio v. US Bank Nat. Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2010).

³⁸BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d at 938-939 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2010). See also Verizzo v. Bank of New York, 28 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2010) (Bank filed original note, but indorsement was to a different bank). But seeLizio v. McCullom, 36 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2010) (possession of note is prima facie evidence of ownership).

³⁹See also Glynn v. First Union Nat. Bank, 912 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 2005), rev. den., 933 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2006) (note transferred before lawsuit, even though assignment was after).

⁴⁰Fla. Stat. §673.3091(2) (2010); Fla. Stat. §69.061 (2010).

⁴¹See Comment 6 to UCC §9-308.

⁴²Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1954); City of Gainesville v. Charter Leasing Corp., 483 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1986); Southern Colonial Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Medeiros, 347 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1977).

⁴³See, e.g.,Thomas E. Baynes, Jr., Florida Mortgages (Harrison Co. 1999), §7-2 (West pocket part for 2009), stating “[s]ection 4 was added to establish that perfection of a security interest in a mortgage…would be governed by the Florida Uniform Commercial Code…. This type of assignment of mortgage, sometimes characterized as a ‘collateral assignment,’ does not need to be recorded under F.S. §701.02.”

⁴⁴Fla. Stat. §671.201(38) (2010).

⁴⁵See, e.g., Gardner v. McPherson, 151 So. 390 (Fla. 1933) (dismissing foreclosure by unrecorded collateral assignee where mortgage had been satisfied by record mortgagee); Williams, Salomon, Kanner & Damian, as Trustee v. American Bankers Life Assurance Co., 379 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1979) (subordination unenforceable where recorded collateral assignee had not agreed). However, these cases predated subsection (4).

⁴⁶See, e.g., Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. People’s Holding Co., 149 So. 5 (Fla. 1933).

⁴⁷American Bank of the South v. Rothenberg, 598 So. 2d at 290 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1992).

⁴⁸See also Chandler v. Davis, 190 So. 873 (Fla. 1939) (assignee from record mortgagee took subject to holder in possession of note); Karn v. Munroe, 6 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1942) (subsequent assignee with possession prevailed over first); Vance v. Fields, 172 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1965) (first assignee recorded first, but took possession of wrong note; court correctly ruled for the second assignee with possession without discussing distinction between a real estate transaction and note sale). CompareTamiami Abstract & Title Co. v. Berman, 324 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1976), cert. den., 336 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1976) (purchaser of original mortgagee’s assets did not own mortgage assigned of record to another by collateral assignment that later became absolute upon default). Because the buyer purchased the mortgage (not the real estate), the court should have applied rules regarding transfer of the mortgage as personal property, but focused instead on the land records. Yet the court said the defendant “claimed outright possession of said mortgage,” which left the possibility that his claim also arose from possession. Otherwise, it seems at odds with Cullison, cited in fn. 36.

⁴⁹ The court cited Kapila v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp. (In re Halabi), 184 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 1999), and Bradley v. Forbs, 156 So. 716 (Fla. 1934). In Kapila, 184 F.3d at 1338, the court held the assignee’s failure to record did not render the mortgage unperfected in the mortgagor’s bankruptcy. The court said §701.02 protects only an assignee of the mortgagee, not a person acquiring the real estate. However, the question of who owns a mortgage is distinct from whether it is perfected against grantees of the real estate owner. Bradley includes some ambiguous language, but stands primarily for the proposition that a purchaser cannot rely on informal assurances by the record mortgagee, but must obtain a satisfaction. See Bradley, 156 So. at 717. The Kapila court also said the Florida Supreme Court may have implicitly receded from Bradley in Hulet v. Denison, 1 So. 2d 467, 468-469 (Fla. 1941), presumably because it discussed the statute as though it applied to persons acquiring the land, even though its decision was on other grounds, i.e., actual notice. The purchasers relied on a satisfaction by the mortgage assignee of record. However, the original mortgagee’s surviving widow claimed the assignment was for collateral and had been discharged. The court said the purchasers had “actual notice,” but cited the failure of the purchaser to demand surrender of the note as the basis. If that is what is meant by “actual notice,” then what is the point of the recording statute?

⁵⁰ In addition to American Bank of the South v. Rothenberg, Gardner v. McPherson, Bradley v. Forbs, and Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. People’s Holding Co., see Housing Authority v. Macho, 181 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1966).

⁵¹Rucker v. State Exchange Bank, 355 So. 2d at 172 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1978). The court spoke of surrender of the mortgage, but it is surrender of the promissory note that is important under the UCC. See also Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So. 2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2004).

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

What Texas Homeowners Needs to Know About Foreclosure in Texas

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Internal Revenue Service, Lien, Notice of default, Real estate, Tax lien, Texas

Foreclosures may be judicial (ordered by a court following a judgment in a lawsuit) or non-judicial (“on the courthouse steps”). Most foreclosures in Texas are nonjudicial. These are governed by chapter 51 of the Property Code and are held on the first Tuesday of each month between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. at a designated spot at the county courthouse. The effect of foreclosure is to cut off and eliminate junior liens, including mechanic’s liens, but not tax obligations.

The remedy of foreclosure is available in the event of a borrower’s monetary default (nonpayment) or technical default (e.g., failure to pay taxes or keep the property insured). In order to determine if there has been a default, the loan documents–the note, the deed of trust, the loan agreement, and so forth–should be carefully examined. Notice and opportunity to cure requirements contained in these documents must be strictly followed if a foreclosure is to be valid.

Notices of foreclosure sales must be filed with the county clerk and posted (usually on a bulletin board in the lobby of the courthouse) at least 21 calendar days prior to the intended foreclosure date. Notices are entitled “Notice of Trustee’s Sale” or “Notice of Substitute Trustee’s Sale.” They provide information about the debt, the legal description of the property, and designate a three-hour period during which the sale will be held. In larger metropolitan areas there are foreclosure listing services which publish a monthly list of properties posted for foreclosure.

Required Notices to the Borrower

Notices to the defaulting borrower must be given in accordance with Property Code sections 51.002 et seq. and the deed of trust. The content of foreclosure notices is technical and must be correct to insure a valid foreclosure that cannot later be attacked by a wrongful foreclosure suit. Clients often protest when their lawyer advises re-noticing the debtor–”But I’ve already sent them an email telling them they are in default.” Not good enough.

Usually, two certified mail notices to the borrower are required, the first being a “Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate” which gives formal notice of the default and affords an opportunity for the borrower to cure it (at least 20 days for a homestead, although if the deed of trust is on the FNMA form, 30 days must be given). Note that S.B. 766 and S.B. 472, which did not make it out of committee in the 81^st Legislature, would have extended the 20-day period. This legislation may be revived in the future. Many lawyers consider it best to routinely give a 30-day notice.

After the cure period has passed, a “Notice of Acceleration and Posting for Foreclosure” must be sent at least 21 days prior to the foreclosure date. This second letter must also specify the location of the sale and a three-hour period during which the sale will take place. A notice of foreclosure sale should be enclosed. This notice is also filed with the county clerk and physically posted at the courthouse. If there is going to be a change in trustees it is also necessary to file a written appointment of substitute trustee. Notices are addressed to the last known address of the borrower contained in the lender’s records (this is the legal requirement), but it is wise for the lender to double-check this to avoid later claims by the borrower that notice was defective. It is prudent to send notices by both first-class and certified mail. Why? The reason has to do with Texas’s mailbox rule, i.e., that a notice properly deposited in the U.S. mail is presumed to be delivered. “Common sense . . . dictates that regular mail is presumed delivered and certified mail enjoys no [such] presumption unless the receipt is returned bearing an appropriate notation.” McCray v. Hoag, 372 S.W.3d 237, 243 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2012, no pet. h.). A careful lender will send notices to all likely addresses where the borrower may be found.

Other lienholders (whether junior or senior) are not entitled to notice. Depending on the first lienholder’s strategy, however, it may be useful to discuss the issue with them.

If the borrower is able to cure, a reinstatement agreement should be executed unless the terms of the debt have been changed (e.g., payments have been lowered) in which case a hybrid reinstatement/modification agreement or even a new note may be appropriate.

Notice to the IRS

The best practice is to do a title search prior to foreclosure to determine if there is an IRS tax lien or other federal lien. If so, notice must be given to the IRS and/or the U.S. Attorney at least 25 days prior to the sale, not including the sale date. 26 U.S.C. § 7425(c)(1). If this is not done, any IRS tax lien on the property will not be extinguished by the sale. Note that the IRS also has 120 days following the sale to redeem the property, although this seldom happens. The successful bidder on an IRS-liened property is therefore not entitled to breathe a sigh of relief until the 121^st day.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.) requires that a borrower be given 30 days to request and obtain verification of the debt. The lender may give notice of default, accelerate the debt, and even post for foreclosure in less time, but the foreclosure sale itself should not be conducted until the 30-day debt verification period has expired.

There is also an equivalent state statute (the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act) contained in Finance Code chapter 392. Failure to provide verification of the debt when the borrower has requested it in writing has serious penalties under both laws.

Due Diligence by the Investor Prior to Foreclosure

Buying property at foreclosure sales is a popular form of investment but it contains traps for the unwary. The investor’s goal is to acquire instant equity in the property by paying a relatively modest sum at the foreclosure sale. However, apparent equity can evaporate if the property is loaded down with liens. It is advisable, therefore, to check the title of the property that will be sold. Is the lien being foreclosed a second or third lien? If so, then the first lien (usually a purchase-money lien held by a mortgage company) will continue in force. First liens are king. They are not extinguished by foreclosure on an inferior lien. What about IRS liens? Improvement liens? Liens imposed by homeowners associations? Any or all of these could consume whatever equity might otherwise have existed in the property. If an investor is unsure as to which liens will be wiped out in a foreclosure sale, then copies of each lien document should be pulled and taken to the investor’s real estate attorney for review. As far as researching title is concerned, every professional investor should ultimately acquire the skills to go to the real property records in the county clerk’s office and do this unaided. One should obtain copies of the warranty deed and any deeds of trust or other lien instruments. Alternatively, a down-date report from a title company may be requested.

If more information is needed about the property itself, one can contact the trustee named in the Notice of Trustee’s Sale. Trustees vary in their level of cooperation but are often willing to provide additional information if they have it. They may have a copy of an inspection report on the property which they may be willing to share. One might even be able to arrange to view the property if it is unoccupied.

The investor should also check the military status of the borrower, since Property Code section 51.015 prohibits non-judicial foreclosure of a dwelling owned by active duty military personnel or within 9 months after active duty ends. Knowingly violating this law is a Class A misdemeanor.

Property Condition

It goes without saying that the investor should physically inspect the property if at all possible, although one should not trespass on occupied property to do this. It is legal, however, to stand in the street (public property) and take photos.

When one buys at a foreclosure sale, it is “as is.” Property condition is therefore important. When buying residential properties in particular, an investor should be especially curious about condition of the foundation (learn to recognize signs of settlement), whether the property is flood-prone, and whether or not there may be environmental contamination (generally not a problem if the house is in a restricted subdivision). It is usually best to avoid any property that suffers from one or more of these deficiencies. Other items that involve significant expense are the roof and the HVAC system.

The past or continuing presence of hazardous substances can impose huge potential liability (particularly on commercial properties) since both Texas and federal law provide that any owner of property (including the investor) is jointly and severally liable with any prior owner for cleanup costs. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) maintains a web site at www.tceq.state.tx.us where the environmental history of a property can be researched.

Valuation

It is, of course, important not to bid more than the equity in the property (fair market value less the total dollar amount of the liens, if any, that will survive the foreclosure sale). So how does one discover fair market value? Again, it is a question of getting the right information. One of the best ways to do this is to obtain a comparative market analysis or broker price opinion (BPO) from a realtor.

Last-Minute Bankruptcies

Foreclosures can be rendered void by last-minute bankruptcy filings. Some professional investors will check with the bankruptcy clerk’s office the morning of the sale to make sure that the borrower has not filed under any chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before they bid on the property. Note that the bankruptcy clerk’s office opens at 9 a.m. and bidding commences at 10 a.m. Checking bankruptcy filings is a wise precaution if the borrower has previously filed or threatened bankruptcy. It can be cumbersome and inconvenient to get money back from a trustee on a void sale.

Conduct of the Sale

Foreclosure sales in the larger counties can seem chaotic, with many sales going on at once. There are two general types: sales by trustees (usually attorneys) for individual and institutional lenders and sales by the county sheriff for unpaid taxes. Sales are held at the location designated by the commissioners of the county where the property is located–often the courthouse steps or close by.

The sale is conducted by the named trustee unless a substitute trustee has been duly appointed and notice of the appointment has been filed of record. As a practical matter, the foreclosing trustee is usually the attorney for the lender.

There is no standard or required script for a trustee to follow in auctioning property, although trustees usually recite the details of the note and lien, the fact that the note went into default, proper notice was given, the note was subsequently accelerated, and the property is now for sale to the highest cash bidder. The trustee has a duty to conduct the sale fairly and impartially and to not discourage bidding in any way (this can result in “chilled bidding,” which is a defect). A trustee may set reasonable conditions for conducting the foreclosure sale and may set the terms of payment (e.g., by cash or cashier’s check). However, these conditions and terms must be stated prior to the opening of bidding for the first sale of the day held by that trustee.

Bidding at the Sale

The investor should remain in motion, talking to the trustees, until finding the right trustee with the right property. Caution: do not let the excitement of the sale cause you to exceed your preestablished maximum bid.

The lender often bids the amount of the debt plus accrued fees and costs, so this bid can be anticipated. If the sale generates proceeds in excess of the debt, the trustee must distribute the excess funds to other lienholders in order of seniority and the remaining balance, if any, to the borrower.

If the investor is the successful bidder, he or she should be prepared to make payment “without delay” or within a mutually agreed-upon time. In order to be prepared, seasoned bidders carry with them some cash plus an assortment of cashier’s checks in different amounts made payable to “Trustee.” If the high bidder is for any reason unable to complete the purchase, then the trustee will reopen the bidding and auction the property again. The successful bidder will, within a reasonable time, receive a trustee’s deed or substitute trustee’s deed which conveys the interest that was held by the borrower in the property–no more, no less.

Property Code section 51.009 states that a buyer at a foreclosure sale “acquires the foreclosed property ‘as is’ without any expressed or implied warranties, except as to warranties of title, and at the purchaser’s own risk; and is not a consumer.” The “consumer” part of that statement is meant to prevent any DTPA claims.

Elapsed Time

Compared to other states, Texas has a streamlined non-judicial foreclosure process that is nearly as quick as an eviction. The minimum amount of time from the first notice to the day of foreclosure is 41 days, unless the deed of trust is a FNMA form, in which case the time is 51 days, although it is never wise to cut these deadlines that close. Why risk a void sale or give the borrower a possible wrongful foreclosure claim?

The advantage of a foreclosure over an eviction is that there are no effective defenses to the foreclosure process except for the borrower to block it with a temporary restraining order or file bankruptcy. For either option, the buyer needs money and probably an attorney.

Deficiency Suits

In the event that proceeds of the foreclosure sale exceed the amount due on the note (including attorney’s fees and expenses), then surplus funds must be distributed to the borrower. More often, however, the price at which the property is sold is less than the unpaid balance on the loan, resulting in a deficiency. A suit may be brought by the lender to recover this deficiency any time within two years of the date of foreclosure. Tex. Prop. Code § 51.003. Federally insured lenders have four years. As part of a defense to a deficiency suit, the borrower may challenge the foreclosure sales price if it is below fair market value, and receive appropriate credit if it is not. Any money received by a lender from private mortgage insurance is credited to the account of the borrower. One case states that the purpose of this “is to prevent mortgagees from recovering more than their due.”

For borrowers, deficiencies can be as significant a loss as the foreclosure itself since the IRS deems the deficiency amount to be taxable ordinary income.

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. app. § 501, which was passed in 2003 completely rewrites the existing 1940 law by expanding protections for those serving in the armed forces. Except by court order, a landlord may not evict a servicemember or dependents from the homestead during military service. The SCRA provides criminal sanctions for persons who knowingly violate its provisions.

Right of Redemption

There is no general right of redemption by a borrower after a Texas foreclosure. The right of redemption is limited to:

(1) Sale for unpaid taxes. After foreclosure for unpaid taxes, the former owner of homestead or agricultural property has a two-year right of redemption (Tax Code section 34.21a). The investor is entitled to a redemption premium of 25% in the first year and 50% in the second year of the redemption period, plus recovery of certain costs that include property insurance and repairs or improvements required by code, ordinance, or a lease in effect on the date of sale. For other types of property (i.e., nonhomestead), the redemption period is 180 days and the redemption premium is limited to 25%.(2) HOA foreclosure of an assessment lien. Prop. Code section 209.011 provides that a homeowner may redeem the property until no “later than the 180^th day after the date the association mails written notice of the sale to the owner and the lienholder under section 209.101.” A lienholder also has a right of redemption in these circumstances “before 90 days after the date the association mails written notice . . . and only if the lot owner has not previously redeemed.” These provisions are part of the Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act designed to reign in the once arbitrary power of HOAs (Chapter 209 of the Code). Note that an HOA is not permitted to foreclose on a homeowner if its lien is solely for fines assessed by the association or attorney fees.

An investor should be prepared to hold the property and avoid either making substantial improvements to it or reselling it until after any applicable rights of redemption have expired.

Postforeclosure Eviction

Foreclosure gives the new owner title; the next step is to obtain possession, and the procedure for doing this is outlined in the previous chapter. It is generally necessary to give the usual 3-day notice to vacate and file a forcible detainer petition in justice court. After judgment, the new owner must wait until the constable posts a 48 hour notice on the door and then forcibly removes a former borrower if that person is otherwise unwilling to leave.

An investor should build eviction costs into the budget from the beginning. It is advisable to hire an attorney for the first couple of evictions, after which an investor will likely be prepared to handle them solo. Never, however, attempt to conduct an eviction appeal to county court without an attorney.

As discussed in the chapter on evictions, there are both state and federal protections for tenants. Both Property Code section 24.005(b) and the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 require at least 90 days’ notice to vacate so long as a tenant continues to pay rent.

Stopping a Foreclosure Sale

It is a myth that lawyers can wave a wand and, with a phone call or nasty letter, stop foreclosure. Attorneys have no such power. It is a fact that foreclosure can be stopped, but the only sure way to do so is to file a lawsuit and successfully persuade a judge to issue a temporary restraining order prior to the foreclosure sale. After the sale occurs, the remedy that remains–a suit for wrongful foreclosure–is slightly different. Relief may be limited to a money judgment if the property was sold at foreclosure to a third party for cash (a bona fide purchaser or “BFP”). If a BFP is in the mix, the possibility that the property itself can be recovered by the borrower is near zero.

Clients will often report that they have been engaged in reinstatement negotiations with the lender, usually consisting of numerous phone calls and messages, and ask if that is sufficient to avoid a scheduled foreclosure. The answer is a resounding no. Unless there is payment of the arrearage and a signed reinstatement agreement, the foreclosure will almost certainly go forward, even if the client was talking settlement with the lender just the day before. Note that reinstatement agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties. Phone calls mean nothing in this business.

Clients will sometimes state that they don’t want to sue the lender; they just want to get a restraining order to stop the foreclosure. The lawyer must reply “Sorry, it doesn’t work that way, you can’t split the two.” A restraining order is an ancillary form of relief, meaning that it arises from an underlying suit. In other words, there must be an actual lawsuit in place to provide a basis for requesting a TRO. Fortunately, the suit and application for the TRO can be filed simultaneously and a hearing obtained usually within a day.

There is an additional issue: a borrower must have grounds for legal action or possibly face penalties for filing a frivolous suit. Some clients have difficulty understanding this. “Why,” they ask, “can’t you just go and get a TRO for me?” The answer is that the lawyer must give the judge at least some credible basis for granting equitable relief.

So why don’t more people sue to stop a foreclosure? Money. A person in financial distress will have difficulty coming up with cash. Here is the blunt truth: if a borrower or investor cannot readily write a substantial retainer check to an attorney for purposes of suing a lender, then that person has no business in the expensive world of litigation.

Wrongful Foreclosure Suits

After the sale, a suit for wrongful foreclosure can be filed if there are grounds for alleging that the loan documents (e.g., the note and deed of trust) were defective in some way; if the notices leading up to the foreclosure were done incorrectly; or if there was some alleged impropriety in the sale itself. Note that there is no requirement that the sales price be fair. A sale cannot be set aside because the consideration paid is allegedly inadequate because it is less than market value. Sauceda v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 268 S.W.3d 135, 139 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.). To prevail in a wrongful foreclosure suit based on inadequate sale price, three elements must be proven: (1) grossly inadequate consideration; (2) defective foreclosure notices or sale; and (3) a causal connection between the defect and the inadequate consideration. If the notices and sale were correctly done, then the sale will be valid even though the sales price was lower than market value.

As a general rule, it is far better for a borrower to obtain a restraining order to stop a foreclosure than it is to bring suit after the fact. Texas law favors the finality of foreclosures, making wrongful foreclosure suits an uphill battle. If the property was sold to a third party who has no knowledge of any claims or alleged defects there is little chance that the borrower will get the property back. The third party is a protected BFP, and any remedy for the borrower will therefore likely be limited to monetary damages. Bottom line? If in doubt about whether or not a foreclosure is going to occur, file suit and attempt to get a temporary restraining order to stop it. “Wait and see” is the worst possible strategy in this case, since it is always more difficult to correct the situation after the foreclosure sale has occurred. The judge will likely ask without much sympathy, “Why, since you knew about these various alleged defects, did you not take action to stop the foreclosure?”

If a wrongful foreclosure suit is being considered, it should be filed quickly so that notice of the suit (a notice of lis pendens) can be filed in the real property records. If the lender was the successful bidder, this notice may effectively prevent the lender from transferring the property to a BFP.

Note that the action available under Property Code section 51.004 (discussed above) is different from a wrongful foreclosure remedy per se. Relief is granted if the court finds that the fair market value is greater than the sale price, but only in the context of a deficiency claimed by the lender.

The cruel fact for borrowers is that wrongful foreclosure suits face challenges from the beginning. Is that fair? You decide. It is, however, undoubtedly the bias of Texas judges, whether one approves or not.

A plaintiff can realistically expect the following in a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit: (1) The lender will not rush to settle, since lenders pay high fees to large litigation firms to fight tooth and nail to avoid doing the right thing; (2) written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission) from the plaintiff will be nearly entirely objected to by lender’s counsel, so extensively as to make the responses essentially useless (a deposition will therefore be required); (3) lender’s counsel will remove the case from state court to federal court where judges are more conservative and lenders can use Federal Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the case. This rule permits dismissal if the borrower’s complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” which happens more often than one might think. A change of courts can also create complications for the attorney representing the borrower, who may be accustomed to practicing in state rather than federal court. The attorney may be an experienced state court lawyer, but may not even be licensed in federal court. This is common as federal practice becomes more of a specialty among lawyers.

Prolonged Negotiations for a Modification

Homeowners often report that they were engaged in prolonged negotiations to modify their existing loan prior to the foreclosure sale. Of course, these communications were conducted by phone and there is no signed written agreement binding the lender to stop the sale, so there is likely no basis for a wrongful foreclosure suit. Do lenders pursue this strategy intentionally, so as to make it appear that they are willing to be reasonable, when in fact it is in their interest to foreclose instead? Opinions vary.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

How Attorney Mistakes Can Result to Homeowners Losing their Homes in Wrongful Foreclosure Litigation.

23 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Law, Lawsuit, Medical malpractice, North Carolina, Services, Statute of Limitations, Tennessee, United States

One of the biggest mistakes we see in various court cases especially in wrongful foreclosure cases where homeowners who are represented by counsel is the failure by plaintiffs’ attorneys to file the complaint within the statutes of limitation period. Attorneys fail to file a claim within the appropriate statutes of limitation for numerous reasons. For example, lawyers often fail to determine the correct statute of limitation applicable to the claim. For instance to effectively bring a TILA lawsuit against your lender, it must be filed within “One Year”, of your mortgage closing otherwise the courts can only allow the cause of action based on whether your motion for equitable tolling is granted or not.

