What Homeowners Must Know About Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

09 Wednesday May 2018

Posted by BNG in Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Non-Judicial States, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

“You’re eligible to join our lawsuit”

On average, complaints that allege some type of attorney involvement have produced greater losses per homeowner than all other complaints. While attorneys can be involved in any type of foreclosure rescue fraud, they are uniquely capable of tricking homeowners into believing they can get involved in fake mass joinder or other lawsuit against a lender. The lawsuit schemes can prove to be even more painful for homeowners because they often involve two parts: first a fee for a “forensic audit” to see if the homeowner is eligible to join the suit, then another fee to join the suit.

Most promise very impressive results, like the homeowner who was told she could “join a class action lawsuit against her lender. Once this was settled she was guaranteed $75,000.” The final selling point for many of these lawsuits is the assurances made to homeowners that nothing can happen to their homes as long as they are part of the suit. Some attorneys advise homeowners to stop paying their mortgage and instead pay monthly retainer fees to them. Month after month, homeowners pay the fee, believing the attorney is fighting for them. In the worst cases, the homeowner doesn’t realize the attorney is actually providing no service at all until a foreclosure notice arrives.

One senior citizen from Williamstown, New Jersey, was contacted by a group of attorneys who guaranteed him a loan modification for just over four thousand dollars. After they allegedly reviewed his documents and made “headway” with the bank regarding a loan modification, they informed him that he was eligible to join a lawsuit against his lender. The suit included over twenty thousand homeowners and they assured him that the lender would settle. At that point the homeowner began making monthly retainer payments of just over a thousand dollars, for eleven months, for a suit that never happened. On top of all of that, the attorneys advised him to stop making his mortgage payments.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/ “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/

What Homeowners in Foreclosure Must Know About TRO and Injunction

06 Sunday May 2018

Posted by BNG in Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Litigation Strategies, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Restitution, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Appeal, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, homeowners, injunction, Law, Pro se legal representation in the United States, TRO

Very few people fully appreciate the powerful and flexible remedy offered by an injunction. Injunctions are extraordinary, both in terms of their timing and their effectiveness. Certain injunctions are issued with a rapidity otherwise unknown in the American legal system. Injunctions frequently have consequences so sweeping that they effectively shut down operating businesses or otherwise affect dramatically the rights of the parties involved in an irreversible manner – even when the requested injunction is refused. Two illustrative examples of the power of injunctions which have recently been seared into the American consciousness are the injunction against further ballot counting in Florida following the 2001 presidential election and the injunction ordering Napster, the Internet music swapping service, to cease and desist from operating.

Simply put, injunction proceedings are high stakes poker. If a party plays its first hand wrong, the game may be over before another hand is dealt. This article will explore the remedies available in an injunction proceeding, the timing implications involved in either seeking or defending an injunction, and the particular hallmarks incident to various kinds of injunctions.

The Remedies Available Through An Injunction

The only limitation on remedies available through an injunction is the creativity of counsel or of the judge hearing the case. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of relief available through an injunction: prohibitory and mandatory. A prohibitory injunction is the most common form of injunction, and directs a party to refrain from acting in a certain manner. Examples of a prohibitory injunction are cease and desist orders (entered against Napster), or an order stopping a bulldozer prior to the razing of an historic building. Injunctions can also be mandatory, however, in which case the court directs a party to take affirmative action. Examples of this kind of injunction were seen in the school integration and busing cases prevalent several decades ago. Whether prohibitory or mandatory, the only limit on the power of the trial judge (other than the role of appeals courts) is that the remedy selected be reasonably suited to abate the threatened harm and that the court be in a position to enforce its own order and assess a party’s compliance.

The Timing Implications Involved In Seeking Or Defending An Injunction

Similar to the type of remedy, courts and parties have significant flexibility regarding timing, so long as the party seeking an injunction is not guilty of unreasonable delay in requesting the court’s assistance. What constitutes “unreasonable” delay will vary from case to case. There are three kinds of injunction requests, which vary by the timing of the request. The first is called an ex parte injunction (also sometimes popularly known as a temporary restraining order, or TRO. The technical name for such an injunction in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is “special relief”). The other two kinds of injunctions are preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions.

Ex Parte Injunctions

Ex parte injunctions are appropriate only when the threatened harm is so immediate and so severe that even giving the other party notice of the application for the injunction and an opportunity to be heard in opposition is not practical. Ex parte literally means one-sided. A party seeking the entry of an ex parte order (without the involvement of or even notification to the other party most directly affected) has an exceedingly heavy burden in convincing a judge the emergency warrants such extreme action. By definition, there will not be even minimal due process afforded to the affected party; therefore, the courts’ rules require certain safeguards to protect it. For example, in state court in Pennsylvania, an interim order granted on an ex parte basis may not remain in effect for more than five days without the commencement of a hearing. Furthermore, the party seeking such an injunction also has the obligation to post a monetary bond which the judge deems sufficient to compensate the affected party if it is later determined that the ex parte injunction should not have been granted.