For wrongful foreclosure homeowners who hired Attorneys to represent them, do not assume that your Attorney knows the statutes of limitation period for every cause of action you intend to bring against your lender to save your home, because if your Attorney miss all major causes of action that would have disqualified your lender from stealing your home as a result of fraud, you may end up losing your home even if your lender is liable for other violations which may entitle you to a couple of thousands of dollars in compensation. Your goal is to save your home, so it is not a matter to be taken for granted because you paid your Attorneys big bucks to represent you.

Litigation attorneys are at a greater risk of malpractice claims than all other types of attorneys. Typically, errors arising out of litigation accounted for 35% to 40% of all claims reported. Clients who lose suits often point to a
perceived error by their attorney as the reason their suit was unsuccessful and seek a remedy against the attorney. The main causes of malpractice stem from missing deadlines, failing to calendar, failing to file, failing to
meet discovery obligations, inadequate trial preparation, inappropriate post-trial actions and improper withdrawal. The use of good docketing and tickler systems and the development of good client relations can significantly reduce malpractice risk

While Attorneys obviously need to be knowledgeable about the substantive issues in any lawsuit, some Attorneys does not take care to learn and follow the procedural rules of court.

Even experienced Attorneys do not know every procedural rule for every court in which they practice. Rather, they know where to find the particular procedural rules governing the litigation and make sure they follow them,
thereby reducing their exposure to malpractice actions.

This post, while not exhaustive, provides important tips to help homeowners who are being represented by Attorneys ensure that they are getting their money’s worth thereby avoid common pitfalls that usually
result in malpractice liability when Attorneys fails their clients. After all when you pay someone $5000-$10000 to save your home, you expect them to put their best foot forward. However, always remember that (YOU ARE YOUR OWN BEST ADVOCATED), as a Pro Se Litigant with http://www.fightforeclosure.net

The post highlights ten prominent points during the course of litigation where attorneys are prone to make mistakes, emphasizing specific
types of rules and procedures that are often overlooked. Armed with the information contained in this post, homeowners can help reduce the possibility of losing the homes as a result of negligence conduct of their hired lawyers which could possibly exposure the lawyers to malpractice liability.

THESE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE WHERE THE HOMEOWNERS SHOULD PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO – THESE ARE WHERE ATTORNEYS USUALLY MAKE MISTAKES.

A GOOD DOCKETING SYSTEM

Attorneys risk malpractice claims when they correctly identify the expiration date of a claim but fail to file the complaint in a timely manner, allowing the claim to expire. One common pitfall is that the attorney or staff person
calendars the deadline in the attorney’s calendar, but the attorney fails to check the calendar, thus missing the date.

Homeowners should ensure that their lawyers can reduce their malpractice risk by diligently calendaring statutes of limitation deadlines and other deadlines that arise within their case. Everything that involves a time limit should be entered into the docket system and the system should generate several advance warnings of each deadline to be given to the attorney and support persons involved.

Although it is ultimately the lawyer’s responsibility to meet deadlines, unforeseen circumstances may prevent the lawyer from meeting a deadline. Homeowners should ensure that their case is assigned a backup lawyer or staff member who is responsible for bringing the deadline to the attention of the main attorney on the matter; or who is able to meet a filing deadline in the lawyer’s absence.

AVOID FILING AT THE LAST MINUTE

Malpractice suits for missing the statutes of limitation also arise when the lawyer and/or his office staff simply neglect to follow through and make sure the complaint is filed with the proper court on or before the deadline. A
variety of unforeseen problems may delay filings. For example, lawyers may sometimes assume that complaints sent by overnight mail will arrive in time and be processed by the court the next day. Similarly, office staff or third
parties hired to assist with the filing may make errors, such as filing the complaint with the wrong court, or missing a last minute deadline.

Such errors can be avoided by routinely filing complaints, motions and other documents in advance of the deadline. Filing at the last minute is a risky practice. Unexpected glitches are bound to occur from time to time. Filing ahead of time will give you breathing room to resolve the unforeseeable problems that might get in the way of filing before the limitation period expires.

KNOWING THE APPLICABLE LAW

DETERMINE THE CORRECT STATUTES OF LIMITATION FOR YOUR JURISDICTION

Attorneys often miss statutes of limitation deadlines when they incorrectly assume that the statutes of limitation runs after the same amount of time in different jurisdictions. For example, the statutes of limitation for a wrongful death claim in Tennessee runs in one-year. However, a North Carolina plaintiff ’s attorney handling a wrongful death suit arising in Tennessee might assume that North Carolina’s two-year statutes of limitation for a wrongful death claim applies in the situation. If the attorney files a claim after Tennessee’s expiration date but before North Carolina’s expiration date, the attorney missed the appropriate state’s deadline and could face a claim for malpractice.

PERFORM ADEQUATE RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION

Nearly half of all malpractice claims arise from substantive errors. Examples include failure to learn or properly apply the law, and inadequate discovery or investigation. In addition to ascertaining all relevant statutes of limitation deadlines, it is important that homeowners ensure that their attorneys are familiar and comply with the law and standards of care in each applicable state.

One common type of malpractice claim resulting from inadequate knowledge of substantive law is in the area of personal injury claims arising out of automobile accidents. Such a claim arises, for example, where the client suffers personal injury in a wreck and there is a $25,000 limit on the defendant’s auto insurance. Since the client has $100,000 worth of damages, the defendant’s carrier readily issues a check for the policy limit of $25,000. The lawyer neglects to investigate whether any other coverage
exists. The client later learns he could have recovered an additional $75,000 from his own insurance policy that included uninsured/underinsured “UM/UIM” coverage. By then, however, it is too late because the client has
already signed a release of all claims against the tortfeasor. Since “[a]n underinsured [UIM] motorist carrier’s liability is derivative of the tortfeasor’s liability,” the UIM carrier may decline to provide any coverage. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington, 141 N.C. App. 495, 499, 541 S.E.2d 503, 506
(2000), cert. granted, 353 N.C. 451, 548 S.E.2d 526 (2001); see also Spivey v. Lowery, 116 N.C. App. 124, 446 S.E.2d 835 (1994) (UIM carrier was not liable after plaintiff executed general release).

Experience lawyers in these areas and situations usually require have the client execute a limited release that protects the client’s right to recover UIM or UM benefi ts. For an example of a limited release that was upheld by the courts, review North Carolina Farm Bureau, Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bost, 126 N.C. App. 42, 483 S.E.2d 452, review denied, 347 N.C. 138, 492 S.E.2d 25 (1997). In other cases, the lawyer may fail to notify the UIM carrier of the
claim in a timely manner. If the client is unable to recover from his UIM carrier because of his lawyer’s neglect, he may have a claim for damages against the attorney.

In these cases that pertains to personal injury, the law requires the plaintiff to timely serve the summons and complaint on both the tortfeasor and the UM carrier prior to the expiration of the statutes of limitation. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(3); Thomas v. Washington, 136 N.C. App. 750, 525 S.E.2d 839, review denied, 352 N.C. 598, 545 S.E.2d 223 (2000). Failure to properly serve either the tortfeasor or the UM carrier may result in lost benefi ts for the client and a malpractice claim against the attorney.

These types of errors usually can be prevented through careful research and methodical procedures.

When dealing with wrongful foreclosure case, homeowners should stay abreast of new legal developments. Experts should be consulted, where needed.

PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OVER ASSIGNED TASKS

Malpractice concerns arise when lawyers fail to adequately supervise non-lawyers or junior associates. Lawyers can be held responsible for mistakes made by their employees. See e.g., Pincay v. Andrews, 367 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2004) (Judge Kozinski’s dissent; holding attorney liable for a paralegal’s miscalculation). Such malpractice risk can be minimized
by providing adequate supervision and fostering an environment where questions and concerns can be freely raised. Staff should be carefully supervised as the attorney is ultimately the responsible party.

FILING THE COMPLAINT AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

After the proper statutes of limitation period has been properly identified and the complaint properly filed, other pitfalls await the unwary attorney. Attorneys commonly make mistakes in naming and serving the proper parties. Such defects can often be corrected. However, when a lawsuit is commenced at the eleventh hour (just before the statutes of limitation expires), as in most wrongful foreclosure cases, the attorney may not
have time to correct such flaws, and the client may suffer prejudicial harm as a result.

IDENTIFY AND NAME THE PROPER DEFENDANT

One of the most common mistakes attorneys make is that they fail to discover and identify the proper name of the corporate defendant whom the plaintiff seeks to sue. In a wrongful foreclosure case that involved securitization of mortgage loans, sometimes defendants mights be more than one. To avoid such errors, homeowners should ensure that their attorneys should make every effort to ascertain the defendant’s proper
corporate name either before filing the complaint or as soon as possible thereafter through discovery. A diligent effort should be made to determine all possible entities and persons who should be named as parties in the lawsuit. If situation involves foreign defendants, take special care in correctly naming and serving foreign defendants. Foreign service requirements, including Hague Convention requirements, may need to be followed.

SERVE ALL DEFENDANTS WITHIN STATUTORILY PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITATIONS.

Attorneys who commit errors in timely serving a complaint and summons on a defendant may also face malpractice liability.

Attorneys must serve a defendant with a complaint and summons within the statutorily required time limitations. These limitations vary according
to jurisdiction. For instance, an attorney must serve a defendant to a lawsuit in federal court within 120 days of the fi ling of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, a defendant in a lawsuit in North Carolina State court must be served in most cases within 60 days after the date of the
issuance of the summons. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(c).

Attorneys who fail to perfect service upon a defendant within the statutory expiration period may request an extension of time for service of process. A federal court will grant an extension only if the attorney provides good
cause for the delay in service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On the other hand, a North Carolina court will issue an alias or pluries summons to extend the time period for service upon request, provided certain guidelines are met. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 4(d)(2). Thus, an attorney may be vulnerable to malpractice claims for failing to follow the rules of the particular court in which the case is being litigated. For instance, attorneys may request an alias or pluries summons “at any time within 90 days after the date of issue of the last preceding summons in the chain of summonses.” Id. Provided that the request is not made in “violations of the letter or spirit of the rules for the purpose of delay or obtaining an unfair advantage,” an attorney may request numerous alias or pluries summonses and extend the service deadline for a lengthy period of time without committing malpractice. Smith v. Quinn, 324 N.C. 316, 319, 378 S.E.2d 28 (1989). However, an attorney who does not request an alias or pluries summons within the 90 day time period invalidates the old summons and begins a new action. See CBP Resources v. Ingredient Resource Corp., 954 F. Supp. 1106, 1110 (M.D.N.C. 1996). An attorney risks malpractice liability if the statutes of limitation runs before the alias or pluries summons is issued in such a situation.

In addition, an attorney must refer to the original summons in an alias or pluries summons or else the alias or pluries summons is invalid. Integon Gen. Ins. Co. v. Martin, 127 N.C. App. 440, 441, 490 S.E.2d 242 (1997).

In addition, the attorney may encounter the situation where he is unable to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint because the defendant has died. To complicate matters further, the statutes of limitation
has expired. Homeowners should ensure that their Attorneys consult the statutes for their respective Jurisdictions. This statute will help the lawyer resolve the issue and save the homeowners cause of action.

KEEP THE SUMMONS ALIVE OR ENTER INTO ENFORCEABLE TOLLING AGREEMENTS WITHIN THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION WHILE ENGAGING IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS.

It is often in the client’s best interest to pursue settlement before spending the time and money involved to file or serve a complaint. However, in the instants where the Banks are not willing to work with homeowners, but where rather interested in stealing the homes through wrongful foreclosure, homeowners are left with little options but to pursue the litigation with their Attorneys or Pro Se, in order to save their homes.

In such cases, it is important that the homeowner let their Counsels know that it is crucial to keep the required summons alive and/or enter into an enforceable tolling agreement with the opposing party. Such tolling agreements must be executed before the statutes of limitation passes. Regardless of how close the parties may be to settlement, the Attorneys should not let the statutes of limitation pass without invoking proper protections for the homeowners.

For More Information How You Can Aggressively Defend Your Wrongful Foreclosure on Your Own “Pro Se”, thereby Avoiding These Costly Attorney Mistakes That Can Potentially Cost You the Most Valuable Investment You Have Ever Made which is “Your Home – The American Dream” Visit http://www.fightforeclosure.net (You Are Your Own Best Advocate!)

Quiet Title Action ~ What Florida Home Owners Need to Know

14 Wednesday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Center for Housing Policy, Florida, Foreclosure, MER, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, RealtyTrac, Securitization, United States

Quiet Title Actions: How to Force the Banks To Prove Up

The Foreclosure Crisis

I. THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS

• ISSUE ONE: Who Owns Your Note?

1. The Securitization Process:
– A. Originator Sells To Nominee (First Sale)
– B. The Nominee Sells To Depositor (Second Sale)
– C. The Depositor Sells to the REMIC Trust
• The REMIC Trust created to hold “pool” of mortgages and sell “shares” in
the REMIC Trust to investors.
• A Trustee is designated to operate the trust (typically a bank).
• The REMIC Trust operates through “Bylaws” and “Pooling and Servicing
Agreements”.
• The Pooling and Servicing Agreement outlines how the income from the
mortgages will be managed and the Servicing Agent who will collect income
and foreclose in the event of default.

The Foreclosure Crisis

• One in every 365 housing units in the United States was branded with a foreclosure notice recorded in December 2011, according to RealtyTrac.com. That means 850,000 Americans got a big lump of coal in their stocking from Uncle Scrooge.
• Over 2,076,764 American homes are now in foreclosure.
• One in every 165 housing units in California (more that twice the national average) received a foreclosure notice in December, for a total of 80,488 properties. In Nevada, the figure was one in every 93 houses.
• USA Today reports that almost 1 in 5 children in Nevada lived or live in owneroccupied homes that were lost to foreclosure or are at risk of being lost. The percentages are 15% in Florida, 14% for Arizona, and 12% for California. That’s about one in eight children in California. Five years into the foreclosure crisis, an estimated 2.3 million children have lived in homes lost to foreclosure.
• RealtyTrac reports that foreclosure and REO (real estate-owned) homes accounted for 24 percent of all residential sales during the fourth quarter of 2011.
• Here in relatively affluent Palm Beach County, homeowners are No. 1 in the state for the average number of loans in foreclosure that are delinquent. It has the fourth highest number of foreclosures, 45,829 with an average delinquency of 623 days.

Florida’s Foreclosure Statistics

• Florida is leading the country in foreclosure rates.
• Florida metro areas dominate the top 25 list for cities with the worst foreclosure rates — including the eight highest in the nation, according to a report released Tuesday.#
• In all, 17 of the top 25 cities with the highest foreclosure rates as of March are Florida cities, according to the Center for Housing Policy, the research arm of the Washington, D.C.-based National Housing Conference. #
• With a 10.9 percent foreclosure rate, Jacksonville is ranked 18th overall, but 14 other Florida cities had higher rates. Miami topped the list with the nation’s highest rate of 18.2 percent. #
• Miami’s conventional mortgage foreclosure rate in March was 14.2 percent, while its subprime rate was 39.1 percent. Jacksonville’s conventional foreclosure rate was 7.8 percent while its subprime rate was 29 percent.
• But given the fact that Florida cities made up 15 of the 25 cities with the highest “serious” mortgage delinquency rates — either behind by 90 days behind or more or now in foreclosure, there could be more foreclosures in the state’s future. And just like on the foreclosure list, Miami was also first, with a delinquency rate of 23.6 percent; and Jacksonville was 18th, with a rate of 15.6 percent.

Who Owns Your House?

• ISSUE ONE: WHO OWNS YOUR HOUSE?
– Promissory Note (the “Note”): Loan Agreement
– Mortgage/Deed of Trust: Power of Sale Document
– Grant Deed: You own until you breach the Promissory Note and
your Lender (or Others) use the Power of Sale Document to
Foreclose
– Before Securitization: Your Lender held your Note was always
the Foreclosing Entity.
– After Securitization: No One Knows Who Owns Your Note

Who Owns Your Note?

ISSUE TWO: Who Owns Your Note?
1. The Securitization Process:
– A. Originator Sells To Nominee (First Sale)
– B. The Nominee Sells To Depositor (Second Sale)
– C. The Depositor Sells to the REMIC Trust
• The REMIC Trust created to hold “pool” of mortgages and sell “shares” in
the REMIC Trust to investors.
• A Trustee is designated to operate the trust (typically a bank).
• The REMIC Trust operates through “Bylaws” and “Pooling and Servicing
Agreements”.
• The Pooling and Servicing Agreement outlines how the income from the
mortgages will be managed and the Servicing Agent who will collect income
and foreclose in the event of default.

• Why Is There a Question?
1. The Securitization Process: No One Knows Who Owns Your
Note
– The Original Lenders Failed to Properly Assign Your Note to
Subsequent Purchasers
– Incompetent Personnel
– No Training: No One Trained to Sell Notes Properly
– Never Occurred Before: Prior to Securitization Didn’t
Transfer or Sell Notes
– Thousands of Assignments Left Blank
– Remic Trusts Never Receive Assignments or Possession of
Notes: Current litigation

2. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc
1. Created by over 44 Financial Institutions in 1998 to Avoid the
Registration of Securitized Mortgages : Saves Millions of
Dollars in Recordation fees;
2. Presently Being Sued in (5) States for Unlawfully failing to pay
Recording Fees on Securitized Mortgage Transactions
• WHAT IS MERS FUNCTION?
– TO CAMOUFLAGE THE SALE OF YOUR LOAN TO MULTIPLE
ENTITIES IN THE SECURITIZATION PROCESS;
– AVOID RECORDING FEES ON EVERY SALE OF YOUR LOAN
TO SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS.
– ACT AS “BENEFICIARY” OF YOUR DEED OF TRUST OR
“NOMINEE” OF YOUR MORTGAGE

What is MERS?

• “MERS is a mortgage banking ‘utility’ that registers
mortgage loans in a book entry system so that … real
estate loans can be bought, sold and securitized (Similar
to Wall Street’s book entry utility for stocks and bonds is
the Depository Trust and Clearinghouse.”
• MERS is enormous. It originates thousands of loans
daily and is the mortgagee of record for at least 40
million mortgages and other security documents.
• MERS acts as agent for the owner of the note. Its
authority to act should be shown by an agency
agreement. Of course, if the owner is unknown, MERS
cannot show that it is an authorized agent of the owner.

Result: BANKS CAN’T PROVE THEY OWN YOUR LOAN

• The Wall Street Journal Picks Up the Scent
• An article by Nick Timiraos appeared in The Wall Street Journal on June 1, 2011 – “Banks Hit Hurdle to Foreclosures.”
• “Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock,” Timiraos writes, “as some delinquent borrowers are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can’t prove they own the loans and therefore don’t have the right to foreclose.”
• If you (or I) try to boot a homeowner into the street without any proof that we’re entitled to the property, the cops will lock us up. Stealing is stealing, whether it is somebody’s wallet or their 3-bedroom 2-bath in the suburbs with two dogs and a kid. When a bank tries to steal the bungalow without proof that they have a right to foreclose, it’s a “hurdle” or “another roadblock.”
• Semantics aside, this is good news for all people holding grant deeds. This year, the Journal reports, cases in California, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts and other states have raised questions about whether banks properly demonstrated ownership.
• In some cases, borrowers are showing courts that banks failed to properly assign ownership of mortgages after they were pooled into mortgage-backed securities. In other cases, borrowers say that lenders backdated or fabricated documents to fix those errors.
• “Flawed mortgage-banking processes have potentially infected millions of foreclosures, and the damages against these operations could be significant and take years to materialize,” said Sheila Bair, chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., in testimony to a Senate committee last month.
• In March, an Alabama court said J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. couldn’t foreclose on Phyllis Horace, a delinquent homeowner in Phenix City, Ala., because her loan hadn’t been properly assigned to its owners
– a trust that represents investors – when it was securitized by Bear Stearns Cos. The mortgage assignment showed that the loan hadn’t been transferred to the trust from the subprime lender that originated it.

The Problem With MERS

• Federal bankruptcy courts and state courts have found that MERS and its member banks often confused and misrepresented who owned mortgage notes. In thousands of cases, they apparently lost or mistakenly destroyed loan documents.
• The problems, at MERS and elsewhere, became so severe last fall that many banks temporarily suspended foreclosures.
• Not even the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, an investor in MERS, depends on it these days.
• “We would never rely on it to find ownership,” says Janis Smith, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, noting it has its own records.
• Apparently with good reason. Alan M. White, a law professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law in Indiana, last year matched MERS’s ownership records against those in the public domain.
• The results were not encouraging. “Fewer than 30 percent of the mortgages had an accurate record in
MERS,” Mr. White says. “I kind of assumed that MERS at least kept an accurate list of current ownership.
They don’t. MERS is going to make solving the foreclosure problem vastly more expensive.”
• The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled last year that MERS could no longer file foreclosure proceedings there, because it does not actually make or service any loans. Last month in Utah, a local judge made the no-lessstriking decision to let a homeowner rip up his mortgage and walk away debt-free. MERS had claimed ownership of the mortgage, but the judge did not recognize its legal standing.
• And, on Long Island, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled in February that MERS could no longer act as an “agent” for the owners of mortgage notes. He acknowledged that his decision could erode the foundation of the mortgage business.
• But this, Judge Robert E Grossman said, was not his fault.
• “This court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50 percent of all residential mortgages in the country,” he wrote, “that is reason enough for this court to turn a blind eye to
the fact that this process does not comply with the law.”

Legal Issues

1. SEPARATION OF THE NOTE AND THE DEED
• In the case of MERS, the Note and the Deed of Trust are held by separate entities. This can pose a unique problem dependent upon the court. The prevailing case law illustrates the issue:
• “The Deed of Trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and an assignment of the debt carries with it the security instrument. Therefore, a Deed Of Trust is inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt. It has no market or ascertainable value apart from the obligation it secures.
• A Deed of Trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the Deed Of Trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. “
• This very “simple” statement poses major issues. To easily understand, if the Deed of Trust and the Note are not together with the same entity, then there can be no enforcement of the Note. The Deed of Trust enforces the Note. It provides the capability for the lender to foreclose on a property. If the Deed is separate from the Note, then enforcement, i.e. foreclosure cannot occur.
The following ruling summarizes this nicely.
• In Saxon vs Hillery, CA, Dec 2008, Contra Costa County Superior Court, an action by Saxon to foreclose on a property by lawsuit was dismissed due to lack of legal standing. This was because the Note and the Deed of Trust were “owned” by separate entities. The Court ruled that when the Note and Deed of Trust were separated, the enforceability of the Note was negated until rejoined.

2. MERS IS A NOMINEE AND NOT THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE
• The question now becomes as to whether a Note Endorsed in Blank and transferred to different entities does allow for foreclosure. If MERS is the foreclosing authority but has no entitlement to payment of the money, how could they foreclose? This is especially true if the true beneficiary
is not known. Why do I raise the question of who the true beneficiary is?
• THE MERS WEBSITE STATES…..
• “On MERS loans, MERS will show as the beneficiary of record. Foreclosures should be commenced in the name of MERS. To effectuate this process, MERS has allowed each servicer to choose a select number of its own employees to act as officers for MERS.
Through this process, appropriate documents may be executed at the servicer’s site on behalf of MERS by the same servicing employee that signs foreclosure documents for non-MERS loans. Until the time of sale, the foreclosure is handled in same manner as non-MERS foreclosures. At the time of sale, if the property reverts, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale will follow
a different procedure. Since MERS acts as nominee for the true beneficiary, it is important that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale be made in the name of the true beneficiary and not MERS. Your title company or MERS officer can easily determine the true beneficiary. Title companies have indicated that they will insure subsequent title when these procedures are followed.”