During an ex parte injunction hearing, there is frequently no actual hearing. Although a judge is free to insist upon a full evidentiary presentation, he or she usually permits these applications to be presented in chambers. The presentation of such an application represents one of the only instances in our legal system where one party’s attorney has the opportunity to sit down with the judge and render an entirely one-sided version of the matter before the court. Although the lawyer is acting as an advocate for his client, he or she must be scrupulously honest and avoid exaggerating the circumstances. Engaging in any form of overreach throughout this onesided process can have disastrous effects on both counsel and client, once the adversely-affected party is represented and has an opportunity to tell its side of the story. For obvious reasons, judges react very poorly to being sandbagged.

There is no requirement that a party seeking injunctive relief make a request for ex parte relief. Instead, because judges are very reluctant to grant such requests, and given the heavy burden involved in all actions for injunctions, it’s wise for a client not to risk its credibility before the court by asking for ex parte injunctive relief unless it is truly necessary. Counsel will advise requesting ex parte relief only where circumstances are very favorable.

Preliminary Injunctions

A preliminary injunction represents the most common form of injunctive relief requested. A preliminary injunction differs from an ex parte injunction in that the affected party is given notice that the application has been filed and has an opportunity to appear and be heard at a formal hearing where both parties may present evidence. Unlike ex parte injunction practice, a preliminary injunction almost always involves an evidentiary presentation in open court. Although not a full-blown trial, these hearings are critically important and set the stage for any litigation to come. In many cases, these hearings – and the judge’s reaction to them – constitute the entirety of the litigation.

More often than not, preliminary injunction hearings are conducted without the benefit of a significant amount of time to prepare and without the benefit of discovery, through which documents and testimony from the other side and its witnesses can be obtained prior to the hearing. Therefore, unless the party seeking the injunction is certain it fully understands the case and is completely prepared to present its case at hearing, it is a good idea to attempt to secure a court order to allow for limited discovery in preparation for the hearing to be conducted on an expedited basis, sometimes the very day before the hearing.

At the hearing, the party seeking the injunction has the burden of convincing the judge of a number of things. (Injunction requests are presented to a judge sitting without a jury. Therefore, the more counsel knows about the judge, including his or her political and ideological leanings, the better). Among the elements which must be proven by the party seeking the injunction are: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

Although these are somewhat flexible – even vague – standards, the judge must be satisfied that all of these elements have been satisfactorily proven prior to granting an injunction. Needless to say, it is easier for the defendant to argue that one or more of these five elements has not been satisfactorily proven than it is for the moving party’s lawyer to argue that all five have been proven. The law sets such exacting standards because the consequences of an injunction can be so dramatic.

The Role of the Injunction Bond

The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the party against whom the injunction has been entered in the event it is later determined that the injunction should not have been granted. Assuming the judge is persuaded by the proof at the hearing and is willing to grant an injunction, a determination as to the appropriate amount for the injunction bond must be made. The party seeking the injunction will predictably argue that its proof has been so strong that only a nominal bond should be required. Conversely, the adversary will argue that only a significant bond will be adequate to protect his or her client. The judge must balance these competing arguments. Particularly in the event that the judge had any reservation regarding the strength of the moving party’s case, the setting of the bond is another manner in which he or she may protect the interests of the party to be enjoined. There are circumstances where the bond is so sizable that the moving party, which has successfully demonstrated its entitlement to an injunction, will not or cannot satisfy the bonding requirement. In such a case the injunction will not become effective: No bond, no injunction. Thus, it is possible that a party can lose on the merits at the hearing, but never actually be enjoined due to its adversary’s failure to post the required bond.

The Role of the Appellate Court

Most court orders are not subject to an appeal until the case is over in all respects. Orders affecting injunctions, however, are exceptions to this rule. A party dissatisfied with a judge’s decision regarding an injunction – whether that decision grants, denies, modifies, dissolves or otherwise affects an injunction – has an immediate right to appeal that judge’s ruling in both the state or the federal court systems. However, although an appeal is available, it will usually prove extremely difficult to overturn the trial judge’s decision because of the manner in which appellate courts review decisions concerning injunctions. Furthermore, in all but the rarest of occasions, the injunction will remain in place throughout the appeal process, which can itself be lengthy.

Essentially, the court system recognizes that decisions involving injunctions are necessarily made in a somewhat subjective manner and are also made under sometimes severe time constraints. Appellate courts therefore defer to trial judges’ findings and generally believe that the judge who heard the evidence first-hand is in the best position to evaluate the case. As a result, the standard on appeal is very narrow: The trial judge’s decision will be upheld if there is any evidence in the record to support the decision. It doesn’t matter whether the appellate judges would have reached the same decision or not. The thinking is that the trial court should exercise its discretion in the first instance and, if there is more than one plausible interpretation of the evidence, the trial court’s acceptance of any particular interpretation cannot be an abuse of that discretion.