3. MERS IS THE NOMINEE AND NOT THE BENEFICIARY
• To further reinforce that MERS is not the true beneficiary of the loan, one need only look at the following Nevada Bankruptcy case, Hawkins, Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR (Bankr.Nev. 3/31/2009) (Bankr.Nev., 2009) – “A “beneficiary” is defined as “one designated to benefit from an appointment, disposition, or assignment . . . or to receive something as a result of
a legal arrangement or instrument.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 165 (8th ed. 2004). But it is obvious from the MERS’ “Terms and Conditions” that MERS is not a beneficiary as it has no rights whatsoever to any payments, to any servicing rights, or to any of the properties secured by the loans. To reverse an old adage, if it doesn’t walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it’s not a duck.”
• When the initial Deed of Trust is made out in the name of MERS as Nominee for the Beneficiary and the Note is made to AB Lender, there should be no issues with MERS acting as an Agent for AB Lender. Hawkins even recognizes this as fact.
• The issue does arise when the Note transfers possession. Though the Deed of Trust states “beneficiary and/or successors”, the question can arise as to who the successor is, and whether Agency is any longer in effect. MERS makes the argument that the successor Trustee is a MERS
member and therefore Agency is still effective, and there does appear to be merit to the argument on the face of it.The original Note Holder, AB Lender, no longer holds the note, nor is entitled to payment. Therefore, that Agency relationship is terminated. However, the Note is endorsed in blank, and no Assignment has been made to any other entity, so who is the true
beneficiary? And without the Assignment of the Note, is the Agency relationship intact?

4. MERS FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES
• There, you have it. Direct from the MERS website. They admit that they
name people to sign documents in the name of MERS. Often, these are
Title Company employees or others that have no knowledge of the actual
loan and whether it is in default or not.
• Even worse, MERS admits that they are not the true beneficiary of the loan.
In fact, it is likely that MERS has no knowledge of the true beneficiary of the
loan for whom they are representing in an “Agency” relationship. They
admit to this when they say “Your title company or MERS officer can
easily determine the true beneficiary.
• Why are the Courts Accepting MERS as a Nominee or Agent of the
“Lenders”? The “beneficiary” term is erroneous. Even MERS states it
is not a “beneficiary”.
• If so, MERS cannot assign deeds of trust or mortgages to third parties
legally.

• ISSUE THREE: Does MERS have the Right to Participate in Your
Foreclosure?
– NO. According to the Majority of Federal Court Opinions and Every State Supreme Court decision which has addressed this Issue: Oregon and Washington Supreme Ct Decisions Pending
– Every Attorney General who has examined the legality of MERS has determined it is illegal business enterprise: New York; Delaware; Oregon, Washington, Idaho; with more to come.
_ Declared Unlawful Business Organization : ( In re: Agard, No. 10-77338, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 488, at 58-59 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb 10, 2011)
_ In California, the federal court determined that MERS has to have a written contract with the new noteholder in order to have the authority to appoint or assign the beneficial interest in the note sufficient to foreclose (In re: Vargas: US Dist Ct, Central Dist of Calif; Case No LA 08-107036-SB).
– Judge Michael Simon of the Oregon Federal Court has found that MERS cannot assign its beneficiary status in a deed of trust to a third party for foreclosure purposes due to the fact that MERS does not under Oregon law have the legal authority to do so (James, et al v Reconstruct Trust, et al: US Dist Ct. Case No: 3:11-cv-00324-ST).

Solutions

QUIET TITLE ACTIONS: Definition
• quiet title action n. a lawsuit to establish a party’s title to real property
against anyone and everyone, and thus “quiet” any challenges or claims to
the title. Such a suit usually arises when there is some question about clear
title, there exists some recorded problem (such as an old lease or failure to
clear title after payment of a mortgage), an error in description which casts
doubt on the amount of property owned, or an easement used for years
without a recorded description. An action for quiet title requires description
of the property to be “quieted,” naming as defendants anyone who might
have an interest (including descendants—known or unknown—of prior
owners), and the factual and legal basis for the claim of title. Notice
must be given to all potentially interested parties, including known and
unknown, by publication. If the court is convinced title is in the plaintiff (the
plaintiff owns the title), a quiet title judgment will be granted which can be
recorded and thus provide legal “good title.“

• QUIET TITLE ACTIONS:
– Purpose: Require All Adverse Claims to Title to Prove to the Court the
Worthiness of Their Claim:
– Mortgages/Deeds Of Trust:
• Who is the Owner of Your Note? Prove It
• Who is the Beneficiary of Your Deed of Trust/Mortgage? The Owner of the
Note
• Who has the Legal Right to Foreclose?
– ONLY THE OWNER OF THE NOTE IS A TRUE BENEFICIARY
– ONLY THE BENEFICIARY OF THE MORTGAGE OR DEED OF
TRUST OR ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CAN FORECLOSE
– MERS IS NOT A BENEFICIARY-According to its own Website
– MERS IS NOT A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY REMIC TRUST
» No Contract
» At Best MERS has a Contractual Relationship with Original Lender

• FLORIDA QUIET TITLE STATUTES-Civil Practice and Procedure
• 65.061 Quieting title; additional remedy.—
• (1) JURISDICTION.–Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions by any person or corporation claiming legal or equitable title to any land…. and shall determine the title of plaintiff and may enter judgment quieting the title and awarding possession to the party entitled thereto….
• (2) GROUNDS.–When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to have any right or title thereto, any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record title to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of any deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of witnesses, or any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a party or parties thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the defective instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and delivered by the grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the county where the land lies which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner….
• (4) JUDGMENT.–If it appears that plaintiff has legal title to the land or is the equitable owner thereof based on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2), or if a default is entered against defendant (in which case no evidence need be taken), the court shall enter judgment removing the alleged cloud from the title to the land and forever quieting the title in plaintiff and those claiming under him or her since the commencement of the action and adjudging plaintiff to have a good fee simple title to said land or the interest thereby cleared of cloud.

DECLARATORY RELIEF
• WHO OWNS THE NOTE? WHO IS ENTITLED TO FORECLOSE?
• FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: RULE 57. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
• 28 U.S.C. §2201. Rules 38 and 39 govern a demand for a jury trial. The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of a declaratory-judgment action.
• The fact that a declaratory judgment may be granted “whether or not further relief is or could be prayed” indicates that declaratory relief is alternative or cumulative and not exclusive or extraordinary. A declaratory judgment is appropriate when it will “terminate the controversy” giving rise to the proceeding. Inasmuch as it often involves only an issue of law
on undisputed or relatively undisputed facts, it operates frequently as a summary proceeding, justifying docketing the case for early hearing as on a motion, as provided for in California (Code Civ.Proc. (Deering, 1937) §1062a), Michigan (3 Comp.Laws (1929) §13904), and Kentucky
(Codes (Carroll, 1932) Civ.Pract. §639a–3).
• The “controversy” must necessarily be “of a justiciable nature, thus excluding an advisory decree upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 325, 56 S.Ct. 466, 473, 80 L.Ed. 688, 699 (1936). The existence or nonexistence of any right, duty, power, liability, privilege, disability, or immunity or of any fact upon which such legal relations depend, or of a status, may be declared.

• WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE:
• What is a Wrongful Foreclosure Action?
• A wrongful foreclosure action typically occurs when the lender starts a
judicial foreclosure action when it simply has no legal cause. Wrongful
foreclosure actions are also brought when the service providers accept
partial payments after initiation of the wrongful foreclosure process, and
then continue on w i t h the f o r e c l o s u r e process. These
predatory lending strategies, as well as other forms of misleading
homeowners, are illegal.
• The borrower is the one that files a wrongful disclosure action with the court against the service provider, the holder of the note and if it is a non-judicial foreclosure, against the trustee complaining that there was an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed or court judicial proceeding. The borrower can also allege emotional distress and ask for punitive damages in a wrongful foreclosure action.

• FRAUD CLAIMS
• Mortgage Payments: Have you been paying mortgage payments to the
wrong financial institution?
• JP Morgan Chase: Bought “Assets” of WAMU from FDIC in 2008
– All Mortgage Loans from 2003-2008 were already sold to REMIC Trusts
– What Did Chase Bank Buy? Servicing Contracts?
– Can Chase Bank Foreclose on Notes It Does Not Own?
• One West Bank: Bought “Assets” of IndyMac from FDIC in 2008
– All Mortgage Loans from 2003-2008 were already sold to REMIC Trusts
– What did One West Bank Buy? Servicing Contracts?
– Can One West Foreclose on Notes It Does Not Own?
• Bank of America: Bought “Servicing Contracts” from Countrywide in 2008
– All Mortgage Loans from 2003-2008 were already sold to REMIC Trusts
– What Did Bank of America Buy? Servicing Contracts
– Can Bank of America Foreclose on Notes It Does Not Own?

• QUIET TITLE LITIGATION:
– Potential Outcomes:
• Actual Quiet Title: Removal of All Liens, Encumbrances,
Mortgages:
• Principal Reduction: Mediation or Arbitration Resulting in
Substantial Reduction in Your Mortgage Balance
• Damage Claims against Financial Institutions: Punitive Damages?
• TROS and Injunctions: Stopping the Foreclosure Process
• Did Default Insurance Pay Off My Mortgage
• Declaratory Relief:
– Who Do I Pay My Mortgage To?
– Who Can Foreclose on My House?

Credit Rehabilitation
• Credit Rehabilitation
• The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives you the right to contact credit bureaus directly and dispute items on your credit reports. You can dispute any and all items that are inaccurate, untimely, misleading, biased, incomplete or unverifiable (questionable items). If the bureaus cannot verify that the information on their reports is indeed correct, then those items must be deleted.
• PeabodyLaw has created the “Mortgage Audit Plan”:
– Obtain a Securitization Audit from Audit Pros, Inc.
– Peabody Law will utilize the results of your Securitization Audit to file a
court action seeking a court order removing all negative credit reporting
items from your credit history based upon the findings of the audit.
– Upon receipt of Court Judgment rendering the nullification of unlawful
and erroneous credit references, Peabody Law will send a Demand
Letter with the Judgment attachment to each Credit Reporting Agency
demanding retraction and removal of all negative credit references
relating to mortgage payments, foreclosures, short sales, etc.

For a Complete Pro Se “Do It Yourself” Foreclosure Defense Kit With Well Drafted Pleadings and Step By Step Guide For Saving Your Home Visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

How Homeoweners Can Use Various Forms of Mortgage Fraud Schemes For Wrongful Foreclosure Defense

12 Monday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, Non-Judicial States, Notary, Note - Deed of Trust - Mortgage, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Scam Artists, Title Companies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Business, Finance, Financial Services, Loan origination, mortgage, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage loan, United States

Over the past few years, mortgage fraud continues to result in significant losses for both financial institutions and homeowners.

Mortgage fraud has continued to increase over the past few years. Declining economic conditions, liberal underwriting standards, and declining housing values contributed to the increased level of fraud. Market participants are perpetrating mortgage fraud by modifying old schemes, such as property flip, builder-bailout, and short sale fraud, as well as employing newer schemes, such as buy and bail, reverse mortgage fraud, loan modification and refinance fraud, and mortgage servicing fraud.

It is imperative that homeowners understand the nature of the various schemes involving mortgage frauds as this will help you to build rock solid defense when fighting your wrongful foreclosure to save your home.

Various individuals participate in mortgage fraud schemes. The following list consists of common participants in such schemes.

Appraiser                                Processor
Borrower                              Real Estate Agent
Buyer                                       Seller
Closing/Settlement Agent    Title Agent
Loan Servicer Underwriter
Originator    Warehouse Lender

BASIC MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS

Basic mortgage transactions are generally the same whether the purpose of the loan is to purchase a property, refinance an existing loan, or obtain a loan against a property that is unencumbered and may be offered through one of the channels described below:

Retail

In retail transactions, the borrower makes an application directly with a financial institution loan officer. These mortgage transactions are the most basic and involve the fewest number of third parties, which may include appraisers and closing agents. Usually, the application package consisting of financial information, credit report, a collateral valuation report such as an appraisal or evaluation, title information, and various other credit-related documents, is compiled and forwarded to an underwriter for a credit decision. Upon approval, the financial institution then releases funds to a closing agent, who disburses funds to the various parties. The loan package is returned to the financial institution and reviewed for quality and accuracy. The loan is either held on the financial institution’s books or sold into the secondary market. Retail originations only include loans closed in the financial institution’s name.

Broker Origination

A broker-originated loan is similar to the retail transaction, except that the borrower makes an application with a mortgage broker. A broker is a firm or individual, acting on behalf of either the financial institution or the borrower, who matches a borrower’s financing needs with an institution’s mortgage origination programs. Brokers are compensated by receiving a commission expressed as a percentage of the total loan amount (e.g., 1 percent origination fee) from the borrower or through a yield-spread premium from the lender when the loan closes.

Brokers have played a critical role in the wholesale loan origination process and have significant influence on the total loan transaction. Brokers have served as the point of contact for the borrower and the lender, and coordinated the involvement of other parties to complete the transaction. A broker can perform some or most of the loan processing functions including, but not limited to, taking loan applications; ordering credit and title reports; verifying a borrower’s income and employment; etc.

Once the broker has gathered the necessary information, the application is submitted along with supporting documentation to one or more financial institutions for underwriting. The financial institution’s underwriter reviews the information and makes a credit decision. The financial institution also may perform pre-funding quality assurance activities, such as re-verification of income and employment.

A copy of the loan approval package, with documents prepared in the name of the financial institution, is then returned to the broker. Once the loan has closed, the completed package should be returned directly to the financial institution. Again, the financial institution may review the loan for quality and either retain the loan in its own portfolio or sell it.

Mortgage Loan Purchased from a Correspondent

In this transaction, the borrower applies for and closes a loan with a correspondent of the financial institution, which can be a mortgage company, another depository institution, finance company, or credit union service organization. The correspondent can close the loan with internally-generated funds in its own name or with funds borrowed from a warehouse lender. Without the capacity or desire to hold the loan in its own portfolio, the correspondent sells the loan to a financial institution. The purchasing financial institution is frequently not involved in the origination aspects of the transaction, and relies upon the correspondent to comply with the financial institution’s approved underwriting, documentation, and loan delivery standards. The purchasing financial institution may perform a quality control review prior to purchase. Also, the purchasing financial institution must review the appraisal or evaluation report and determine conformity with the Agencies’ appraisal standards, regulations, and supervisory guidance, as well as the financial institution’s requirements.

The loan can be booked in the financial institution’s own portfolio or sold.

In “delegated underwriting” relationships, the financial institution grants approval to the correspondent to process, underwrite, and close loans according to the financial institution’s processing and underwriting requirements. Proper due diligence, internal controls, approvals, quality control audits, and ongoing monitoring are warranted for these higher-risk relationships.

Each of the Agencies has issued detailed guidance on a financial institution’s management of its arrangements with third parties, including brokers, and associated risk. Examiners are encouraged to review and consider the guidance issued by their Agency in evaluating broker arrangements. Additionally, the Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (S.A.F.E. Act) requires licensing and/or registration for all residential mortgage loan originators. The system is also used for state-licensed mortgage companies. More information is available at the website at http://www.stateregulatoryregistry.org and contains comprehensive licensing, registration, enforcement action that is expected to be made available to the public through the website in the near future.

COMMON MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES

This post defines schemes as the big picture or secret plan of action used to perpetrate a fraud. There are a variety of “schemes” by which mortgage fraud can take place. These schemes can involve individuals inside the financial institution or third parties. Various combinations of these schemes may be implemented in a single fraud. The descriptions provided below are examples of traditional and emerging schemes that are used to facilitate mortgage fraud. Click on the link for each fraud scheme to learn more about that particular scheme.

Builder Bailout

This scheme is used when a builder, who has unsold units in a tract, subdivision, or condominium complex, employs various fraudulent schemes to sell the remaining properties.

Buy and Bail

Chunking

Chunking occurs when a third party convinces an uninformed borrower to invest in a property (or properties), with no money down and with the third party acting as the borrower’s agent. The third party is also typically the owner of the property or part of a larger group organizing the scheme. Without the borrower’s knowledge, the third party submits loan applications to multiple financial institutions for various properties. The third party retains the loan proceeds, leaving the borrower with multiple loans that cannot be repaid. The financial institutions are forced to foreclose on the properties.

Double Selling

Double selling occurs when a mortgage loan originator accepts a legitimate application and documentation from a buyer, reproduces or copies the loan file, and sends the loan package to separate warehouse lenders to each fund the loan.

Equity Skimming

Equity skimming is the use of a fraudulent appraisal that over-values a property, creating phantom equity, which is subsequently stripped out through various schemes.

Fictitious Loan

A fictitious loan is the fabrication of loan documents or use of a real person’s information to apply for a loan which the applicant typically has no intention of paying. A fictitious loan can be perpetrated by an insider of the financial institution or by external parties such as loan originators, real estate agents, title companies, and/or appraisers.

Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

This scheme occurs when a borrower submits false income information and/or false credit reports to persuade the financial institution to modify or refinance the loan on more favorable terms.

Mortgage Servicing Fraud

This fraud is perpetrated by the loan servicer and generally involves the diversion or misuse of loan payments, proceeds from loan prepayments, and/or escrow funds for the benefit of the service provider.

Phantom Sale

This scheme generally involves an individual or individuals who falsely transfer title to a property or properties and fraudulently obtain funds via mortgage loans or sales to third parties.

Property Flip Fraud

A fraudulent property flip is a scheme in which individuals, businesses, and/or straw borrowers, buy and sell properties among themselves to artificially inflate the value of the property.

Reverse Mortgage Fraud

Reverse Mortgage Fraud involves a scheme using a reverse mortgage loan to defraud a financial institution by stripping legitimate or fictitious equity from the collateral property.

Short Sale Fraud

Fraud occurs in a short sale when a borrower purposely withholds mortgage payments, forcing the loan into default, so that an accomplice can submit a “straw” short-sale offer at a purchase price less than the borrower’s loan balance. Sometimes the borrower is truly having financial difficulty and is approached by a fraudster to commit the scheme. In all cases, a fraud is committed if the financial institution is misled into approving the short-sale offer, when the price is not reasonable and/or when conflicts of interest are not properly disclosed.

Two additional fraud schemes, which are briefly addressed below, are debt elimination and foreclosure rescue schemes. While these schemes are typically not perpetrated directly on financial institutions, and therefore not expanded upon to the same degree as the above-mentioned schemes, the end result of the scheme can have a negative impact on the financial institution.

DEBT ELIMINATION SCHEME

Debt elimination schemes are illegal schemes that offer to eliminate a borrower’s debt for an up-front fee. The organizers of these schemes create phony legal documents based on the borrower’s loan(s) for presentment to the borrower’s financial institution or other lending institution in an attempt to falsely satisfy the loans.

The threat this fraud scheme presents to a financial institution is the borrower’s cessation of loan payments. Financial institutions may find that the use of the false documents complicates the collection process and may temporarily prevent any final action against the borrower.

FORECLOSURE RESCUE SCHEME

Foreclosure rescue schemes prey upon homeowners in financial distress or facing foreclosure, with the promise to help save their home. There are multiple variations of this scheme, often charging up-front fees and/or convincing the homeowner to deed the property to the fraudster, with the premise that the homeowner can rent or buy the property back once the individual’s credit has improved. The goal of the fraudster is to collect fees or mortgage payments that are intended for the lender, but are not delivered, usually resulting in the loan going into default and ultimately foreclosure, causing loss to the financial institution.

COMMON MECHANISMS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES

This post defines mechanism as the process by which fraud is perpetrated. A single mortgage fraud scheme can often include one or more mechanisms and may involve collusion between two or more individuals working in unison to implement a fraud. Click on the links to learn more about that particular mechanism. The following is a list of common mechanisms used to perpetrate mortgage fraud schemes:

Asset Rental: Cash or other assets are temporarily placed in the borrower’s account/possession in order to qualify for a mortgage loan. The borrower usually pays a “rental” fee for the temporary “use” of the assets.

Fake Down Payment: In order to meet loan-to-value requirements, a fake down payment through fictitious, forged, falsified, or altered documents is used to mislead the lender.

Fraudulent Appraisal: Appraisal fraud can occur when an appraiser, for various reasons, falsifies information on an appraisal or falsely provides an inaccurate valuation on the appraisal with the intent to mislead a third party.

Fraudulent Documentation: Fraudulent documentation consists of any forged, falsified, incomplete, or altered document that the financial institution relied upon in making a credit decision.

Fraudulent Use of Shell Company: A business entity that typically has no physical presence, has nominal assets, and generates little or no income is a shell company. Shell companies in themselves are not illegal and may be formed by individuals or business for legitimate purposes. However, due to lack of transparency regarding beneficial ownership, ease of formation, and inconsistent reporting requirements from state to state, shell companies have become a preferred vehicle for financial fraud schemes.

Identify Theft: Identity theft can be defined as assuming the use of another person’s personal information (e.g., name, SSN, credit card number, etc.) without the person’s knowledge and the fraudulent use of such knowledge to obtain credit.

Straw/Nominee Borrower: An individual used to serve as a cover for a questionable loan transaction.

EXAMPLES OF MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES

– – – – Builder Bailout – – – –

A builder bailout occurs when a builder, who has unsold units in a tract, subdivision, or condominium complex, employs various fraudulent schemes to sell the remaining properties. In stressed economic or financial conditions, a builder may be pressured to liquidate remaining inventory to cover financial obligations. To sell the remaining properties, the builder may use a variety of tools including, but not limited to, hidden down payment assistance or excessive seller concessions to elevate the sales price. As a result of the scheme, the unsuspecting financial institution is often left with a loan secured by inflated collateral value and the “real” loan-to-value is greater than 100 percent.

Examples:

– A builder convinces buyers to purchase property by offering to pay excessive incentives that are undisclosed to the lender, including down payments, “no money down promotions”, and/or closing cost assistance.

– In an effort to attract participants, a builder promises to manage properties as rentals and absorb any negative cash flow for the first 12 to 18 months.

– A builder forms one or more companies to purchase the builder’s inventory at inflated market values. The affiliated company finances 100 percent of the purchase amount and funnels the excess cash back to the builder. This scheme falsely inflates the property value, clouds the builder’s true ability to move the inventory, and disguises the fact that the builder is ultimately responsible for repayment of the loan.

– A builder forms a mortgage origination affiliate to originate fraudulent loans. The loan files contain credit discrepancies, fraudulent appraisals, and/or erroneous certificates of occupancy and completion.

– When the builder can no longer lure investors/speculators, the builder may employ straw buyers to purchase the properties.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Excessive or unsubstantiated down payment.
• Unexplained large or multiple deposits reflected on deposit account statements.
• Borrower states that the property will be owner-occupied, but the property is located in a market dominated by investment properties or second homes (beach properties, duplexes, apartment buildings).
• Use of gift funds or grant funds.
• The HUD-1 shows disbursements from the builder’s (as seller) funds to persons or entities not reflected as lien-holders or vendors on the title commitment.
• Robust condominium sales in a slow market.
• All comparable properties are from the same project.
• Many loans to one applicant (credit report).
• No-money-down sales pitch (noted in marketing brochures or website).
• Reference to secondary financing on purchase contract, but not on the loan application.

• Parties to the transaction appear affiliated based on file documentation (personally/professionally).
• Incentives that include pre-paid condominium fees, principal and interest payments for a year, buy-down, free furniture, automobiles, parking spaces, boat slips, etc.

Companion Frauds

• Straw/Nominee Borrower

• Documentation Fraud (associated with income and assets)

• Fraudulent Appraisal

– – – – Buy and Bail – – – –

This scheme typically involves a borrower who is current on a mortgage loan, but the value of the house has fallen below the amount owed. The borrower continues to make loan payments, while applying for a purchase money mortgage loan on a similar but less expensive house because its value has declined. Alternatively, the borrower currently has good credit, but pending events are such that the borrower will soon be unable to afford monthly payments on the existing loan (e.g. loan term adjustments, job loss, debt accumulation, etc.) or qualify for a new loan. In either case, after the new property has been obtained, the borrower “walks” or “bails” on the first loan.

Examples:

A self-employed child-care service provider is living in a house purchased for $500,000 two years ago that is now worth approximately $350,000. Monthly payments on the adjustable rate mortgage loan are $3,000. In a few months the payments will adjust upward, as a result of the rate change, to $3,700, an amount the homeowner cannot afford. The homeowner finds a home selling for $200,000 and obtains a loan on that property by falsely claiming to rent the existing property. After moving into the second house, the borrower defaults on the initial mortgage loan.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Second home is substantially less in value and/or loan amount than the existing home.
• Borrower has minimal or no equity.
• Borrower is a first-time landlord (renting out the original property).
• Limited documentation is available to validate lease terms with the purported tenant.
• Purported tenant has a pre-existing relationship with the homeowner.

• Rental agreement appears suspect or projected rental cash flows appear unreasonable.
• Borrower defaults on the original mortgage loan shortly after purchasing a second property (only likely to be detected if the same lender holds both mortgages and loans).

Companion Fraud

• Fraudulent Documentation

– – – – Chunking – – – –

A third party convinces an uninformed borrower to invest in a property (or properties), with no money down, with the third party acting as the borrower’s agent. The third party is also typically the owner of the property, or is part of a larger group organizing the scheme. Without the borrower’s knowledge, the third party submits loan applications on the borrower’s behalf to multiple financial institutions for various properties. These applications are submitted as owner-occupied or as an investment property with a falsified lease. The scheme usually requires the assistance of an appraiser, broker, and/or title company representative to ensure that the third party, as agent for the borrower, does not have to bring any money to the multiple closings. The third party retains the loan proceeds, leaving the borrower with multiple loans that cannot be repaid. The financial institutions are forced to foreclose on the properties and suffer sizable losses.

Examples:

A borrower attended a seminar that outlined how to get rich by investing in real estate with no money down. A third party, a presenter at the seminar, encouraged the borrower to invest in three real estate properties. Under the third party’s guidance, the borrower completed the required application and provided documentation for the loans. The borrower was unaware that the third party owned numerous properties in the name of a Limited Liability Company and submitted applications on not just the three properties known to the borrower, but on a total of 15 different properties. Each application was sent to a different lender, and all were scheduled to close within a one-week timeframe. The borrower attended three of the closings with a different representative of the LLC as the seller. The third party then acted as an agent for the borrower, with power of attorney, at the other 12 closings. The borrower ended up with 15 mortgage loans instead of the three for which he had knowledge, and the lenders were stuck with loans to a borrower without the ability to repay the debts and were forced to foreclose on the properties.

Fraudsters approached nominees (straw borrowers) and enticed the nominees into allowing the fraudsters to apply for mortgage loans in the nominees’ names in order to buy houses. The fraudsters paid the nominees a small amount for allowing the fraudsters to use the nominees’ names to apply for the mortgage loans. The fraudsters completed the loan application paperwork with falsified information in order for the nominees to qualify for the loans. The fraudsters then received inflated property appraisals and obtained two mortgages on each home, one for the purchase price and another for the balance of the appraisal value.

According to the fraudster, the nominee will have no involvement beyond the mortgage application and the fraudster will manage the properties, find tenants, collect monthly payments, and pay the mortgage loans. The tenants, with insufficient credit, are placed in the homes under proposed lease/option-to-buy contracts. The fraudster fails to make a majority of the nominee’s mortgage loan payments, causing many of the mortgage loans to go into default. In some instances, the fraudster steals the tenants’ deposit money. Ultimately, lenders foreclose on the properties.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Multiple mortgage applications by one borrower.
• Credit report that reflects numerous mortgage inquiries.
• Out-of-state borrower.
• Seller that is a corporation or LLC.
• Seller that owns property for a short period of time.
• Previous transfer price that is much lower than current contract price.
• Incomplete lease agreements.
• Payoffs from seller’s funds to non-lien holders and vendors on the title commitment.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Documentation

• Fraudulent Appraisal
• Identity Theft
• Property Flip Fraud
• Double Selling

– – – – Double Selling – – – –

A mortgage loan originator accepts a legitimate application and related documentation from a borrower, reproduces or copies the loan file, and sends the loan package to separate warehouse lenders to each fund the same loan. In some instances, double selling is self-perpetuating because, to keep the scheme going, different loans must be substituted for the ones on which documents cannot be provided. Under this scheme, the broker has to make payments to the investor who received the copied documents or first payment default occurs.

Examples:

– A borrower colluded with a mortgage broker to use the borrower’s property as collateral for numerous home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) at different financial institutions. The scheme was executed by closing on multiple HELOCs in a short period of time to take advantage of the delay in recording the mortgages. In addition, the mortgage broker misrepresented the borrower’s financial information in order to increase the borrower’s debt capacity. The property with less than $125,000 in equity was used to obtain over $1 million in credit from several financial institutions.

– A mortgage company used a group of financial institutions (referred to as warehouse lenders) to temporarily fund mortgage loans, which were then sold to another group of financial institutions as long-term investments. The scheme was accomplished by reselling the same loans to multiple investors. Accumulated losses associated with this scheme were in the millions of dollars.

Red Flags

• Discrepancies between underwriting and closing instructions.
• Outstanding trailing documents (e.g., executed note, deed, truth-in-lending, settlement statement, etc.)
• Missing or illegible insured closing letter in the name of the originator from the title company.
• Recent and numerous changes in the wiring instructions.
• Incorrectly named insured and loss payee on the hazard insurance policy.
• Missing mortgage insurance or guaranty, certificate of eligibility.
• Missing purchase commitment from investor – investor lock.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Documentation
• Identity Theft

– – – – Equity Skimming – – – –

The use of a fraudulent appraisal, unrecorded liens or other means to create phantom equity, which is subsequently stripped out through either of the following methods:

Purchase Money Transaction

An inflated appraisal and sales contract allows the purchaser to obtain property with little or no down payment. The parties agree to raise the selling price to cover the buyer’s closing costs and/or down payment, or to obtain cash back at closing. As a result, the loan amount is higher than what the house is worth, effectively skimming all of the phantom equity out of the property.

Cash-Out Refinance Transaction

In the case of a refinance, the inflated appraisal or lack of recordation allows the borrower to extract cash in an amount greater than the actual value of the property.

Examples:

– A good example of an equity skimming scheme required a two-step process. In the first step, a loan officer and real estate agent colluded to purchase houses using false information on applications to qualify for loans. The second stage required the collusion of an appraiser to overstate the value allowing equity to be skimmed through the cash-out refinance process. Once no more equity could be extracted, the houses were allowed to go into foreclosure.

– A skimmer/purchaser convinces a property seller to provide a second mortgage loan with payments to begin later, perhaps in 6-12 months. During this period, the skimmer makes no payments on either the first or the second mortgage loan. In situations where the second mortgage is unrecorded, the skimmer will obtain a home equity or closed-end second mortgage, causing a loss to the issuing financial institution. By the time the seller realizes that they will not receive payments, the first mortgagee has begun foreclosure proceedings.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Borrower receiving cash back at closing in a purchase transaction.
• Title to property recently transferred.
• Cash-out refinance shortly after the property has been purchased (reference application, appraisal, and title commitment).
• Purpose for cash-out is not well documented.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Appraisal
• Fraudulent Documentation (employment and income)

– – – – Fictitious Loan – – – –

Examples:

A mortgage broker created loan applications by using names, addresses, and phone numbers out of the telephone book. These loans were subsequently funded by various financial institutions. As the loans were fabricated and no properties existed, the loans went into default and were charged off.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Signatures are not consistent throughout the file.
• No real estate agent is employed.
• SSN was recently issued, or there is a death claim filed under SSN.
• Format of the passport number is not consistent with country of issuance.
• Employment and/or address on credit report do not match borrower’s application or there is an absence of credit history.
• Credit history is inconsistent with the borrower’s age.
• Returned mortgage loan payment coupons and/or monthly statements.
• Early payment default.

Companion Frauds
• Straw/Nominee Borrower
• Fraudulent Documentation
• Fraudulent Appraisal

– – – – Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud – – – –

Borrower submits false income information and/or false credit reports to persuade a financial institution to modify or refinance a loan on more favorable terms.

With respect to any mortgage loan, a loan modification is a revision to the contractual payment terms of the related of the related mortgage note, agreed to by the servicer and borrower, including, without limitation, the following:

1. Capitalization of any amounts owed by adding such amount to the outstanding principal balance.
2. Extension of the maturity.
3. Change in amortization schedule.
4. Reduction or other revision to the mortgage note interest rate.
5. Extension of the fixed-rate payment period of any adjustable rate mortgage loan.
6. Reduction or other revision to the note interest rate index, gross margin, initial or periodic interest rate cap, or maximum or minimum rate of any adjustable rate mortgage loan.
7. Forgiveness of any amount of interest and/or principal owed by the related borrower.
8. Forgiveness of any principal and/or interest advances that are reimbursed to the servicer from the securitization trust.

9. Forgiveness of any escrow advances of taxes and insurance and/or any other servicing advances that are reimbursed to the servicer from the securitization trust.
10. Forbearance of principal whereby the servicer “moves” a certain interest free portion of the principal to the “back-end” of the loan, lowering the amortizing balance and the monthly payment.

Refinancing is the process of paying off an existing loan by taking a new loan and using the same property as security. A homeowner may refinance for the following legitimate reasons:
• In a declining interest rate environment a refinance generally will lower monthly payments.
• In a rising interest rate environment a refinance to a fixed rate loan from an adjustable rate loan will generally allow the borrower to lock in the lower rate for the life of the loan.
• In a period of rising home prices the refinance allows the borrower to withdraw equity.

Examples:

– Two years after the origination of a mortgage loan, a borrower contacted the lender, claiming a need to modify the loan. In an attempt to deceive the lender into modifying the loan, the borrower stopped making loan payments. The borrower’s original loan application indicated that the borrower earned $7,500 per month; however, the borrower subsequently claimed income of only $1,200 per month. While evaluating the need for the modification, the bank reviewed the borrower’s credit report and determined that the customer’s supposed annual income of $14,400, was insufficient in comparison to the reported $40,000 per year servicing other debt, which was current. The bank stopped the modification process, as the borrower had intentionally understated income in an attempt to defraud the financial institution.

– A borrower contacted the lender claiming a reduction in income and trouble with making loan payments. The borrower provided the lender with a copy of his most recent tax return, which showed an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $45,000, down from the previous year’s $96,897. The borrower signed Form 4506-T, authorizing the lender to access tax returns filed with the IRS. In reviewing the tax information obtained from the IRS, the lender found that the borrower had recently amended the most recent return, lowering the AGI from $105,670 to $45,000. In this scenario, the borrower had purposely amended the return to reflect a lower AGI, possibly with the intent of amending it a second time to reflect the true amount of income.

– A borrower requests a loan modification for a property that he claims to occupy. Based on the various facts provided to the lender, it appears that the borrower is eligible for a modification. When underwriting the modification, the lender verifies the borrower’s income with the IRS. During the verification process, the lender recognizes two potential problems with the information provided. The address on the tax return is different than the address of the house collateralizing the loan, and the return reflects rental income from real property. After additional investigation, the lender concludes that the customer was trying to modify the loan on rental property and not on the primary residence.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Borrower states that the property is his primary residence and is therefore owner-occupied but the mailing address and telephone number are not for the subject property (e.g., property is located in North Carolina; mailing address and telephone number are in New York).
• Vague and/or unrealistic hardship (“the national economy”).
• No documented resolution of hardship.
• No or limited financial analysis in file.
• No employment/income verification.
• Credit Report inconsistent with borrower’s stated hardship.

• Financial reports that reflect low delinquencies that are inconsistent with local economic conditions or the bank’s loan portfolio composition.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Documentation
• Fraudulent Appraisal (refinance)

– – – – Mortgage Servicing Fraud – – – –

Mortgage servicing typically includes, but is not limited to, billing the borrower; collecting principal, interest, and escrow payments; management of escrow accounts; disbursing funds from the escrow account to pay taxes and insurance premiums; and forwarding funds to an owner or investor (if the loan has been sold in the secondary market). A mortgage service provider is typically paid on a fee basis. Mortgage servicing can be performed by a financial institution or outsourced to a third party servicer or sub-servicer.

Mortgage servicing fraud generally involves the diversion or misuse of principal and interest payments, loan prepayments, and/or escrow funds for the benefit of the service provider. Mortgage servicing fraud can take many forms, including the following:

• A mortgage servicer sells a loan it services, but fails to forward funds to the owner of the loan following the sale. The servicer continues to make principal and interest payments on the loan so the owner is not aware that the loan had been sold.

• A mortgage servicer diverts escrow payments for taxes and insurance for its own use. This action would jeopardize a financial institution’s collateral protection.

• A mortgage servicer that fails to forward principal and interest payments to an institution that holds the note and mortgage, could report that loan as past due for a short period of time, and then use proceeds from other loans to bring that loan current. This would be similar to a lapping scheme involving accounts receivable. Deliberately failing to post payments in a timely manner causes late fees to increase which directly elevates the servicers’ income.

• A mortgage servicer makes payments on loans originated for or on behalf of a financial institution as a means to avoid repurchase pursuant to first payment default provisions.

Examples:

– Several insiders of a mortgage company fraudulently sold serviced loans belonging to other financial institutions and kept the proceeds. An insider modified data in the servicing system to make it appear the loans were still being serviced and were current.

– Two executive officers of a mortgage company took out personal mortgage loans in their names which were subsequently sold to an investor, with servicing retained by the mortgage company. The executives did not make any payments on their loans and suppressed delinquency reporting to the investor, allowing them to “live free” for a period of time until the investor performed a servicing audit and discovered the fraud.

Red Flags

• Failure of the financial institution to perform an on-site review of the servicer (loan documents, servicing records, etc.)
• A review of remittance reports provided to the financial institution by servicer finds a:
o Lack of detail within the remittance reports (principal reduction, interest paid, late fees charged and paid).
o Remittance reports that fail to reconcile with bank records.
• A review of delinquency reports provided to the financial institution by the servicer finds a:
o Lack of detail within delinquency reports.
o High volume of delinquent loans.
• A review of portfolio reports provided to the financial institution by the servicer finds a:
o Lack of detail within portfolio reports (listing of loans owned by the financial institution being serviced by the servicer including current balance).
o Portfolio reports that fail to reconcile with bank records.
• Annual review reveals detrimental information or deteriorating financial condition of the servicer.
• County records indicating lien holders are unknown to the financial institution.
• Excessive delay in a servicer’s remittance of principal and interest payments, escrow payments, or prepayments.
• Cancellation or reductions in coverage on servicer’s insurance policies, including errors and omissions policies.
• Failure of the servicer to maintain copies of original payment documents (e.g., loan payment checks) verifying borrower as the source of payments.
• Excessive errors related to payment calculations on adjustable rate loans or escrow calculations.

Companion Fraud
• Fraudulent Documentation

– – – – Phantom Sale – – – –

Phantom sales typically involve an individual or individuals who falsely transfer title to a property or properties and fraudulently obtain funds via mortgage loans or sales to third parties.

Examples:

– The perpetrator identifies an apparently abandoned or vacant property and records a fictitious quit claim deed to transfer the property into the perpetrator’s name. Once the perpetrator has recorded the necessary document, he has several options:

• Apply for and execute a loan secured by the property. He pockets the loan proceeds and disappears.
• Transfer the property to a co-conspirator. The new owner applies for a loan, splits the proceeds with the original perpetrator, and both disappear with the money.
• Transfer the property to a false name, apply for a loan in the false name, pocket the proceeds and disappear.
• Sell the property to an uninvolved third party, pocket the proceeds, and disappear.

In the first three scenarios the financial institution is left with a mortgage loan that has no payment source and is collateralized by fraudulently obtained property. This results in a 100 percent loss to the financial institution once the fraud is exposed. In the last example, both the purchaser and financial institution are defrauded.

Red Flags

• Title search reveals a recent ownership transfer via quit claim deed.
• Ownership transfers via quit claim deeds in an area where such is not normal.
• Quit claim deed owner is not from subject area.
• Quit claim deed owner is unrelated to former owner.

• Quick sale to third party after quit claim deed owner acquires property.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Appraisal
• Identity Theft
• Straw/Nominee Borrower

– – – – Property Flip Fraud – – – –

A fraudulent property flip is a scheme in which individuals, businesses, and/or straw borrowers buy and sell properties amongst themselves, normally within a short time frame, to artificially inflate the value of the properties. This scheme is designed to extract as much cash as possible from the property, and the loan proceeds are often used for purposes not stated on the application.

There are a number of variations of the fraudulent property flip, some of which are more prevalent than others depending on the current economic conditions. Some schemes occur in geographic areas experiencing significant property value appreciation or in stagnant markets, where properties have been on the market for extended periods of time. An essential party in this scheme is a complicit appraiser, who fraudulently provides an inflated opinion of the property’s market value. The following are two variations of fraudulent property flips:

• A buyer purchases a property at market value and on the same day sells the property, at an inflated price in excess of the true market value to a straw buyer who has been paid to act as a buyer. The financial institution lending to the straw buyer typically is unaware of the prior purchase by the fraudster earlier that same day.

• A seller, whose property has been on the market for an extended period of time, is approached by a buyer/borrower who makes an offer on the property that is substantially higher than the market value. A financial institution funds the loan based on a fraudulent appraisal that inflates the value of the property. In some cases, the inflated value is supported by non-existent home improvements that were to be made. For example, a seller lists a property for $250,000 and a buyer/borrower offers $299,000. At closing, the seller receives the net proceeds of $250,000 on the original asking price of the home and the surplus of $49,000 is disbursed to the fraudsters through a payoff from the seller’s funds on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement at closing.

Examples:

– A group of individuals was organized by a real estate agent to flip properties. Each participant acquired a property with 100 percent financing, prior to the real estate market peak. The properties were then sold repeatedly amongst the individuals and /or their spouses to increase the market value. Title to some of the properties is held in trusts, obscuring ownership.

However, once the group obtained the requisite amount of cash, the loans were allowed to go into default. The participants split the loan proceeds in excess of the true market value for perpetrating the scheme.

Red Flags

• Property listed for extended period of time and sells for higher than list price.

• Property has been transferred or sold within the last six months.
• The property is advertised as “For Sale by Owner”.
• Value of the property has notably increased with no improvements or improvements are insufficient to justify the increase.
• Borrower has limited capacity to repay (e.g., high debt-to-income ratio)
• The property seller is not the owner of record.
• Purchase is disguised as refinances to circumvent down payment.
• Seller is an entity/corporation.
• Power of attorney used without explanation.
• Borrower owns excessive amount of real estate.
• Similarities on multiple applications received from a specific seller or broker.
• Notes in loan file suggest borrower pushed for a quick closing.
• Appraiser is not on list of approved appraisers.
• Appraisal was ordered by a party to the transaction or before the sales contract, or appraisal is a fax.
• Borrower named on the appraisal is different from applicant.
• Appreciation is noted in an area with stable or declining real estate prices.

• Comparables on the appraisal are unusual.
• Inconsistencies in VOE or VOD.
• Violation of the lender’s closing instructions.
• Same individuals involved as buyers and/or sellers in multiple transactions, which may be noted on the deed, title abstract, or other real estate documents found in file.
• Unusual credits or disbursements on settlement statements or discrepancies between the HUD-1 and escrow instructions.
• First payment default on loan.

Companion Frauds
• Fraudulent Appraisal
• Fraudulent Documentation
• Identity Theft
• Straw/Nominee Borrower

– – – – Reverse Mortgage Fraud – – – –

The rapid growth in and changes to the reverse mortgage market have created a lucrative environment for fraudulent activities. The vast majority of reverse mortgage loans are offered through HUD and are FHA-insured; the products are commonly referred to as Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs). According to data maintained by HUD and other sources, the reverse mortgage loan market increased over the last 5 years from approximately “$5.4 billion a year to more than $17.3 billion in 2008.”4
In addition, recent legislation increased the dollar amount of HECMs to $625,000, and purchase money transactions became effective in 2009. The primary requirements imposed by HUD are that the borrower has attained age 62 and that the collateral value supports the loan amount. There is no requirement to have owned the property for any minimum amount of time, and the loans do not require monthly repayment. Therefore, the loans are primarily underwritten based on the age of the youngest borrower and value of the home being used as collateral.

Reverse mortgage fraud is a scheme where legitimate or fictitious equity is stripped from the collateral. The lump-sum cash-out option will yield the greatest amount of loan proceeds, and likely will be where most fraud occurs. However, fraud may occur in other reverse mortgage loan products. For example, under the term program, where a borrower receives equal monthly payments for a fixed period of time, older borrowers will receive higher payments due to a shorter payment stream, creating a direct incentive to falsify age. Due to the structure of the HECMs, there are no warnings, such as past-due status or default, to raise suspicions, and possibly limit losses, as repayment is only required upon the borrower moving out of the property; upon death; default of property taxes or hazard insurance; or the property is in unreasonable disrepair.

Examples:

Property title is transferred into the perpetrator’s name and quickly re-titled into a straw buyer’s name. A lump-sum cash-out reverse mortgage loan is obtained and is premised on collusion of an appraiser who provides an “as if” renovated appraised value to fraudulently increase the market value. The perpetrator also places fictitious liens on the property to divert loan proceeds to himself.

Red Flags
A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.

• No notes in loan file pertaining to how the proceeds will be used, or notes indicate that proceeds will be used for unspecified monthly living expenses, but the loan is a lump-sum cash-out option.
• File notes indicate that the borrower does not exhibit any knowledge of the property, such as location, number of rooms, etc.
• The property title may have been “abandoned” by the local government and then transferred into the perpetrator’s name. The property may then be re-titled into the borrower’s name via either a warranty deed or a quit claim deed.
• Files contain notices that property taxes are delinquent, indicating default under the terms.
• Files contain notices that property insurance has lapsed, indicating default under the terms.
• Loan file information shows mail as returned to sender, possibly indicating the “owner” is no longer occupying the property and did not provide a forwarding address. An event of default occurs, when the owner no longer lives in the property.
• The title search (if performed) showed that the property title recently transferred to the borrower’s name, following a very short ownership by the seller, indicating the possibility of a flip transaction.
• Lender search of public records for either assessed value or sales prices show that the neighborhood is valued at substantially less than the subject property.
• Problems with the appraisal report may include:

– The report was prepared for a third party and not ordered by the financial institution.

– Comparable properties are not in the same neighborhood.

– Prior sales history is inconsistent with title search results.

• Refer to Fraudulent Appraisal for further details on potential appraisal fraud red flags.

Companion Frauds

• Fraudulent Appraisal
• Fraudulent Documentation
• Property Flip Fraud

– – – – Short Sale Fraud – – – –

A short sale is a sale of real estate in which the proceeds from the sale are less than the balance owed on the loan. The borrower may claim to have financial hardship and offers to sell the property so the financial institution will not have to foreclose. The financial institution and all interested parties, including other lien holders and any mortgage insurer, must approve the transaction. Some institutions may be motivated to approve a short sale because it is faster, results in a smaller loss than the prospect of a foreclosure, and does not increase the level of Other Real Estate Owned. Depending on the settlement and the state where the property is located, the deficiency balance may be forgiven by the financial institution.

Not all short sales are fraudulent. However, fraud occurs when a borrower withholds mortgage loan payments, forcing the loan into default so that an accomplice can submit a “straw” short-sale offer at a purchase price less than the borrower’s loan balance. Sometimes the borrower is truly having financial difficulty and is approached by a fraudster to commit the scheme. In all cases, a fraud is committed if the financial institution is misled into approving the short-sale offer when the price is not reasonable and/or when conflicts of interest are not properly disclosed.

Examples:

– A fraudster uses a straw buyer to purchase a home for the purpose of defaulting on the mortgage loan. The straw buyer makes no payments on the loan and the property goes into default. Prior to foreclosure the fraudster makes an offer to purchase the property from the lender in a short sale agreement below market value. The lender agrees without knowing that the short sale was premeditated.

Red Flags

• Sudden default with no workout discussions and immediate request for short sale.
• Loan file documentation suggests ambiguous or conflicting reasons for default.
• Mortgage loan delinquency is inconsistent with the borrower’s spending, savings, and other credit patterns as indicated in the credit report.
• Short-sale offer is from a related party, which is sometimes not disclosed, or straw buyer.
• Short-sale offering price is less than current market value.
• HUD-1 Settlement statement shows cash-back at closing to the delinquent borrower, or other disbursements that have not been expressly approved by the servicer (sometimes disguised as “repairs” or other payouts).
• Fraudulent appraisal to support below market price.
• Seller intentionally lowers value of property by causing excessive, but cosmetic, damage or hiding dead animals to produce offensive odors. Adjustment to value is exaggerated downward even though costs for rehabilitation are low.
• Seller feigns financial hardship and hides assets – large volume of assets on original loan application have dissipated without explanation.
• County records show that the property was flipped soon after short sale with a higher price.
• County records show ownership is transferred back to the seller after short sale.
• Site visit or registered mail is not returned indicates seller continues to reside in the property.
• Real estate agent is in collusion with seller and withholds competitive/higher offers.
• Unusually high commission is paid to real estate agent.