Permanent Injunctions

There is no requirement that a party seeking permanent injunctive relief first request either ex parte or preliminary relief. A permanent injunction may be sought as part of the full trial on the merits in an action, regardless of the outcome of prior proceedings in the case. In reality, however, many injunction cases do not proceed this far because, as previously indicated, the earlier proceedings (the granting or refusal of an ex parte or preliminary injunction) frequently alter the landscape so significantly that further proceedings are never pursued.

Sometimes, however, a permanent injunction is sought following previous proceedings. A permanent injunction may be sought, for example, where a party has been dissatisfied with the outcome of a preliminary injunction proceeding, but remains adamant about securing its rights. With the chances of a successful appeal so low, either the winner or the loser at the preliminary injunction level may elect to press on with discovery and attempt to convince the trial judge to change his or her decision after hearing all of the evidence. (Naturally, the judge’s first impression is always hard to overcome.) As with any order affecting an injunction, a dissatisfied party may appeal from any order entered in consideration of a request for permanent injunction. With a fully developed trial record, the appellate court will be somewhat less deferential to the trial court’s conclusion, yet a successful appeal remains difficult.

Injunctions are particularly powerful and flexible tools, which can have dramatic consequences to the parties involved. Homeowners can use injunction to delay moving out of the property while wrongful foreclosure Appeal is pending. A Homeowner seeking an injunction or attempting to defend against one should be well versed how these procedures works, if you are litigating Pro Se, or Secure counsel familiar with the intricacies of injunction practice.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Pro Se Homeowners Must Know About Appellate Issues and Record on Appeal

28 Saturday Apr 2018

Posted by BNG in Appeal, 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

Appeal, Appellate court, Appellate Issues, appellate proceeding, appellate record, arguments for appeal, closing argument, Jury instructions, litigator, Motion in Limine, Objections, post-judgment, pre-trial, Pro Se Litigating, Pro Se litigator, Pro Se trial litigators, Record on Appeal, trial, Trial court

Trying cases is one of the most exciting things a litigator does during his or her career but it is also certainly one of the most stressful.

While over 90% of the cases never make it to trial before settlement, if your case is one of the 10% or less that made it to trial, as a Pro Se litigator, there are few things to bear in mind.

A study conducted few years back shows that About 97 percent of civil cases are settled or dismissed without a trial. The number tried in court fell from 22,451 in 1992 to 11,908 in 2001, according to the study. Plaintiffs won 55 percent of the cases and received $4.4 billion in damages.

Homeowners litigating their wrongful foreclosure cases Pro Se are not Attorneys by profession, however, this post is designed to help Homeowners perfect and win their wrongful foreclosure Appeals.

Your case on appeal can be greatly improved by focusing on potential appellate issues and the record on appeal from the start of a case until the finish.

While in the trenches during trial, many litigators understandably focus all of their energies on winning the case at hand. But a good litigator knows that trial is often not the last say in the outcome of a case. The final outcome often rests at the appellate level, where a successful trial outcome can be affirmed, reversed, or something in between. The likelihood of success many times hinges on the substance of the record on appeal. The below discusses a variety of issues that Pro Se trial litigators should keep in mind as they prepare and present their case so they position themselves in the best possible way for any appeals that follow.

Prepare Your Appellate Record From The Moment Your Case Begins

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions regarding preserving an adequate record on appeal is when a Pro Se litigant should start considering what should be in the record. In short, the answer is from the moment the complaint is filed. At that time, Pro Se Litigants should begin to think carefully about the elements of each asserted cause of action, potential defenses and their required elements, and the burden of proof for each. Every pleading should be drafted carefully to ensure that no arguments are waived in the event they are needed for an appeal. For instance, a complaint should allege with specificity all the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a claim, while an answer should include any and all applicable affirmative defenses to avoid waiver. See, e.g., Travellers Int’l, A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, 41 F.3d 1570, 1580 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The general rule in federal courts is that a failure to plead an affirmative defense results in a waiver.”).

Likewise, if you file a motion to dismiss, ensure that the motion contains all the
necessary evidence that both a trial court and appellate court would need to find in your favor.

Of particular importance in federal court practice is the pre-trial order. Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the pre-trial order establishes the boundaries of trial. See Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 206 (5th Cir.1998) (“It is a well-settled rule that a joint pre-trial order signed by both parties supersedes all pleadings and governs the issues and evidence to be presented at trial.”). If the pre-trial order does not contain the pertinent claims, defenses or arguments that you wish to present at trial, you are likely also going to be out of luck on appeal.

Later on in the case, as the factual record becomes more fully developed, consider
whether amending or supplementing the pleadings or other court submissions are necessary to make the record as accurate as possible. Most states follow the federal practice of allowing liberal amendments. However, these can be contested, particularly late in the process, closer to trial. While appellate review is often for abuse of discretion, formulating a strong motion in favor of or in opposition to an amendment can preserve the issue.

What to Keep in Mind as Your Case Proceeds

As the case develops, consider whether the elements you need to prove your case are
sufficiently reflected in the information you obtain during discovery. If not, determine whether there are ways to obtain the information you need well before trial starts. By the time trial arrives, it may be too late to supplement the record to get before the trial judge and the appellate court what you need to win