Companion Fraud
• Fraudulent Documentation

*********** Fraud Mechanisms **********

Asset Rental

Asset rental is the rental of bank deposits or other assets, which are temporarily placed in a borrower’s account, in order for a borrower to qualify for a loan. The borrower usually pays some fee, such as a rental fee, for the temporary “use” of the asset. Asset rental programs have been generally described as tools to help borrowers whose financial condition poses a roadblock to being approved for a loan. Most often, the rental involves deposits or credit histories. Asset rental is a tool that can be used to commit mortgage fraud.

Deposit rental is a means to inflate an individual’s assets. An individual typically pays an origination fee of 5 percent of the amount of the deposit to be rented and a monthly fee of 1 percent to 1¾ percent of the deposit amount. The rented deposit can be owned by a third party that purports to be a financial institution or adds the borrower’s name to a real deposit account without granting access. The third party agrees to verify the deposit to any party authorized by the borrower. Written statements and verifications of deposit are available for an extra fee.

Credit histories are rented in an effort to raise an individual’s credit score. An individual typically pays a fee and is added to another individual’s credit card account as a non-user. The borrower has no access to or use of the credit card but benefits from the actual credit card holder’s timely payments.

In addition to asset rental, some companies also have advertised verification of employment and income services. Individuals fill out a form listing annual and monthly income and sources. Upon receipt of fees, the company verifies income and employment to lenders or others as authorized by the borrower.

Examples:

– A borrower would like to purchase a $450,000 house. Unfortunately, his $71,000 bookkeeper salary and $13,000 in a savings account do not meet the underwriting standards for the amount of the loan. The borrower, however, is certain that his salary will continue to increase at a minimum of 10 percent per year.

The borrower rented a $40,000 deposit account, for a fee of $2,000; the loan application reflected the $40,000 account as an asset. In addition, the borrower expected a raise the following year to $78,000, and enlisted an entity to verify that salary amount. The $78,000 was shown on the loan application as his current income. The loan file contained a verification of deposit for the $40,000 account, a verification of employment form verifying his job as an accountant, and a verification of income form for his $78,000 salary.

Red Flags

• Verification of Deposit (VOD), Verification of Employment (VOE) and Verification of Income (VOI) from a common source that is not the employer or the financial institution where the deposit is held.

• Information on credit report that is not consistent with information on VODs, VOEs and VOIs.
• Even numbers only appearing on the VODs and VOIs. Discrepancies between the deposit account establishment date and the date the borrower says it was established in the loan application process.

Fake Down Payment

In order to meet loan-to-value requirements, a fake down payment through fictitious, forged, falsified, or altered documents is used to mislead the lender. Collusion with a third party, such as a broker, closing agent, appraiser, etc. often exists to raise the purchase price and make it appear that the buyer is making a down payment to cover the difference between the purchase price and proposed loan. A fake down payment reduces the financial institution’s collateral position and in some cases, a financial institution may be financing over 100 percent of the purchase. Without the fake down payment, the financial institution would not have otherwise made the loan.

Examples:

A borrower wants to purchase property but does not have the money for a down payment. He offers the seller more than the asking price to give the appearance that the buyer is putting money down in order to get the loan. The seller agrees to amend the contract to reflect the increased price. The increase in sales price is not disbursed to the seller. Instead, a false payoff from the seller’s funds is reflected on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement when in reality, the seller provides the funds to the borrower for the down payment.

– A third party broker has a borrower interested in a loan to finance the purchase of a home. The borrower does not have sufficient funds available to meet the lender’s LTV requirements. Therefore, the broker loans the borrower $10,000 to use as a down payment, and the funds are represented to be a gift from family. The borrower and broker then enter into a loan agreement. The loan is to be secured by a lien against the house. Approximately ten days after closing of the purchase transaction, the broker records the second lien against the house to secure the down payment loan.

Red Flags

• Source of funds for down payment cannot be verified.
• Down payment appears to be accumulated suddenly instead of over time.
• Deposit is a rented account (refer to asset rental) or has a round dollar balance.
• Down payment source is held in a non-financial institution such as an escrow trust account, title company, etc.
• Market value of property is inflated.
• Property sells above asking price even though on the market for an extended period of time.

Fraudulent Appraisal

Appraisal fraud can occur when an appraiser for various reasons falsifies information on an appraisal or falsely provides an inaccurate valuation on the appraisal with the intent to mislead a third party. In addition, appraisal fraud occurs when a person falsely represents himself as a State-licensed or State-certified appraiser or uses the identity of an appraiser as his own.

One common form of appraisal fraud relies on overvalued or undervalued property values, also known as artificial inflation/deflation using one or more valuation approaches. A buyer and a real estate professional will use a willing appraiser to artificially modify the value of a property. The property’s false inflated value can be used to secure a second mortgage, place the property on the market at a greatly inflated price, or secure an initial mortgage loan that will be defaulted upon at a later time. An undervalued appraisal can be used to assist in a short sale or loan modification fraud scheme.

Examples:

– A couple obtains financing for the purchase of their first house, contingent upon the house value. The couple plan to use the $8,000 tax credit for the down payment and closing costs and only have nominal cash available, so there is no possibility that the couple could cover the difference if the house doesn’t appraise. The couple’s loan officer arranges for an appraisal of the property, but sends the appraiser the standardized form with the final market value section completed. The appraiser wants to continue his relationship with the mortgage broker, so he agrees to develop an appraisal report to support the value provided. The property is compared to properties outside of the general area where the subject house is located. Without knowledge of that area, it appears, to anyone reviewing the appraisal report, that the comparable properties provide support for the value. However, no adjustments have been made for the facts that the comparable properties are newer, larger, in better condition, and in a better location than the subject property.

– A house being appraised has materially less square footage than the comparable properties. To boost the square footage of the subject property, the appraiser doubles the square footage of the unheated out-building, that is used for lawn equipment, and adds that square footage to the square footage of the house. No adjustments are made to the comparable properties, since now the subject and comparable properties have similar square footage. A review of the square footage of the house and out-building clearly shows that the appraiser intentionally misrepresented the property value.

Red Flags

There are various red flag indicators that can be used to identify the possibility of appraisal fraud. The identification of red flags could suggest individual fraud activities or more complex fraud schemes. Such red flag indicators for appraisal fraud are subdivided into categories below:

Appraisal Engagement Letter/Appraisal Ordering

• There is no appraisal engagement letter in file or the appraisal does not correspond to the engagement letter.
• The appraisal was ordered or provided by the buyer, seller, or an unidentified third party to the transaction rather than the financial institution or its agent.
• The appraisal was order by the financial institution loan production staff rather than from an independent office within the institution.

The Appraiser/Appraiser Compensation

• Appraiser was not located in reasonable proximity of the subject property and it is unclear that the appraiser has appropriate knowledge of the local market.
• Appraiser licensing/certification information is missing or appraiser information is clouded in some way.
• Appraisal fee is based on market value of subject property.
• Appraiser has had enforcement action taken against him or is not otherwise eligible to perform appraisals for federally related transactions (www.ASC.gov).

Property Comparables

• Comparable properties are materially different from subject property.
• Comparable properties are outside a reasonable radius of the subject property (except for rural properties).
• Comparable property sales are stale without an explanation.
• Appraiser makes large value adjustments to comparable properties without adequate explanation.
• Recent and multiple sales for subject and/or comparables are shown in the appraisal without adequate explanation as to the circumstances.

Appraisal Information and Narrative

• The market value in the appraisal report is lower than purchase price.
• Listing rather than sales information was used to determine value.
• Evidence of appraisal tampering (e.g., different font style, handwritten changes).
• Refinance transaction shows property recently listed “for sale”.
• Market rent is significantly less than rent amounts indicated on lease agreement.
• Income approach is not used on a tenant-occupied, or rented single-family dwelling.
• Significant appreciation or devaluation in short period of time.
• Appraisal indicates transaction is a refinance when it is a purchase.
• Appraised value is contingent upon property improvements or curing of property defects.
• Abnormal capitalization or discount rates without explanation.
• Appraisal dated before loan application date.
• Significant variances in property value among the Cost, Income, and Sales approach.
• Appraisal excludes one or more valuation approaches when such an approach is pivotal to the loan underwriting decision.
• Owner is someone other than seller shown on sales contract.
• Unusual or frequent prior sales are listed for subject and/or comparables without adequate explanation.
• Occupant noted as “tenant” or “unknown” for owner-occupied refinances.

Appraisal Photographs and Mapping (Comparable and Subject)

• Photos missing, non-viewable, or blurry.

• A “For Rent” or “For Sale” sign shows in the photos of the subject property for an owner-occupied refinance.
• Photos do not match property description.
• Photo background image is inconsistent with the date or season of the appraisal.
• Photos of subject property taken from odd angles to mask unfavorable conditions.
• Negative valuation factors are not disclosed in appraisal (e.g., commercial property next door, railroad tracks, or another structure on premises).
• Photos for the subject property and comparables appear to be from different photo source (e.g., internet photos).
• Appraisal maps showing location of subject and comparables is either absent or shows wide geographical separation from subject property.

Other Appraisal Information

• Documentation in loan file suggests a re-appraisal due to appraisal results or the stated value of subject property without an explanation.
• Loan file contains more than one recent appraisal with significant variance in value without an explanation.
• House number of property in photo does not match the subject property address.
• A fax or an electronic version of the appraisal is used in lieu of the original containing signature and certification of appraiser.
• The appraisal was not reviewed prior to loan funding or appraisal was reviewed by loan production rather than an independent office within the institution.

Fraudulent Documentation

Documentation fraud occurs when any document relied upon by the financial institution to make a credit decision, is forged, falsified, or altered. Fraud can also occur if proper due diligence and verification practices are not consistently applied. Similarly, obtaining documents to satisfy a checklist is not the same as having verified the authenticity of the document.

Documentation Types

1. Sales Contract

Sales contracts may be falsified to reflect higher sales prices. These higher sales prices are intended to produce higher comparables for appraisal purposes and result in artificially inflated values. The inflated values result in a higher loan amount than would otherwise be justified. Additionally, falsified seller identity may be used to perpetrate frauds, such as transferring property via falsified deeds or listing property for sale that the seller does not legally own. The identity of the buyer and/or seller may also be falsified in order to disguise a flip transaction or the use of a straw borrower.

Red Flags

• Borrower is not listed as purchaser on the sales contract.
• Seller listed on contract is not the owner listed on title or appraisal.
• All parties did not sign the sales contract and/or addendum.
• Sales contract is not dated or dated after other file documents (unless it is a pre-qualification.)
• Sales contract is received at the last minute or has been changed from the previously submitted contract.

2. Loan Application

Parts of or the entire application may be falsified.

Red Flags

• Application states purpose is for refinance, but the credit report and/or tax records do not indicate the borrower owns the property.
• Purchase amount of the property differs from the sales contract.
• Borrower claims the property will be owner-occupied, when the intent is for investment/rental purposes.
• Application shows all assets, but liabilities are inconsistent with those reported on the credit report.
• Assets are inconsistent with job position and income.
• Omission of some or all properties owned by the borrower in the real estate section of the application.
• Borrower declarations are inconsistent with credit report.
• Debt-to-Income ratios are exactly at maximum approval limits
• Misrepresentation of employment and income.

3. Credit Report

The credit report contains significant information reflective of the borrower’s ability and desire to repay debt obligations. Credit reports are sometimes altered so that a borrower can meet specific loan requirements. For example, credit scores can be changed (increased) through scanning and alteration of information.

Red Flags

• The absence of credit history indicating the possible use of an alias and/or multiple social security numbers.
• Borrower recently pays many or all accounts in full, possibly indicating an undisclosed debt consolidation loan.
• Indebtedness disclosed on the application differs from the credit report.
• The length of time trade lines were opened is inconsistent with the buyer’s age.
• The borrower claims substantial income but only has credit experience with finance companies.
• All trade lines opened at the same time with no explanation.
• Recent inquiries from other mortgage lenders are noted.
• AKA (also known as) or DBA (doing business as) are indicated.

4. Driver’s License

Government issued driver’s licenses can be partially verified through entities that can identify whether the licensing number sequence complies with the state’s system. However, state issued identification cards do not always have the same quality.

Red Flags

• No hologram.
• No photograph.
• Name, address, physical characteristics do not match.
• Expired driver’s license.
• Illegible driver’s license.

5. Social Security Number

The first five digits of a Social Security Number (SSN) signify the state and the date range in which it was issued. SSNs should be compared to numbers associated with deceased taxpayers. Identity alerts are also a useful tool if accessed via the credit reporting system.

Red Flags

• Credit report alert states that SSN has not been issued.
• Credit report alert states that SSN is on the master death index.
• Format and digits are not correct.
• Improper color and weight of the social security card.
• Highly unlikely series of digits (999-99-9999 or 123-45-6789).

• Ink smudges, poorly aligned, and odd fonts.

6. Bank Statement

Deposit account statements may include legitimate financial institution names and addresses, but can be fraudulently modified to include falsified telephone numbers that are answered by a party to the scheme.

Red Flags

• Altered copies.
• Missing pages.
• Application information (name and address) does not match the account holders.
• Inconsistency in the color of original bank statements.

7. Deposit Verification (VOD)

A party to the scheme may verify deposits held at a depository institution, even though no such financial institution, account, or deposits in that name exist.

Red Flags

• The VOD is completed on the same day it is ordered.
• Deletions or cross outs exist on the VOD.
• No date stamp receipt affixed to the VOD by the depository to indicate the date of receipt.
• The buyer has no deposit accounts, but a VOD is in the file.
• The deposit account is not in the borrower’s name or is a joint account with a third party.
• The borrower’s account balance at the financial institution is insufficient to close the transaction.
• The deposit account is new or has a round dollar balance.
• The closing check is drawn on a different financial institution.
• An illegible signature exists with no further identification provided.
• Significant balance changes are noted in depository accounts during the two months prior to the date of verification.
• The checking account’s average two-month balance exactly equals the present balance.
• Funds for the down payment are only on deposit for a short period.
• An IRA is shown as a source of down payment funds.
• Account balances are inconsistent with application information.
• The down payment source is held in a non-depository “depository,” such as an escrow trust account, title company, etc.
• An escrow receipt is used as verification which may have been from a personal check not yet cleared or a check returned due to insufficient funds.
• The VOD is not folded indicating it may have been hand carried.
• The VOD is not on original financial institution letterhead or a recognized form.

8. Employment Verification (VOE)

Fake employment verification can be used by those who collude in mortgage fraud. This is usually associated with an organized scheme.

Red Flags

• The seller and applicant have similar names.
• Borrower’s employer does not know borrower or borrower was terminated from employment prior to the closing date.
• The VOE is not on original letterhead or a standard Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)/Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) form.
• The VOE is completed the same day it is ordered, indicating it may have been hand-carried or completed before the initial application date.
• An illegible signature exists with no further identification provided.
• The employer uses only a mail drop or post office box address.
• The business entity is not in good standing with the State or registered with applicable regulatory agencies.
• An overlap exists with current and prior employment.
• Excessive praise is noted in the remarks section of response.
• Round dollar amounts are used in year-to-date or past earnings.
• Income is not commensurate with stated employment, years of experience, or type of employment.
• Income is primarily commission based, although borrower claims he is a salaried employee.
• The borrower’s interest in the property is not reasonable given its distance from the place of employment.
• The borrower has a recent large increase in income or started a new job.
• Faxes are used in lieu of originals documents.
• CPA letter is used to validate employment.
• Leases are used to evidence additional income.

9. W-2 Statement or Paystub

Off-the-shelf software and internet sites make the creation of fake W-2 statements and paystubs relatively easy.

Red Flags

• Borrower income is inconsistent with type of employment.
• Social security number on W2 or paystub is invalid, differs from loan application, or has been recently issued.
• Name misspelled.
• Variances in employment data with other file documentation.
• Commission-type position with “base” salary only (and vice versa).
• Round dollar amounts for year-to-date or prior year’s earnings.
• Numbers that appear to be “squeezed in”.
• Document alterations, such as white-outs or cross-outs or inconsistent fonts.
• Not computer-generated, especially from large employer.
• W-2 is typed, but paystubs are computer-generated.
• Check numbers do not increase chronologically.
• Amounts withheld for Social Security, Medicare and other government programs are inconsistent with the level required.
• Debts reflected as deduction from pay (credit union loans, etc.) not disclosed on application.
• Year-to-date totals do not total accurately from paycheck to paycheck.
• An employer identification number that is not in the XX-XXXXXXX (two digits, hyphen, seven digits) format, or is not all numeric.
• Employer and employee names or addresses are inaccurate.

• Income reflected on W-2 statements is different than income reported on mortgage loan application, VOE, and tax returns.
• Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) and Medicare wages/taxes and local taxes, where applicable, exceed ceilings/set percentages.
• Copy submitted is not “Employee’s Copy” (Copy C).

10. Tax Return/Amended Tax Return

Fake tax returns may be provided to the underwriter as the borrower believes that no verification will occur. In other instances, amendments to tax returns may be made to further the scheme, regardless of whether the income amount increases or decreases.

Red Flags

• Address and/or profession do not agree with other information submitted on the mortgage loan application.
• Type of handwriting varies within return.
• Evidence of “white-out” or other alterations.
• Unemployment compensation reported, but no gap in employment is disclosed.
• Estimated tax payments by self-employed borrower (Schedule SE required); or self-employment tax claimed, but self-employment not disclosed.
• Tax returns are not signed/dated by borrower.
• IRS Form 1040 – Schedule A:

– Real estate taxes and/or mortgage loan interest is paid but no property is owned, or vice versa.

– Tax preparation fee is deducted, yet prior year’s return is prepared by borrower.

– Minimal or no deductions for a high-income borrower.

• IRS Form 1040 – Schedule B:

– Borrower with substantial cash in the bank shows little or no related interest income.

– No dividends are earned on stocks owned.

– Amount or source of income does not agree with the information submitted on the mortgage loan application.

• IRS Form 1040 – Schedule C:

– Business code is inconsistent with type of business.

– Gross income does not agree with total income on Form 1099s.

– No “cost of goods sold” on retail or similar type of business.

– Borrower takes a depreciation deduction for investment real estate not disclosed, or vice versa.

– Borrower shows interest expense but no related loan, such as a business loan with personal liability.

– No deductions for taxes and licenses.

– Wages are paid, but no tax expense is claimed.

– Wages are paid, but there is no employer identification number.

– Salaries paid are inconsistent with the type of business.

– Business expenses are inconsistent with type of business (e.g., truck driver with no vehicle expense).

– Income significantly higher than previous years.

• IRS Form 1040 – Schedule E:

– Additional properties are listed, but not shown on the mortgage loan application.

– Mortgage loan interest is deducted but no mortgage is disclosed.

– Borrower shows partnership income (may be liable as a general partner for partnership’s debts).

11. Deed

Quit Claim and Warranty Deeds may be used by someone who is transferring the property’s title, but is not the owner or the owners’ representative. The purpose of such transactions is to sell the property outright or to refinance the debt in a cash-out transaction to collect loan proceeds. A fake Power of Attorney may be used as authorizing the deed transfer.

Red Flags

• Recent ownership transfer or multiple transfers in a short period of time via quit claim or warranty deed.
• Representative not local or from out of state.
• Deeds involving individuals not party to the transactions.
• Deeds where parties share common names/hyphenated names, suggesting family relationships.
• Obvious errors, such as misspelled names, or other items.

12. Title or Escrow Company/Title Commitment

Fraudulent loan schemes may involve the use of a fake title company or may involve an employee of the title company. The company appears to provide legitimate documentation, which was possibly stolen from a legitimate title company (such as a falsified closing protection letter). Employees of legitimate title companies may be part of a scheme, where they either fabricate title commitments or delete information that would help identify fraudulent activity, such as flipping.

Red Flags

• The seller either is not on the title or is not the same as shown on the appraisal or sales contract.
• The seller owned the property for a short time with cash out on sale.

• The buyer had a pre-existing financial interest in the property.
• The chain of title includes the buyer, real estate agent, or broker.
• The title insurance or opinion was prepared for and/or mailed to a party other than the lender.
• Income tax or similar liens are noted against the borrower on refinances.
• Non-lien holders are shown on HUD-l.
• The title policy is not issued on the property with the lien or on the whole property.
• Faxed documents are used rather than originals or certified copies.
• Title commitment and final title policy reflect two different title insurers.
• Closing instructions are not followed.
• Delinquent property tax exists and does not appear on the title commitment.
• A notice of default is recorded and does not appear on the title commitment.

13. Business License

Business licenses may be fabricated to show that a supposed self-employed borrower owns a business. In this instance, the borrower owns no such business. Others may actually formally incorporate with the state office to conceal the fact that no such business operates.

Red Flags

• No physical address (P.O. Box only) or physical address belongs to mail box rental company. Various search engines can help determine if disclosed physical address belongs to mail box rental.
• No telephone number or email address.
• No state franchise or other required annual filings.

14. Notary stamps

Notary stamps may be stolen and used in fraudulent transactions. In addition, notaries may be participants in furthering a scheme and receive funds for their participation. While e-notary will prevent stealing of physical stamps, it will not necessarily eliminate the coercion of notaries. Also, the fact that e-notary does not require the log to be downloaded daily to an impartial party that maintains a database of transactions, can allow for information to be changed after-the-fact. This would be the equivalent of changing the hand-written log.

Red Flags

• Seal is not embossed.
• Seal appears to be photocopied, rather than original.
• Notary is either related to or has a business relationship with a party to the transaction.

15. Power of Attorney

Powers of Attorney (POA) are legal documents authorizing another party to act on the first party’s behalf. POAs can be Limited, General, or Durable. Durable POAs have the longest duration, as they cease upon the death of the authorizing person, whereas General POAs cease upon a pre-established date, competency, or incapacitation. Limited POAs are identified with a specific timeframe or certain acts. Documents can be easily fabricated to show that one party has a legal right to enter into financial transactions on behalf of another. POAs may or may not be filed with the appropriate governmental office.

Red Flags

• A General or Durable POA is dated at approximately the same date as the transaction.
• Person, who supposedly authorized the Limited or General POA, is unaware of the document.
• In those areas where all POAs are recorded documents, the document is not recorded.
• The POA is not prepared by an attorney, but by using off-the-shelf software.
• POA is used in cash-out refinances or reverse mortgage loans.

16. HUD-1 Settlement Statement

The HUD-1 settlement statement is an accounting of the transaction from both the borrower’s and seller’s standpoint. This form is often falsified to withhold information from the lender, or there are often two distinctly different HUD-1 forms in fraudulent transactions.

Red Flags

• Borrower receives cash-back at closing.
• Payoff of non-lien holders typically reflected as marketing fees, payment for repairs, or renovations.
• Existence of multiple, different HUD-1’s.
• Items paid outside of closing (outside of normal appraisal and credit report fees).
• Overpayment of fees and commissions to realtor, broker, etc.
• Signatures on the HUD-1 do not match other signatures throughout the file.

Fraudulent Use of a Shell Company

A shell company is a business entity that typically has no physical presence, has nominal assets, and generates little or no income. Shell companies in themselves are not illegal and may be formed by individuals or businesses for legitimate purposes. However, due to lack of transparency regarding beneficial ownership, ease of formation, and inconsistent reporting requirements from state to state, shell companies have become a preferred vehicle for financial fraud schemes.

Both the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and FinCEN have reported on shell companies and their role in facilitating criminal activity. These reports have focused on limited liability corporations (LLCs) due to their dominance and growth in popularity. However, any type of business entity can be a shell company. To further obscure ownership and activity, there are numerous businesses that can provide a shell company with a registered agent and mail forwarding service, or offer nominee services, such as nominee officers, directors, shareholders, or nominee bank signatory. Other businesses sell established shell companies for the purpose of giving the appearance of longevity of a business, and a history of creditworthiness which may be required when obtaining leases, credit, or bank loans.

Examples:

– Several individuals with the intent of committing fraud formed a shell company as a way of disguising their identities. The individuals purchased properties in the name of the shell company and at the same time recruited straw borrowers to purchase the properties from the shell company at inflated prices. Owners of the shell company provided the straw borrowers with fake documents in order to qualify for the loans. The shell company owners profited from the difference between the original purchase price and the mortgage loan proceeds, less the fee paid to the straw borrower. The straw borrower defaulted on the loan, forcing the financial institutions to foreclose on the houses.

Red Flags

• Entity has no telephone number or email address.
• No physical address (P.O. Box only) or physical address belongs to mail box rental company.
• No company logo.
• No website, if one would be expected.
• No domestic address/contact if a foreign company.
• Newly-formed entity.
• Registered agent recently changed.
• Transacting businesses share the same address; provide only a registered agent’s address; or other address inconsistencies.
• Unusual cash withdrawals from business accounts.

Identity Theft

Identity theft can be defined as assuming the use of another person’s personal information (e.g., name, SSN, credit card number, etc.) without the person’s knowledge and the fraudulent use of such knowledge to obtain credit. Perpetrators commit identity theft to execute schemes using fake documents and false information to obtain mortgage loans. These individuals obtain someone’s legitimate personal information through various means, (e.g., obituaries, mail theft, pretext calling, employment or credit applications, computer hacking, trash retrieval, etc.) With this information, they are able to impersonate homebuyers and sellers using actual, verifiable identities that give the mortgage transactions the appearance of legitimacy.

Examples:

– A university student database, which included social security numbers and other personal identifying information, is compromised by a computer hacker. The investigation revealed that the hacker subsequently sold the personal identification information to a third party, who then proceeds to submit falsified mortgage loan applications to numerous financial institutions which resulted in approximately $5 million in losses to the financial institutions. Law enforcement stated that the third party, in collusion with a notary, appraiser, and other industry insiders, used the student information to purchase homes owned by the third party and other collaborators at highly inflated prices. In addition to identity theft, the loan files also included misrepresentations of employment, falsified down payments, and inflated appraisals.

Red Flags

A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Credit report contains a fraud alert or consumer-driven freeze on their credit report, which means no credit reports can be pulled until the consumer lifts the freeze.
• Credit report indicates that the social security number was not yet issued.
• Recently-opened accounts.
• Employment and residence history on the credit report and application do not match.
• Copy of driver’s license does not match profile on the application.
• Recently issued SSN.
• Current address on the application does not match other documents in the file (e.g., bank statements, W-2’s, utility bills, etc.)
• Additional red flags may be found in the FCRA under Appendix J of 12 CFR 41 (Subpart J – Identity Red Flags)

Straw Borrower / Nominee Borrower

A straw (nominee) borrower is an individual used to intentionally disguise the true beneficiary of the loan proceeds. Straws can be willing participants in the transaction or victims whose identity is being used without their knowledge. Often a willing straw borrower does not think the transaction is dishonest because they believe the recipient of the loan proceeds will make the payments. Reasons why a beneficiary of the loan proceeds may use a straw borrower are because the beneficiary:

• Does not qualify for the mortgage loan,
• Has no intent to occupy the property as a primary residence, or
• Is not eligible for a particular loan program.

Also straw borrower activities are commonly used with family members who step in for the purchase or refinance when the true home owner (family member) does not qualify for a loan.

Examples:

– A couple wanted to buy a home but did not qualify because their debt ratio was much too high. They also had very little cash to use as a down payment. To “help” them, one of their parents applied for the loan and was approved for a 97 percent LTV product. The couple moved into the house, and could not make the monthly payments. The servicer called the straw borrower, who informed the servicer that he did not live in the home and that his daughter and son-in-law were supposed to be making the payments. Despite, being contractually obligated, the straw borrower parent refused to bring the loan current. The lender was forced to foreclose and took a loss on the sale of the REO.

– A fraud ring acquired 25 properties, all of which were in various stages of disrepair. Some were even uninhabitable and slated for condemnation by the city. The ring then recruited individuals through their church, clubs, and other associations to each buy a property sight unseen. Each borrower was told they would not need to live in the property, and each borrower was also promised payment of $7500. The fraud ring arranged for inflated appraisals to be performed by promising the appraiser the job of appraising all 25 properties. The applications were submitted to several different lenders with numerous misrepresentations surrounding not only the true property values, but occupancy intent, borrower employment, income, and assets as well. The loans closed and resulted in first payment defaults, as the straw borrowers were told that their properties were passive investments that would not require any monthly payments due to tenants already being in the properties. A handful of the straw borrowers did receive their $7500 as promised, but most did not. Upon receiving collection calls, the straw borrowers determined they had been misled. The lenders ultimately foreclosed on the properties, discovered the true condition of the properties, and suffered losses upon the sale of the REO.

Red Flags

• The application is unsigned or undated.
• Borrower’s income is inconsistent with job or position.
• A quit claim deed was used either right before or soon after the loan was closed.
• Investment property is represented as owner-occupied on loan application.
• Loan documents show someone signed on the borrower’s behalf.
• Names were added to the purchase contract.
• Sale involves a relative or related party.
• No sales agent or realtor was involved.
• The name and address of borrower on credit report does not correspond with information on the loan application.
• Appraisal irregularities exist regarding property valuation and documentation. (See Fraudulent Appraisal.)
• Power of attorney was used in place of borrower.
• Good assets, but “gifting” was used as all or part of down payment.
• Repository alerts on credit report.

Glossary:

Appraisal Management Company (AMC): A business entity that administers a network of certified and licensed appraisers to fulfill real estate appraisal assignments on behalf of mortgage lending institutions and other entities. The company recruits, qualifies, verifies licensing, and negotiates fees and service-level expectations with a network of third-party appraisers. It also provides administrative duties like order entry and assignment, tracking and status updates, pre-delivery quality control, and preliminary and hard copy report delivery. Furthermore, the AMC oversees ongoing quality control, accounts payable and receivable, market value dispute resolution, warranty administration, and record retention.

Appraiser: One who is expected to perform valuation services competently and in a manner that is independent, impartial, and objective.

Borrower: One who receives funds in the form of a loan with the obligation of repaying the loan in full with interest. The borrower may be purchasing property, refinancing an existing mortgage loan, or borrowing against the equity of the property for other purposes.

Buyer: A buyer is a person who is acquiring property.

Closing: The culmination of any RE transaction in which the interested parties or their representatives meet to execute documents, exchange funds, and transfer title to a property.

Closing Costs: Moneys expended by a party in completing a RE transaction, over and above the purchase price, including: legal fees, taxes, origination fees, discount points, mortgage insurance premium, interest adjustments, registration fees, appraisal fees, title insurance premium, etc.

Closing/Settlement/Escrow Agent: An individual or company that oversees the consummation of a mortgage transaction at which the note and other legal documents are signed and the loan proceeds are disbursed. Title companies, attorneys, settlement agents, and escrow agents can perform this service. Local RE law may dictate the party conducting the closing.

Concessions: Benefits or discounts given by the seller or landlord of a property to help close a sale or lease. Common concessions include absorption of moving expenses, space remodeling, upgrades (also called “build-outs”), and reduced rent for the initial term of the lease.

Collusion: An agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law, typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage.

Correspondent: A mortgage originator who underwrites and/or sells mortgage loans to other mortgage bankers or financial institutions.

Credit Report Fraud Alert: A notation at the bottom of a credit report indicating that some items of identification, i.e., Social Security number, address, etc., are associated with past fraudulent activities. For example, an address may be flagged because the previous occupant allegedly used the property for financial misbehavior. Each credit reporting agency has different names for these alerts: TransUnion – HAWK Alerts, Experian – Fraud Shield, and Equifax – Safescan.
Deed: The document by which title to real property is transferred or conveyed from one party to another. (See Quitclaim Deed and Warranty Deed.)

Deed of Trust: A type of security instrument in which the borrower conveys title to real property to a third party (trustee) to be held in trust as security for the lender, with the provision that the trustee shall re convey the title upon the payment of the debt. Conversely, the third party will sell the land and pay the debt in the event of default by the borrower. (See Mortgage.)

Developer: A person or entity, who prepares raw land for building sites, constructs buildings, creates residential subdivisions or commercial centers, rehabilitates existing buildings, or performs similar activities.

eNotary: An electronic notary that may include the use of a digital seal to notarize digital documents. (See also Notary.)

Escrow Instructions: Instructions prepared by a lender and/or underwriter to direct the progression of a mortgage closing transaction from start to finish.

Evaluation: A valuation required by the Agencies’ appraisal regulations for certain transactions that are exempt from the regulations.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac): Commonly used name for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), a government sponsored entity that provides a secondary market for conforming conventional residential mortgage loans by purchasing them from primary lenders.

Federal Housing Administration (FHA): A federal agency established to advance homeownership opportunities. The FHA provides mortgage insurance to approved lending institutions.

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae): A government sponsored entity that, as a secondary mortgage loan institution, is the largest single holder of residential mortgage loans in the United States. Fannie Mae primarily buys conforming conventional residential loans from primary lenders.

Federally related transaction: Means any real estate-related financial transactions entered into after the effective date hereof that:
(1) The FDIC or any regulated institution engages in or contracts for; and
(2) Requires the services of an appraiser.

Foreclosure: A legal proceeding following a default by a borrower in which real estate secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is sold to satisfy the underlying debt. Foreclosure statutes are enacted by state government.

Form 1003: The standardized loan application form used in residential mortgage loan transactions.

Form 4506T: An IRS form that taxpayers execute to authorize the IRS to release past tax returns to a third party. Many lenders require mortgage loan applicants to execute this form in order to verify income.

Fraud: A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to their detriment.

Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae): A government-owned corporation that provides sources of funds for residential mortgage loans, insured or guaranteed by the FHA or VA.

HUD-l Form: A standardized form prescribed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that provides an itemization listing of funds paid at closing. Items that appear on the statement include RE commissions, loan fees, points, taxes, initial escrow amounts, and other parties receiving distributions. The HUD-l statement is also known as the “closing statement” or “settlement sheet.”

Lapping: A fraud that involves stealing one customer’s payment and then crediting that customer’s account with a subsequent customer’s payment.

Loan Servicer: A loan servicer is a public or private entity or individual engaged to collect and process payments on mortgage loans.

Loan-to-Value Ratio (LTV): Relationship of loan amount to collateral value, expressed as a percentage.

Market Value: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

(1) Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
(2) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;
(3) A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
(4) Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
(5) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.

Modification Agreement: A document that evidences a change in the terms of a mortgage loan, without refinancing the loan. Commonly, changes are made to the interest rate, repayment terms, guarantors, or property securing the loan.

Mortgage: A lien on the property that secures a loan. The borrower is the mortgagor; the lender is the mortgagee.

Mortgage Banker: An individual or firm that originates, purchases, sells, and/or services loans secured by mortgages on real property.

Mortgage Broker: An individual or firm that receives a commission for matching borrowers with lenders. Mortgage brokers typically do not fund the loans they help originate.

Mortgage Fraud: A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact in a mortgage loan application to induce another to approve the granting of a mortgage loan. For the purpose of this paper, mortgage fraud refers solely to fraudulent schemes pertaining to residential mortgage loans.

Nominee Loan: A loan made to one individual in which the proceeds of the loan benefit another individual without the knowledge of the lender.

Notary: A person who certifies the authenticity of required signatures on a document, by signing and stamping the document. (See also eNotary.)

Originator: The individual or entity that gathers application data from the borrower. Alternatively, a person or entity, such as a loan officer, broker, or correspondent, who assists a borrower with the loan application.

Power-of-Attorney: A legal document that authorizes a person to act on another’s behalf. A power-of-attorney can grant complete authority or can be limited to certain acts (closing on a property) or timeframes (from date granted until a termination date). A durable power-of-attorney continues until the grantor’s death.

Pretext Calling: A scheme associated with identity theft in which a fraudster, pretending to represent a legitimate entity, calls an unsuspecting party seeking personal identification data, such as social security numbers, passwords, or other forms of account information. The fraudster then uses this information to assume the identity of the unsuspecting victim. Among other things, the fraudster can obtain a mortgage loan in the name of the unsuspecting victim.

Processor: The processor is an individual who assembles all the necessary documents to be included in the loan package.

Quitclaim Deed: A deed that transfers without warranty whatever interest or title, if any, a grantor may have at the time the conveyance is made. A grantor need not have an interest in the property to execute a quitclaim deed.

Real Estate Agent: An individual or firm that receives a commission for representing the buyer or seller, in a RE purchase transaction.

Reverse Mortgage: A reverse mortgage loan converts the equity in the home into cash. Unlike a traditional loan, no repayment is required until the borrower no longer uses the house as a principal residence. To be eligible under FHA’s program, Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM), the homeowner must be at least 62 years old, and live in the house. The program was expanded in 2009 so that HECMs can be used to purchase a primary residence.

Secure and Fair Enforcement Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (S.A.F.E. Act): Legislation designed to enhance consumer protection and reduce fraud by encouraging states to establish minimum standards for the licensing and registration of state-licensed mortgage loan originators and for the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators to establish and maintain a nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry for the residential mortgage industry. The S.A.F.E. Act further requires the federal agencies to establish similar requirements for the registration of depository institution loan originators.

Secondary Market: The buying and selling of existing mortgage loans, usually as part of a “pool” of loans.

Seller: Person offering to sell a piece of real estate.

Short Sale: Sale of the mortgaged property at a price that nets less than the total amount due on the mortgage loan. Servicers and borrowers negotiate repayment programs, forbearance, and/or forgiveness for any remaining deficiency on the debt to lessen the adverse impact on borrowers’ credit records.

Straw Buyer/Borrower: A person used to buy property or borrow against property in order to conceal the actual owner. The straw buyer does not intend to occupy the property or make payments and often deeds the property to the other individual immediately after closing. The straw buyer is usually compensated for use of his identity.

Third Party: The parties necessary to execute a residential mortgage transaction other than a financial institution and a legitimate borrower. Third parties include, but are not limited to, mortgage brokers, correspondents, RE appraisers, and settlement agents.

Title Agent: The title agent is a person or firm that is authorized on behalf of a title insurer to conduct a title search and issue a title insurance report or title insurance policy.

Title Company/Abstract Company: Entity that researches recorded ownership of and liens filed against real property and then issues a title insurance policy guaranteeing the lien position of the lender or provides a title opinion. Some states also require an attorney opinion supported by an abstract.

Title Insurance: An insurance policy that indemnifies the lien position of a lender against losses associated with property interests not disclosed in the title opinion. The borrower can also obtain this coverage by purchasing a separate policy.

Title Opinion/Commitment/Binder: An examination of public records, laws, and court decisions to ensure that no one except the seller has a valid claim to the property, and to disclose past and current facts regarding ownership of the subject property.

Underwriting: The credit decision-making process which can be automated, manual or a combination of both. In an automated process, application information is entered into a decision-making model that makes a credit determination based on pre-determined criteria. In a manual process an individual underwriter, usually an employee of the financial institution, makes the credit decision after evaluating all of the information in the loan package, including the credit report, appraisal, and verifications of deposit, income, and employment. Financial institutions often use a combination of both, with the automated decision representing one element of the overall credit decision. In each case, the decision may include stipulations or conditions that must be met before the loan can close.

Verification of Deposit (VOD): Written document sent to the borrower’s depository institution to confirm the existence of a down payment or cash reserves.

Verification of Employment (VOE): Written document sent to the borrower’s employer to confirm employment/income. Employment is often reconfirmed by calling the employer prior to funding.

Verification of Income (VOI): Written documentation supporting the borrower’s income level and income stream.

Warehouse Lender: A short-term lender for mortgage bankers. Using mortgage loans as collateral, the warehouse lender provides interim financing until the loans are sold to a permanent investor.

Warehouse (Loan): In mortgage lending, warehouse loans are loans that are funded and awaiting sale or delivery to an investor.

Warehouse Financing: Short-term borrowing of funds by a mortgage banker based on the collateral of warehoused loans. This form of interim financing is used until the warehoused loans are sold to a permanent investor.

Warranty Deed: A deed warranting that the grantor has a title free and clear of all encumbrances and will defend the grantee against all claims against the property.

For More Information How Your Can Use Well Structured Litigation Pleadings Designed Around These Fraudulent Schemes In Order To Effectively Challenge Your Wrongful Foreclosure and Successfully Save Your “American Dream” Home Visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

A Guide To Borrowers On Laws and Regulations that Govern Mortgage Lending and Servicing

10 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Banks and Lenders, Mortgage Laws, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Administration, FHA, Freddie Mac, Mortgage loan, United States, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

There are nine (9) major laws and regulation pertinent to mortgage lending and servicing.

Office of the Comptroller of Currency’s Guidelines for Residential Mortgage Lending Practices 2005; 12 CFR Part 30 Appendix C

Most importantly, the OCC’s regulations provide for the implementation of standards by lenders to prevent abusive, predatory, unfair and deceptive lending practices. Lenders should avoid certain unfavorable loan terms and sparingly use other terms that are unfriendly to consumers. They should also avoid consumer confusion.

Federal Reserve Board’s Proposed Statement on Subprime Lending 2007; 72 FR 10533

Regulations were proposed by a number of different agencies in order to compel the industry to educate consumers on the ramifications of loan terms (like ARMs and balloon payments), so that consumers will not be shocked by any financial terms or compromised in their ability to pay.

FHA/HUD LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON DEFAULT LOAN SERVICING/LOSS MITIGATION

HUD regulations require mortgage servicers to report all FHA mortgages that go into default within 30 days of default. HUD also has a procedure in place for loss mitigation, a process in which a lender helps a borrower who’s delinquent in loan payments. In an FHA mortgage, the FHA will reimburse the lender for certain costs if the borrower meets the guidelines, such as the length of time that the borrower has owned the home and the like. Loss mitigation plans include receiving a special forbearance (where the borrower pays a lower payment or stops payments for a period of time), a partial claim (where a borrower can get an interest free loan from HUD to bring his payments up to date) and mortgage modification (where the life of the loan is lengthened so that the borrower can make smaller payments each month).

Federally Related Mortgage Loans.

Federally related mortgage loans are loans that are made by federally insured depository lenders (unless for temporary financing), HUD-related loans, and loans intended to be sold on the secondary mortgage market to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or to creditors who make or invest over one million dollars a year in residential secured loans.

Veterans Administration -Insured Home Loan Servicing Handbook.

The Handbook is a manual that contains servicing guidelines for loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. Regulates access by the borrower to the servicer, the fees that the servicer can charge and caps the amount of the charges, servicing transfers, and procedures for collection actions.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Private Label Loan Servicing.

Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) is a federally-chartered
enterprise owned by private investors. Fannie Mae purchase mortgage-backed securities on the secondary mortgage market with the goal of providing funds so that lenders can afford to offer low cost loans. Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) is a federally-chartered corporation that purchases home loans, securitizes them and sells them to investors with the goal of helping to keep the cost of a mortgage low. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use private companies to service the loans that they purchase.

Homeownership Counseling Act; 12 U.S.C. §1701x

The Homeownership Counseling Act requires that lenders give information about available counseling resources to qualifying homeowners who fail to pay any amount due. Homeowners who qualify are those whose loan is secured by their primary residence, those whose loan is not assisted by the Farmers Home Administration, and those who are not expected to be able to make up a deficiency in a reasonable amount of time due to an unexpected loss or reduction of employment income by the homeowner or someone who contributes to the household income. The notice must provide information about any of the lender’s counseling services (if any) and a list of HUD-approved non-profit homeownership counseling organizations or HUD’s toll free number where the department will provide a list of such organizations.

Foreclosure Prevention: Comptroller of the Currency Report 2007

The Foreclosure Prevention report details how the lending industry is reacting to the foreclosure epidemic and details why lenders should want to prevent foreclosures, how to contact borrowers, what are the regulatory risks of foreclosure prevention, and the barriers that have impeded foreclosure prevention.

Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA); 50 U.S.C. §§ 501-506

Purpose. SCRA provides special protections for active duty military personnel and their dependents.

Scope. The Act applies to active duty members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard, the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service, members of the National Guard who have been called to active service by
the President or Defense Secretary for more than thirty consecutive days in order to respond to a national emergency, reservists ordered to report for military service, persons ordered to report under the Military Selective Service Act and United States citizens serving with the allied forces.

Protections. The Act places limitations on foreclosures of the real property owned by active duty service members, protects service members from default judgments, tolling of the statute of limitations, reduces the interest rate on pre-active duty loans to six percent, places restrictions on eviction from rental property and gives the right to terminate vehicle and residential leases.

For More Information on How You Can Use Well Drafted Pleadings With These Set of Laws For Litigation Against Your Lender In order To Save Your Home From Wrongful Foreclosure Visit http://www.fightforeclosure.net

What Homeowners Need to Know About Federal Laws that Govern Mortgage Origination and Servicing

10 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, RESPA, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adjustable-rate mortgage, Closed End Credit, Finance, Finance charge, Loan, Security interest, Statute of Limitations, Truth in Lending Act

There are eight (8) major federal laws pertinent to mortgage origination and servicing.

Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA); 15 U.S.C. § 1638.

Purpose. TILA is largely a disclosure statute that requires that lenders make certain disclosures to borrowers and potential borrowers. The Act is meant to insure that borrowers are informed of all of the terms of the loan before they take out the loan and can make an informed decision.

Scope. TILA applies to consumer credit – both closed end credit (like mortgages) and open ended credit (like credit cards) – extended by a creditor.

To constitute as “consumer credit” under the statute:
• The consumer must be a natural person.

• Credit is the right to defer payment of debt or to
incur debt and defer payment.

• The credit must be payable, by written agreement, by more than four
installments or subject to finance charges.

Under TILA, a “creditor” is:

• An entity that regularly extends consumer credit. Regularly means six or
more real estate secured loans, two or more high cost loans (or one or
more if made through a broker), or 26 or more in other cases per year.

• The creditor is the entity to which the obligation is payable to on its face.
Arrangers, like brokers, are not covered by TILA.

Exceptions.

• Business, agricultural, organizational and commercial credit.
• Credit over $25,000 unless secured by real estate or a dwelling.
• Public utility credit in some instances.
• Securities or commodities accounts.
• Certain student loans.
• Home fuel budget plans if no finance charge is imposed.

Protections.

Fundamentals. Lenders must disclose the following terms and conditions:

1. Amount Financed The amount financed is the amount of money that the borrower receives for his own benefit. Generally, this would include the proceeds of the loan, the purchase price of the goods/services being purchased, and the amount of pre-existing debts being paid off by consolidation or refinancing. Amount financed is roughly the same as the concept of “principle” but it is distinct from how principle is construed under state usury laws.

2. Finance Charge. Any charge that a consumer pays, directly or indirectly,
that is charged by the creditor, directly or indirectly, as incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. Examples include interest, service charges, points, origination fees, and many other costs associated with credit.

3. Annual Percentage Rate (APR). The cost of credit as a yearly rate.

Required Disclosures for Closed End Credit – Failure to disclose the following terms and conditions gives rise to Statutory Claims.

1. Total Finance Charge. Consists of all finance charges as defined above.

Exceptions
a. Under certain conditions, charges by third parties, closing agent fees,
debt cancellation coverage, and overdraft fees.
b.Application fees so long as they are charged to all applicants, whether or
not credit is extended.
c. Late fees.
d.Certain closing costs, so long as they are bona fide and reasonable.
e. Voluntary credit life, health, accident and loss of income insurance so
long as the voluntary nature, cost and term are disclosed and the consumer
separately agrees to the insurance in writing.
f. Credit property insurance premiums so long as the consumer is aware
that he can purchase insurance elsewhere.
g. Certain security interest related charges.
h.Annual fees or fees periodically charged as a condition to credit.
i. Seller’s points.
j. Interest reductions in time deposits.

2. Amount Financed. The principle part of the loan minus all charges
deemed to be finance charges.

3. Annual Percentage Rate.
4. Payment Schedule.
5. Total Number of Payments.
6. Security Interests.
7. Special Formatting Rules.

The disclosures must be clear, obvious, separate from other information and in a form that the borrower can keep. Disclosures must be provided in a timely manner, in a way that the borrower can keep before the consummation of the loan.

Lenders must also give the borrower a Notice of Right to Cancel, which informs the borrower of his right to rescind and contains the forms that the borrower needs to exercise that right.

Relief and Statute of Limitations. Under TILA, the borrower has an absolute right to rescind for three business days after the consummationof the loan. After three business days, a borrower may have the right to rescind up to three years if the disclosures were not made to the client. Damages and attorney’s fees are recoverable under the statute.

Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA); 15 U.S.C. § 1639

Purpose. HOEPA is designed to protect all borrowers, but especially
borrowers that apply for and take out high cost loans. HOPEA is
associated with TILA and is often considered a part of TILA.

Scope. Same as TILA.

Protections. Special Disclosures for Variable Rate Closed End Loans (like
ARMS)

1. The lender must disclose the maximum interest rate that could be charged over the life of the loan in the loan note.

2. The lender must give the borrower a copy of the ARM brochure that contains generic information about ARMs as well as more specific explanations of the aspects of each variable rate plan that the borrower is considering.

3. These disclosures must be given when the application is furnished
or before the payment of a nonrefundable fee, which ever is first.

4. During the life of the loan, the lender must send rate adjustment
or change notices before the loan rate will change.

HOEPA prohibits prepayment charges and balloon payments in a limited amount of cases, higher interest rates after default, negative amortization, more than two payments being made from the loan proceeds, pattern/practice of extending credit without taking into consideration the borrower’s ability to pay, and payments directly to home improvement contractors.

Relief and Statute of Limitations. A party can recover damages and rescind under HOEPA. Attorney’s fees and costs are also available. The Statutes of limitations for affirmative actions is one year. For rescission, the statutes of limitation is three years.

Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA); 15 U.S.C. § 1691

Purpose. The purpose of the ECOA is to stop discrimination in the lending industry.

Protections. ECOA has three important aspects:

1. First, it prohibits discrimination in any aspect of credit based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, assistance income.

2. Second, the ECOA requires creditors to take specific actions when approving or denying credit, prevents certain factors from being used to determine creditworthiness, mandates when an existing account may be closed, and restricts the ways that information is reported to credit reporting agencies concerning spouses.

3. Third, the Act imposes certain notice requirements on the credit issuer
when a loan application is approved or denied. If the creditor makes a counter offer (for more or less credit), then it must notify the borrower in writing of the new terms.

How ECOA Protection Can Be Applied to Foreclosure Fraud

Bait and switch tactics may give rise to a claim under the ECOA. If a creditor gives credit in a much larger amount than the borrower requested and never gives the borrower an opportunity to deny the additional amount, then the creditor violated the procedural terms of the ECOA by failing to provide the borrower with written notice of all action taken on the original loan application. This tactic is often used in predatory lending. A creditor will give more credit to pay borrower’s debts that the borrower expressed no interest in paying. The new amount is often disclosed too late in the process for the borrower to feel as if he can object.

Relief and Statute of Limitations. The ECOA allows home owners to pursue relief higher on the food chain than the original lender, and provides for actual and punitive damages (up to $10,000 in an individual action), equitable relief and attorney’s fees. The statute of limitations is one year.

Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA); 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.

Purpose. The purpose of RESPA is to protect home buyers from
abusive practices in the residential real estate industry. The Act controls
the manner in which settlement services for a residential real estate loan are provided and compensated.

Scope. RESPA applies to federally related mortgages, meaning those made by federally-insured depository lenders, HUD-related loans, loans intendedto be sold on the secondary market to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or to creditors who make or invest more than a million dollars per year in residentially secured loans. Most home equity loans (as well as refinancings), mobile home purchase loans and construction loans are covered by RESPA. A loan for vacant land is excluded unless a structure will be constructed or a manufactured home will be placed on the property within two years of settlement of the loan. There are some exceptions to RESPA. If a lender makes a loan from its own funds, holds the loan for varying periods of time and then sells the loan on the open market, it is not covered. Also, certain lenders that originate loans through a computer system are generally exempt from RESPA’s requirements.

Protections. RESPA requires that no later than three business days after the application, the consumer must receive a “good faith estimate” of settlement costs (usually via the HUD-1 settlement statement) along with a booklet explaining the costs. At closing, all settlement agents must use the HUD-1 settlement kickbacks and unearned fees. No person shall give or accept any fee, kickback or gift for a referral of a settlement service. Additionally, RESPA requires servicers to notify consumers about the possibility that their mortgages may be transferred and when one is imminent, and to have a mechanism that allows borrowers to make inquiries about their account to a servicer and to have corrections made to
their accounts, if necessary. Servicers have a substantive duty to pay the property taxes, homeowner’s insurance and other escrowed monies to the appropriate recipients as long as the borrower is current. Further, RESPA limits the amount that a lender can require that a borrower place in escrow, and prohibits a lender or servicer from charging the borrower for the preparation of statements required by TILA, the HUD-1 settlement statement, or escrow account statement.

Statute of Limitations. The statute of limitations is one year except for servicer violations which has a 3 year limitation.

Fair Housing Act (FHA); 42 U.S.C. § 3605

Purpose. The FHA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin in the making of
or purchasing of residential real estate loans and any other related financial assistance.

Scope. The FHA applies to loan brokers, financing consultants and anyone else providing financial assistance related to the making of the loan as well as the secondary market in the purchasing of loans, debts or securities, thepooling or packaging of these instruments, and the marketing or the sale of securities issued on the basis of loans or debts.

Protection. To prove discrimination, the consumer must show that the defendants intentionally targeted on the basis of a protected class when trying to obtain credit or that there was a credit-grant policy that had a disparate impact on that basis.

Relief and Statute of Limitations. Under the FHA, the court can award actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs. The statute of limitations is two years from the occurrence or from the termination of the discriminatory practice for affirmative claims.

Federal Trade Commission “Holder” Rule

The FTC’s “Holder” rule, or the FTC Rule on Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, allows a consumer to make a claim against a subsequent holder of a loan for the acts of the original lender. The original lender may be judgment proof, and it is unlikely that a consumer would effectively be able to defend against a collection action and bring an affirmative suit against the original lender. The rule creates an incentive for the lending industry to police itself and subsequent holders of a debt are in a better position to sue the original lender than the borrower.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

Purpose. FDCPA restricts debt collector’s efforts to obtain payment and
to choose venue. The Act protects debtors from abusive or harassing
debt collection practices.

Scope. The Act is generally used in the non-mortgage context because mortgage servicers are exempt because they usually acquire servicing rights before the mortgage goes into default. A debt collector generally includes collection agencies, creditors using false names or collecting for other creditors, collection attorneys, purchasers of delinquent debts, repossession companies, and suppliers or designers of deceptive forms, but generally excludes companies collecting their own debts.

Protections. The Act protects the consumer from an invasion of privacy, harassment, abuse, false or deceptive representations, and unfair or unconscionable collection methods. Specific acts that are prohibited include late night or repetitive phone calls, false threats of legal action or criminal prosecution and communications with most third parties regarding the debt.

FDCPA provides the consumer the ability to stop all debt collection action with a letter, makes the collector deal with the consumer’s attorney if the consumer has one, and gives the consumer the right to dispute the existence, legality or amount of the disputed debt.

Relief and Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff can recover actual damages, statutory damages (up to $1000), attorney’s fees and costs and perhaps punitive damages and injunctive relief. Class actions are also authorized and the statute of limitations for all actions is one year for affirmative claims.

Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968

Purpose. RICO can be used to provide a civil remedy to abusive
consumer credit practices.

Scope. Any cause of action under RICO must have the following elements: the existence of an enterprise, the enterprise is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, the defendant has engaged in one or more of four prohibited activities in section 1962, and the prohibited conduct cased injury to the plaintiff’s business or property.

Protections. Every RICO violation involves a collection of an unlawful debt (gambling debts or usury under state or federal law, at a rate at least twice the enforceable usury rate) or a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO can provide a remedy when a lender misrepresents that its rates are better than other lenders’ rates or that its loan will pay off other debts when it will
not. A well-plead allegation may state a claim for mail fraud in a loan flipping case under RICO. A borrower may also successfully plead a claim under RICO when there is a spread premium case where the payment of the premium is not revealed and the cost of the premium is passed onto the borrower in the form of a higher interest rate and where the broker represented that it would provide the lowest available rate, money was exchanged between the broker, the assignee, the funding lender and the title company and mail was used in furtherance of the scheme.

Remedy and Statute of Limitations. A person injured in his business or property can sue for treble damages but no physical or emotional damage claim can be made. The statute of limitations is four years in affirmative cases.

For More Information on How You Can Effectively Use Solid Arguments that are Structured on Your Lender’s Violations of Federal Laws, Which to Your Advantage, Will Subsequently Reduce Your Mortgage Payments and Save Your Home from Foreclosure Visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

Who Has Standing To Foreclose? – A Review of Massachusettes Case & Other Jurisdictions

09 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Note - Deed of Trust - Mortgage, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Securitization, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, Ibanez, Massachusetts, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, U.S. Bancorp, Uniform Commercial Code, US Bank

Introduction

As a result of the collapse of the housing market in this country in or around 2008, the number of residential foreclosures has increased exponentially, putting unprecedented strains on the system.

Although most foreclosures are uncontested, since there is rarely any doubt that the borrower has defaulted in repayment of the debt, in the past several years a cottage industry has developed challenging the creditor’s “standing” to foreclose, sometimes colloquially known as the “show me the Note” defense.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has seen its share of this phenomenon, maybe more than its share.

This post will briefly review the string of Massachusetts judicial decisions over the past several years addressing various aspects of the foreclosure standing question, and will use those cases to “issue-spot” and frame questions that practitioners in every state should consider and perhaps need to answer before moving ahead with foreclosures or to defend past foreclosures in litigation, whether in defense of borrowers’ lawsuits or in eviction proceedings. Other notables decisions will also be surveyed to flesh out the issues and arguments further, without attempting to be exhaustive of the subject or to present the proverbial 50-State survey.

The Massachusetts Story

We begin with the Massachusetts foreclosure story. In early 2009, a judge on Massachusetts specialized Land Court called into question a title standard of the State’s Real Estate Bar Association that had been relied upon by the Massachusetts foreclosure Bar. REBA Title Standard No. 58 said that a foreclosure was not defective so long as an assignment of the mortgage was obtained at any time before or after the foreclosure. In other words, the title could be cleared by obtaining an assignment even after the conduct of the foreclosure auction sale. Land Court Judge Keith Long in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 2009 WL 795201 (Mass. Land Ct. Mar. 26, 2009), held that the title standard did not correctly state Massachusetts law, and that under the Massachusetts foreclosure statute, M.G.L. c. 244, a creditor had to be the mortgagee to foreclose. In 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011), affirmed, holding that a foreclosing entity, if not the original mortgagee, must hold an assignment of the mortgage at the time it first published the notice of sale.

If the assignment of the mortgage was obtained after publication of the notice, a subsequently-completed foreclosure is unlawful and void.

Because Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction, the foreclosing creditor does not have available ares judicata defense to a post-foreclosure challenge to title or possession.

Thus, the Massachusetts Court has held that a borrower or other defendant in an eviction action can defend by contesting the validity of a purchaser’s title if it stems from an invalid foreclosure, even if the mortgagor had done nothing to contest the foreclosure itself. Bank of New York v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327 (2011).

The plaintiffs in Ibanez were securitization trustees and while the evidence in the record was incomplete, contributing to the result, the trustees were presumed to have held the notes in the respective loan pools, including the defendants’ notes, for the benefit of the investors. The Ibanez Court required the mortgagee to hold an assignment, and implicitly found that it would not be sufficient to confer standing to foreclose to hold the note without also holding the mortgage or obtaining an assignment, but nothing in the decision presaged a requirement that the mortgagee possess the note.

The argument that the mortgagee must also hold the note to foreclose was pressed to the Massachusetts high court almost immediately in the wake of Ibanez. This issue arises in Massachusetts because, contrary to the majority and longstanding American rule that the mortgage is mere security for the note and follows the note as a matter of law, Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872), Massachusetts is a title-theory state that allows for the note and mortgage to be held separately. Under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), a note can be transferred by delivery of possession of an endorsed note, but Massachusetts, as a title theory state, requires a signed instrument to convey a mortgage, “which represents legal title to someone’s home.” Ibanez, 458 Mass. at 649. Comparable to the equity of redemption residing in the mortgagor, to reclaim legal title by repaying the debt and redeeming the mortgage, the owner of the note under Massachusetts law holds beneficial ownership of the mortgage and has the right to compel an assignment of the mortgage by the mortgagee, who holds the mortgage in trust for the holder of the note, in what has been described as a resulting trust implied by law. Id. at 652.

In Eaton v. Fannie Mae, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), the Court laid down a new rule that foreclosing mortgagees must either (a) hold the note, or (b) be acting on behalf of the note holder. In other words, the Court held that “one who, although not the note holder himself, acts as the authorized agent of the note holder,” may exercise the power of sale. Id. at 586. Notably, unlike in Ibanez where the Court rejected entreaties for prospective application of its decision, the Eaton court chose to apply its holding prospectively only to foreclosures noticed after the date of the decision out of “concern for litigants and others who have relied on existing precedents,” this being a “new rule.” Id. at 588.

Massachusetts courts, like courts elsewhere, have also considered the standing of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) to foreclose mortgages and to assign mortgages for foreclosure. MERS, discussed in greater detail below, holds title to mortgages as nominee for MERS Members. The Eaton court discussed MERS in several footnotes, see 462 Mass. 569 nn. 5, 7, 27 & 29, and implicitly accepted MERS’ pre-foreclosure assignment of the mortgage to the mortgage servicer.

In a federal court appeal earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston held expressly that MERS has the authority to assign mortgages it holds as nominee. Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services, — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 563374 (1st Cir., Feb. 15, 2013). Indeed, in the District Court decision the Court of Appeals affirmed, District Judge William Young remarked that “the MERS system fits perfectly into the Massachusetts model for the separation of legal and beneficial ownership of mortgages.” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services, 826 F. Supp. 2d 352, 371 (D. Mass. 2011).

The recent Massachusetts mortgage foreclosure decisions were surprising, bordering on shocking, both to lenders and the Massachusetts real estate and foreclosure bars. In Ibanez, the Court disapproved a title standard of the well-respected statewide real estate bar group that conveyancers and others looked to for guidance, and in Eaton the Massachusetts Court for the first time announced a requirement that a foreclosing mortgagee be able to demonstrate its relationship to the mortgage note notwithstanding that there is no requirement under Massachusetts law to record or file notes or note transfers. 462 Mass. at 586;see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. McKenna , 2011 WL 6153419, at *2 n.1 (Mass. Land Ct. Dec. 8, 2011) (“There never has been recording of notes at the registries of deeds at any time. Notes are never recorded—not (as they may be in some other states) when the initial mortgage is recorded, nor at any time after that, including at the time, following the auction sale, when the foreclosure deed and

affidavit are put on at the registry.”). Whether the greater numbers of foreclosures and the perceived financial excesses and highly publicized alleged “sloppiness” of the mortgage industry have caused some courts to be more “pro-consumer,” or it is only that some of the legal doctrines underlying foreclosure standing had not been closely examined in a century or more, the rulings were unexpected. In part, they may represent the challenge of adapting historical, and in some cases ancient, property law to modern commerce, or vice versa. But they point out the critical need to understand state law, and to not take for granted that traditional custom and practice will be upheld, or that courts will not struggle applying that law or those established customs and practice to non-traditional modern mortgage ownership structures.

Mortgage notes, representing the debt for which the mortgages are collateral, will generally qualify as negotiable instruments whose ownership and transfer is governed by the principles of Article 3 of the UCC, adopted largely intact in most American jurisdictions. But despite the efforts of the UCC Commissioners to harmonize the law of security interests, including in some respects in real property, mortgage law and mortgage foreclosure in particular remains predominantly a creature of local state law. Thus, for mortgage foreclosure purposes, where the foreclosing creditor stands, in the legal vernacular, may depend on where the house sits. The discussion below frames some of the key standing inquiries suggested by the Massachusetts experience, and surveys some recent case law from across the country addressing the same or similar questions, and compares and contrasts the judicial precedents.

Although subsidiary questions such as whether the state is a title theory or lien theory jurisdiction, and whether the mortgage is deemed to follow the note as a matter of law, may affect how the questions are answered in any particular state, the core questions remain the same and can generally be framed in the following terms:

1. What relationship must the foreclosing entity have to the mortgage (or to the corresponding deed of trust in jurisdictions that know the security instrument by that terminology), and at what time must it hold or have it?

2. What relationship, if any, must the foreclosing entity have to the promissory note secured by the mortgage (or by the deed of trust), and at what time?

3. Does MERS when it holds the mortgage as nominee (or when it is named as beneficiary under a deed of trust) have standing to foreclose, or the ability to assign the mortgage (or deed of trust) to the lender, trustee or servicer for foreclosure?

4. Who has standing to foreclose in the securitization context, given the legal relationships under the standard Pooling and Servicing Agreement between and among the securitization trustee, the mortgage servicer and, where applicable, MERS as nominee under the mortgage (or deed of trust)?

There is a large body of case law nationwide on all of these questions, with additional decisions being handed down on virtually a daily basis; what follows below is only a representative sampling intended to illustrate the more significant issues and arguments, to inform the analysis of applicable local state law.

1. Relationship Between Foreclosing Entity and Mortgage.

In U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011), as discussed above, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a foreclosing entity must hold an assignment of the mortgage at the time of the publication of the notice of sale. Other states differ on whether they require a foreclosing party to hold the mortgage either at the time of the foreclosure sale itself or when notice is issued.

In considering any question of a party’s status in the foreclosure process, it is first important to note whether jurisdictions are judicial or non-judicial jurisdictions:

– Judicial foreclosure states require the foreclosing party to initiate a court proceeding in order to foreclose. The foreclosure complaint seeks permission from the court to foreclose on the secured property.

– Non-judicial foreclosure jurisdictions do not require court involvement. Instead, the foreclosing entity must follow certain practices as set by state statute, such as mailing notices of acceleration and default, and publishing notice in the local papers. That entity often is the deed of trust trustee, under state law. If the borrower wishes to contest the sale, he or she may seek to enjoin it before the sale occurs.

Twenty-two states are considered judicial foreclosure jurisdictions, whereas 28 are deemed non-judicial.

In New York, where foreclosures are conducted judicially, one court recently stated that “a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wine, 90 A.D.3d 1216, 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011).

To a similar effect, one Florida court has said a party must “present evidence that it owns and holds the note and mortgage in question in order to proceed with a foreclosure action.” Gee v. U.S. Bank N.A., 72 So. 3d 211, 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2011). But a different Florida appellate court has held that an assignment of the mortgage may not be necessary at the time a complaint is filed. Standing to bring a judicial foreclosure requires “either an assignment or an equitable transfer of the mortgage prior to the filing of the complaint.” McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., 79 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2012). Because ownership of a mortgage follows an assignment of the debt under that case, the mortgage does not need to be assigned to the plaintiff before the Complaint is filed if it proves ownership of the note at that time.

New Jersey, also a judicial state, has said that if a foreclosing creditor bases standing to foreclose on assignment of the mortgage, the assignment must precede filing of the foreclosure complaint; however, if the foreclosing creditor held the note at the time of filing the complaint, assignment of the mortgage is unnecessary to establish standing to foreclose. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 222-25 (App. Div. 2011). There, although Deutsche Bank had not proved its standing because the mortgage assignment it relied on was executed a day after it filed its complaint, the Court remanded to allow Deutsche Bank to demonstrate standing by proving that it possessed the note prior to filing the complaint. Contrast state filing rules with the law of a non-judicial state like Michigan, which allows a foreclosing party to be “either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.” MCL 600.3204(1)(d)). Thus, under the statute, a loan servicer is expressly authorized to foreclose regardless of whether it holds the note or mortgage. However, by the date of the foreclosure sale, the mortgage must be assigned to the foreclosing party if it is not the original mortgagee. MCL 600.3204(3).

Where an assignment of the mortgage may be required in order to foreclose, there are differences regarding whether the assignment of mortgage is required to be recorded.

– Massachusetts: In U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011), although the Court required the foreclosing entity to hold the mortgage, it notably did not require the assignment of mortgage be recorded – or even be in recordable form.

– California, likewise, does not require that assignments of a deed of trust be recorded prior to foreclosure, despite a statutory pre-foreclosure recording requirement for mortgage assignments (mortgages are uncommon in California). Calvo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 199 Cal. App. 4th 118, 122-2 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).

– New York, recording is also not required. See, e.g., Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2nd Dep’t 2011) (rejecting contention that absence of recorded assignment allowed inference that plaintiff did not own the note and mortgage; “an assignment of a note and mortgage need not be in writing and can be effectuated by physical delivery”).

But some non-judicial states require that assignments of deeds of trusts or mortgages be recorded before a foreclosure can occur:

– Oregon: Ore. Rev. Stat. § 86.735(1)

– Idaho: Idaho Stat. § 45-1505(1)

– Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 580.02(3)

– Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 71-1-313(1)

– Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 34-4-103(a)(iii)

Regardless of any requirement, assignees typically record mortgage assignments to put the world on notice of their interest. See MetLife Home Loans v. Hansen, 48 Kan. App. 2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012) (“The assignment of the Mortgage was merely recorded notice of a formal transfer of the title to the instrument as required by recording statutes, which are primarily designed to protect the mortgagee against other creditors of the mortgagor for lien-priority purposes, not to establish the rights of the mortgagee vis-à-vis the mortgagor.”

Need for Correct Corporate Names

When an assignment of mortgage is required, it must also be assigned to the correct corporate entity. Confusion over corporate names can impede foreclosures.

For example, the servicer of a loan filed a judicial foreclosure action alleging that it was the assignee of the original lender. Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1184 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 2008). Reversing the trial court’s judgment in favor of the servicer (Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C.), the Court of Appeals held that the servicer was not allowed to foreclose because the mortgage was not assigned to it. Rather, the mortgage had been assigned to an affiliated entity, Bayview Financial Trading Group, L.P. Id. at 1187. Without any evidence that the foreclosing entity held the note or mortgage, the fact that it was servicer was insufficient to allow it to foreclose. Id. at 1188.

But the situation was different in a judicial foreclosure filed in the same state by Standard Bank, which was the successor to the originator of the loan as a result of several mergers and name changes. Std. Bank & Trust Co. v. Madonia, 964 N.E.2d 118 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2011). The mortgagors argued that the plaintiff bank was required to show a mortgage assignment or endorsement of the note to it. Rejecting that argument, the Court held that the plaintiff bank retained all of the interests of the originator, including those under the note and mortgage, as a result of the mergers. Id. at 123.

A court may require proof of a merger. The note and mortgage in this case were assigned to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. deBree, 2012 ME 34 (Me. 2012). Upon the borrowers’ default, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a complaint as “Successor by Merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.” The trial court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo Bank. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that Wells Fargo Bank had not proved its ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage because there was no evidence that it, as opposed to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., owned the instruments. Id. at ¶ 9. The Court rejected the Bank’s arguments that the borrowers had waived their argument, and it declined to take judicial notice that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage had merged into Wells Fargo Bank. Id.at ¶¶ 9-10. The showing of ownership was necessary for the Bank to prevail on summary judgment, so the foreclosure judgment was vacated. Id. at ¶ 11.

2. Relationship Between Foreclosing Entity and Note

In Eaton v. Fannie Mae, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), discussed above, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced a new rule, applicable to foreclosures noticed after June 22, 2012 (the date of the decision), requiring that foreclosing mortgagees must either (a) hold the note; or (b) be acting on behalf of the noteholder, at the time of foreclosure. In other words, the Court held that “one who, although not the note holder himself, acts as the authorized agent of the note holder” may exercise the power of sale.

Various courts in other states are split as to whether a foreclosing entity must hold the note.

California, for example, allows by statute non-judicial foreclosure by the “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents.” Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 204 Cal. App. 4th 433, 440 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2012) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1)). The party foreclosing need not have possession of or a beneficial interest in the note because no such prerequisite appears in comprehensive statutory framework. Id. at 440-42.

In Idaho, a non-judicial foreclosure state, the state supreme court expressly rejected the idea that a party must have ownership of the note and mortgage. Trotter v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 152 Idaho 842, 861-62 (2012). Rather, “the plain language of the [deed of trust foreclosure] statute makes it clear that the trustee may foreclose on a deed of trust if it complies with the requirements contained within the Act.” Id. at 862.

Despite these states’ rejections of any requirement to hold the note, some courts in other jurisdictions do seem to require the foreclosing party to also be the noteholder, for example, or perhaps at least an agent or authorized person:

– New York: According to this intermediate appellate division, judicial foreclosure plaintiff must both hold the note and the mortgage at the time the action is commenced. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wine, 90 A.D.3d 1216, 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011).

– Florida: In Florida, the holder of a note, or its representative, may foreclose. Gee v. U.S. Bank N.A., 72 So. 3d 211, 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2011). If the plaintiff is not the payee of the note, it must be endorsed to the plaintiff or in blank. Id.

– Maryland: The transferee of an unendorsed promissory note has the burden of establishing its rights under the note by proving the note’s prior transfer history, especially where the mortgagor requests an injunction to stop foreclosure. Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232, 245 (2011). Thus, the Court held that although the agent of the substitute trustee under the mortgage had physical possession of the note, it was not a holder of the note because there was no valid endorsement; it could nevertheless still enforce the note based on concessions from the mortgagors. Id. at 251-52.

– Oklahoma: “To commence a foreclosure action in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must demonstrate it has a right to enforce the note and, absent a showing of ownership, the plaintiff lacks standing.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Heath, 2012 OK 54, ¶ 9 (Okla. 2012).

– Washington: Under Washington’s non-judicial foreclosure statute, the trustee is required to “have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust.” RCW61.24.030(7)(a). Note, however, that borrowers cannot bring a judicial action based on a beneficiary or trustee’s failure to prove to the borrower that the beneficiary owns the note. Frazer v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 2012 WL 1821386, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2012) (“[T]he Washington Deed of Trust Act requires that a foreclosing lender demonstrate its ownership of the underlying note to the trustee, not the borrower.”).

Some jurisdictions more clearly take an either/or approach to foreclosing. In Michigan, for example, the foreclosing entity must be “either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.” Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman, 490 Mich. 909 (2011) (quoting MCL 600.3204(1)(d)). The question in Saurman was whether foreclosures by MERS, as a mortgagee that did not hold the note, were proper. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the foreclosures because the mortgagee’s interest in the note—even though not an ownership interest—was a sufficient interest in the indebtedness to allow it to foreclose.

There are other state courts that follow the either/or approach as well, for example:

– Ohio: In CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Patterson, 2012 Ohio 5894 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Dec. 13, 2012), the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a party has standing if “at the time it files its complaint of foreclosure, it either (1) has had a mortgage assigned or (2) is the holder of the note.” Id. at ¶ 21. Thus, the plaintiff in Patterson had standing because it possessed the note when it filed its complaint, even though the mortgagewas not assigned until later. Id. at ¶ 22.

– Alabama: In Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, — So.3d —-, 2011 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 361 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 16, 2011), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals ruled that a party lacked standing to foreclose because it was not yet the assignee of a mortgage when it initiated foreclosure. In Perry v. Fannie Mae, 100 So. 3d 1090 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), the Court explained that the mortgage need not be assigned to a foreclosing party at the time it initiates foreclosure if it is a holder of the note. Because the evidence showed that the foreclosing party held the note at the time it initiated foreclosure proceedings, the foreclosure was proper. Id. at 1094-96.

– New Jersey: As noted in the preceding section, New Jersey recognizes standing to file a complaint to foreclose based on either assignment of the mortgage or possession of the note. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 222 (App. Div. 2011).

3. Standing of MERS

What is MERS?

MERS is a system for electronically tracking interests in mortgages that are traded on the secondary market. MERS members (approximately 6,000) agree that MERS serves as mortgagee or beneficiary, and when loan ownership or servicing rights are sold from one MERS member to another, MERS remains the titleholder to the security instrument as nominee on behalf of whomever owns the loan. MERS is modeled on the “book entry system” used to track ownership in stock exchanges.

The use of nominees predates MERS: “The use of a nominee in real estate transactions, and as mortgagee in a recorded mortgage, has long been sanctioned as a legitimate practice.” In re Cushman Bakery, 526 F. 2d 23, 30 (1st Cir. 1975) (collecting cases). However, the concept of a nominee serving as agent for one member of a group of possible principals—where the principal may change in a way not reflected in the public record—has fostered arange of reactions, from commendation to criticism to confusion, but ultimately MERS (and its members) have repeatedly prevailed in foreclosure challenge litigation.

Authority of MERS to Foreclose

Most courts to consider the issue have ruled that MERS may serve as mortgagee or beneficiary and foreclose, for example:

– Texas: Athey v. MERS, 314 S.W. 3d 161, 166 (Tex. App. 2010) (MERS could foreclose, though it never held the note).

– Utah: Burnett v. MERS, 2009 WL 3582294 (D. Utah Oct. 27, 2009) (“MERS had authority under the Deed of Trust to initiate foreclosure proceedings”).

– Nevada: Croce v. Trinity Mortg. Assurance Corp. 2009 WL 3172119, at 3 (D. Nev. Sept. 28, 2009) (collecting cases from Georgia, California, Florida, and Colorado rejecting argument “that MERS does not have standing as a beneficiary under the Note and Deed of Trust, and therefore, is not authorized to participate in the foreclosure proceedings.”); see also Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,286 P.3d 249, 254 (Nev. 2012) (“The deed of trust also expressly designated MERS as the beneficiary… it is an express part of the contract that we are not at liberty to disregard, and it is not repugnant to the remainder of the contract.”).

– Michigan: Residential Funding Corp. v. Saurman, 805 N.W. 2d 183 (Mich. 2011) held that MERS had a sufficient interest to foreclose because it owned “legal title to a security lien whose existence is wholly contingent on the satisfaction of the indebtedness.”

In addition, at least two states—Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 507.413) and Texas (Tex. Prop. Code § 51.0001)—have enacted statutes recognizing that MERS can foreclose.

Some state courts, nevertheless, have raised various questions about MERS’s role as it relates to foreclosures.

– Oregon: In Niday v. GMAC Mortg., 284 P. 3d 1157 (Or. App. 2012), the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that MERS did not meet Oregon’s statutory definition of “beneficiary,” disagreeing with the majority of trial court rulings that had ruled MERS could serve as beneficiary.

Niday is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Oregon; oral argument was heard January 8, 2013.

– Maine: The Maine Supreme Court has ruled that MERS cannot meet its definition of “mortgagee,” and thus had no standing to foreclose judicially. MERS v. Saunders, 2 A. 3d 289 (Me. 2010) (“MERS is not in fact a ‘mortgagee’ within the meaning of our foreclosure statute”).

– Washington: Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 46 (Wash. 2012) ruled that MERS did not meet the statutory definition of deed of trust beneficiary, though Bain did not explain whether this impaired foreclosure proceedings.

Nearly two years ago, MERS changed its rules of membership to provide that the noteholder must arrange for an assignment to be executed from MERS to the foreclosing entity prior to commencement of any foreclosure proceeding, judicial or non-judicial. So, this issue may be a legacy question after all.

Authority of MERS to Assign Mortgage

Even before the change in the membership rules, MERS often assigned mortgages to the foreclosing entity so that entity could foreclose. Some borrowers have argued that, as nominee, MERS does not have the power to assign the mortgage. These challenges have been almost universally rejected, as the security instruments expressly authorize MERS, as nominee, to take any action required of its principal and refer to the mortgagee or beneficiary as MERS and its “successors and assigns.” Indeed the First Circuit recently rejected this very argument. See Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services, — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 563374 (1st Cir., Feb. 15, 2013).

Likewise, the fact that an assignment of the security instrument may occur after the transfer of the note is not problematic, and makes sense under the MERS model: “[MERS] members often wait until a default or bankruptcy case is filed to have a mortgage or deed of trust assigned to them so that they can take steps necessary to seek stay relief and/or to foreclose…. [T]he reason they wait is that, if a note is paid off eventually, as most presumably are, MERS is authorized to release the [deed of trust] without going to the expense of ever recording any assignments.”Edelstein, 286 P.3d at 254.

Borrowers have also claimed that MERS lacks authority to assign the note. Since MERS typically does not hold notes, language in MERS assignments referencing the note in addition to the mortgage likely reflects a lack of precision. Insofar as MERS did not hold a note the issue is immaterial.

Splitting” the Note and Mortgage

Some borrowers have alleged that the naming of MERS as holder of title to the mortgage, while the lender holds title to the note, separates the note from the security instrument thereby rendering assignments void and the security instrument unenforceable. As one court has colorfully described it, the debt is the cow, and the mortgage the cow’s tail—while the debt can survive without the security instrument, the instrument has no independent vitality without the debt. See Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. MERS, 263 p.3d 397, 403 (Utah App. 2011).

As noted, in Massachusetts, those arguments have been squarely rejected as Massachusetts permits the note and mortgage to be held separately. Indeed the District of Massachusetts remarked that the “MERS system fits perfectly into the Massachusetts model for the separation of legal and beneficial ownership of mortgages.” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services, 826 F. Supp. 2d 352, 371 (D. Mass. 2011), aff’d — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 563374 (1st Cir. Feb. 15, 2013).

This theory has typically been rejected elsewhere as well, as, if successful, it would “confer[] an unwarranted windfall on the mortgagor.” Id. (citing Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Mortgages § 5.4 cmt. a). In Edelstein, 286 P.3d 249, 255 (Nev. 2012), for example, the court held that in Nevada, “to have standing to foreclose, the current beneficiary of the deed of trust and the current holder of the promissory note must be the same.” However, under the MERS system, the parties agree that MERS holds the security instrument while the note is transferred among its members—as long as the two instruments are united in the foreclosing entity prior to foreclosure, the Nevada court held, the foreclosing entity has standing to foreclose in that state.

Along similar lines, some borrowers allege that operation of MERS makes it impossible to identify who the proper noteholder is, because only the security instrument (not the note) was assigned by MERS. “A ‘show me the note’ plaintiff typically alleges a foreclosure is invalid unless the foreclosing entity produces the original note.” Stein v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 662 F. 3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 2011). Of course, when the foreclosing entity is able to produce the note, the claim is typically defeated on summary judgment, id., and many courts considering “show me the note” arguments in the MERS context have dismissed them as a matter of law without any inquiry into note ownership. E.g., Diessner v. MERS, 618 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1187 (D. Ariz. 2009) (“district courts have routinely held that Plaintiff’s ‘show me the note’ argument lacks merit”) (collecting cases from California, Nevada, and Arizona) (internal quotations omitted).

Unrecorded Assignment Theories

Some states (including Massachusetts after November 1, 2012)statutorily require that, in order to bring a non-judicial foreclosure, all assignments of thesecurity instrument must be recorded. E.g., ORS 86.735(1) (Oregon) (trustee sale may proceed only if “any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary … are recorded”). In Oregon, a few borrowers have successfully argued that, because the security follows the debt as a matter of law, transfers of the debt while MERS remains lienholder of record result in assignments that go unrecorded, precluding non-judicial foreclosure. See Niday, 284 P. 3d at 1169 (“any assignments” language in ORS 86.735(1) includes “assignment by transfer of the note, ” and that all such assignments from the initial lender to subsequent lenders must be recorded prior to commencement of a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding). Niday is under review by the Supreme Court of Oregon, which heard oral argument on January 8, 2013.

Other courts considering the same argument have rejected it. For instance, Minnesota, Idaho, and Arizona have the same statutory requirement that assignments must be recorded, but have not found note transfers to trigger an obligation to create and record an assignment of the corresponding security instrument. E.g., Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009) (answering “no” to certified question: “Where an entity, such as defendant MERS, serves as mortgagee of record as nominee for a lender and that lender’s successors and assigns and there has been no assignment of the mortgage itself, is an assignment of the ownership of the underlying indebtedness for which the mortgage serves as security an assignment that must be recorded prior to the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement under Minn. Stat. ch. 580?”); Homeyer v. Bank of America, N.A.,2012 WL 4105132, at *4 (D. Idaho Aug. 27, 2012) (“Idaho law does not require recording each assignment of a trust deed based upon transfer of the underlying note.”); Ciardi v. Lending Co., Inc., 2010 WL 2079735, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2010) (“Plaintiffs have failed to cite any Arizona statute that requires the recording of a promissory note or even the assignment of a promissory note.”). These cases ruled that a transfer of a promissory note does not create an “assignment” for purposes of those statutes.

4. Securitization Standing

What is Securitization?

Securitization is the packaging of debt into instruments broadly referred to as “mortgage-backed securities”; one court has described it with analogies: “One could analogize this process to taking raw ingredients and combining them to make bread then selling the slices individually, or putting different kinds of meat into a sausage grinder then selling the individual sausages. What is born from this process are new debt instruments, sold on the open market, that have pooled-and-sliced home loans as their ingredients. Different debt instruments work in different ways, but the basic concept is that home loan debt gets repackaged and sold to other investors rather than being held by the bank that originated the loan.” Bisson v. Bank of America, N.A., — F.Supp.2d —-, 2013 WL 325262, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2013). The securitization market emerged to facilitate the inflow of capital to fund home loans, and it “allows banks to spread mortgage risk across the financial system rather than hold it all themselves.” Id.

Although securitization has fallen well off its peak of approximately $1 trillion in originations in 2006, it is projected to rise from $4 billion in 2012 to $25-30 billion in 2013.

There are several parties to a securitization agreement, but the borrower is not one of them. A typical securitization arrangement involves the following parties:

· Originator: The originator is the party identified as “lender” on note and mortgage (or deed of trust).

· Depositor: The depositor is either the originator or someone that buys loans from originators and pools them into securities pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) to which the depositor, trustee, and master servicer are parties.

· Trust: Entity into which loans are pooled (e.g., “Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z”). Sometimes referred to as a “Special Purpose Vehicle,” “Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit” or “REMIC,” orsimply a “Mortgage-Backed Security.”

· Trustee/Custodian: The trustee of the securitization trust (not to be confused with the trustee of a deed of trust, which conducts non-judicial foreclosure sales in deed of trust states) holds loans on behalf of the individual security holders, receiving the borrower’s payments from the loan servicer.

· Individual Investors: Shares of mortgage-backed securities are purchased by investors who, when loans are paid on schedule, ultimately benefit from borrowers’ mortgage payments.

· Master Servicer: The master servicer under the PSA services the individual loans in the pool, interfacing with borrowers, collecting loan payments and transferring them to the trust, and often handling foreclosures and post-foreclosure property management.

The Effect of Securitization on Foreclosure

Securitization adds complexity to chain of title to the mortgage, and chain of ownership of the note. See, e.g., In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 142-45 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009) (describing chain of title to a mortgage securing a securitized note); In re Samuels, 415 B.R. 8, 16-22 (considering challenge to direct assignment of mortgage from originator to trustee, not including an intervening assignment to the trust).

Some borrowers have claimed that insurance contracts or credit default swap agreements preclude default—i.e., the trust was insured against loss, collected the insurance when the borrower defaulted, and should not be allowed to foreclose as well because such foreclosure would grant a “double recovery.” Larota-Florez v. Goldman Sachs Mortg. Co., 719 F. Supp. 2d 636, 642 (E.D. Va. 2010). These arguments have not gained traction. Horvath v. Bank of N.Y., N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.2 (4th Cir. 2011) (rejecting argument that trustee of securitization trust “should not have been able to foreclose on his property because they did not suffer any losses from his default,” because “that defense does not allow individuals in default on a mortgage to offset their outstanding obligations by pointing to the mortgagee’s unrelated investment income”); Commonwealth, 2011 UT App 232 ¶¶ 3, 10 (rejecting argument “that defendants, having been paid off in the sale of the loan, could not seek a second payoff by foreclosure of the Trust Deed” as a “mere conclusory allegation” that could not sustain a viable claim).

Other borrowers have commissioned “securitization audits,” which purportedly trace the history of the loan in an attempt to cast doubt upon whether the foreclosing entity has standing. These arguments have also generally failed. E.g., Norwood v. Bank of America, 2010 WL 4642447 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2010); Dye v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2012 WL 1340220 (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss despite findings of “Mortgage Securitization Audit”). Still other borrowers have challenged the foreclosing entity’s compliance with the PSA. As noted above, borrowers are not parties to these agreements; as such, courts have generally found that borrowers do not have standing to challenge the foreclosing entity’s compliance or lack thereof with it. See, e.g., In re Correia, 452 B.R. 319, 324 (1st Cir. B.A.P. 2011) (stating that debtors, who were not parties to the PSA or third-party beneficiaries thereof, lacked standing to challenge defendants’ compliance with PSA); Sami v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 967051, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012) (rejecting claim “that Wells Fargo failed to transfer or assign the note or Deed of Trust to the Securitized Trust by the ‘closing date,’ and that therefore, ‘under the PSA, any alleged assignment beyond the specified closing date’ is void”).

Which Securitization Parties May Foreclose?

As discussed above, there are several parties to a securitization. The parties most likely to be involved in a foreclosure are the trustee and servicer. On occasion, foreclosures have been conducted in the name of MERS.

As the party interfacing with the borrowers on a day-to-day basis, the servicer is often in best practical position to handle foreclosure proceedings, but may be required, under some states’ laws, to demonstrate its entitlement to foreclose on behalf of the securitization trustee. So, for example, in Maine, a judicial foreclosure state, the servicer must show its authority to enforce the note. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Cloutier, 2013 WL 453976, at *3 (Me. Feb. 7, 2013) (foreclosure plaintiff must “identify the owner or economic beneficiary of the note and, if the plaintiff is not the owner, to indicate the basis for the plaintiff’s authority to enforce the note pursuant to Article 3-A of the UCC”).

Most non-judicial states do not apply special requirements to loan servicers; the only significant inquiry is whether the trustee of the deed of trust was properly appointed by the beneficiary of record. In Utah, for example, “the statute governing non-judicial foreclosure in Utah does not contain any requirement that the trustee demonstrate his or her authority in order to foreclose. The court declines to create a requirement where the legislature chose not to include one. Therefore, the court holds that, under the terms of the relevant documents and the current statute, [a trustee] is not required to demonstrate its authority to foreclose before initiating a foreclosure proceeding.” Hoverman v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86968, at *16-17 (D. Utah Aug. 4, 2011); see also Trotter, 275 P.3d at 861 (Idaho 2012) (“A trustee is not required to prove it has standing before foreclosing on a deed of trust” as long as “the Appointment of Successor Trustee, Notice of Default, and Notice of Trustee’s Sale complied with the statutoryrequirements and were recorded as specified in the statute”).

The situation can change, however, if the loan becomes involved in a judicial proceeding, such as a bankruptcy. To move for relief from stay in bankruptcy—even in a deed of trust state—a servicer must somehow show authority to enforce the note, though assignment of the security instrument may not be necessary. E.g., In re Tucker, 441 B.R. 638, 645 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2010) (“even if, as here, the deed of trust is recorded in the name of the original lender…, the holder of the note, whoever it is, would be entitled to foreclose, even if the deed of trust had not been assigned to it.”). And, conversely, failure to show authority to enforce the note can lead to denial of motions for relief from stay. E.g., In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (denying relief from stay to group of movants that included both servicers and securitization trustees because they presented insufficient proof that they owned the notes in question); In re Mims, 438 B.R. 52, 57 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010) (servicer that held title to themortgage but did not show it had been assigned the note was not a “real party in interest” in proceeding to lift stay).

In addition to the servicer, the trustee is often the foreclosing party. As the party holding title to the loan on behalf of the loan investors, the trustee is certainly a proper party to foreclose—if it has the right to do so under state law, which may require that it have been formally assigned the mortgage.

In Massachusetts, for instance—and as discussed more above—the trustee must also hold an assignment of the mortgage. In Ibanez, the trustee commenced foreclosures before they had been assigned the mortgages, and did not record assignments until after the foreclosure was completed. The trustee argued it had already received the note when the loan had been securitized years earlier, and that gave it all it needed to foreclose. The court rejected that argument—Massachusetts, as a “title theory” state, requires assignment of mortgage to foreclose. Securitization may have showed intent to assign mortgages, but was not an actual assignment.

Lien-theory states often take a different position, and do not require a trustee to also hold the mortgage, which is nothing more than the right to enforce a lien. See, e.g., Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 254 (Nev. 2012);KCB Equities, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. , 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4418, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Dallas).

Conclusion

The recent Massachusetts foreclosure case law is likely some what atypical, driven as it has been by some relatively unusual aspects of Massachusetts law.

But the questions the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has been called upon to answer, concerning the necessary relationship between the lien of the security interest, the debt and the foreclosing creditor, are universal and have been the subject of considerable litigation across the country during the recent “foreclosure crisis.” And the questions are controlled for the most part by state law, and state property and foreclosure law are much less uniform than the law governing the notes themselves as negotiable instruments. This paper has identified the principal issues and arguments so practitioners can ask the right questions and try to determine the law in their particular jurisdiction before proceeding.

For More Information How You Can Use Solid Augments To Effective Challenge and Save Your Home Visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

JPMorgan Faces Criminal and Civil Probes Over Mortgages

08 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Fed, Fraud

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bank of America, Barack Obama, JPMorgan Chase, Mortgage-backed security, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

(Reuters) – JPMorgan Chase & Co, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, said on Wednesday it is being investigated by criminal and civil divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice over offerings of mortgage-backed securities.

The civil division gave the company a notice in May that it had preliminarily concluded that the firm violated federal securities laws in offerings of subprime and Alt-A residential mortgage securities during 2005 to 2007, JPMorgan said.

JPMorgan said in the filing that it is responding to parallel investigations being conducted by the civil and criminal divisions of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California relating to mortgage-backed securities.

The company made the disclosures in a quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors filed a $850 million civil lawsuit against Bank of America Corp over the sale of bonds backed by jumbo mortgages. The lawsuit followed a disclosure by Bank of America on August 1 that it expected to be sued by the Department of Justice and SEC over mortgage bonds.

News of the investigations comes after President Barack Obama vowed to hold companies responsible for breaking the law in financing the housing bubble that caused the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement on Tuesday that Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which brought the latest lawsuit against Bank of America, “will continue to take an aggressive approach to combating financial fraud and uncovering abuses in the residential mortgage-backed securities market,” and is pursuing “a range of additional investigations.”

The parallel civil and criminal investigations that JPMorgan disclosed are being conducted from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, according to the company’s filing.

JPMorgan also raised its estimate of possible legal losses in excess of reserves to $6.8 billion at the end of June from $6 billion three months earlier.

(Reporting by David Henry and Peter Rudegeair in New York; Editing by Leslie Gevirtz)

For More Information About Ways To Save Your Home From Fraudulent Wrongful Foreclosure Visit http://www.fightforeclosure.net

FightForeclosure.net

~ Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Category Archives: Banks and Lenders

10 Banks Agree to Pay $8.5B for Foreclosure Abuse

What Florida Homeowners Need to Know About Mortgage Assignments

What Texas Homeowners Needs to Know About Foreclosure in Texas

How Attorney Mistakes Can Result to Homeowners Losing their Homes in Wrongful Foreclosure Litigation.

Quiet Title Action ~ What Florida Home Owners Need to Know

How Homeoweners Can Use Various Forms of Mortgage Fraud Schemes For Wrongful Foreclosure Defense

A Guide To Borrowers On Laws and Regulations that Govern Mortgage Lending and Servicing

What Homeowners Need to Know About Federal Laws that Govern Mortgage Origination and Servicing

Who Has Standing To Foreclose? – A Review of Massachusettes Case & Other Jurisdictions

JPMorgan Faces Criminal and Civil Probes Over Mortgages

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: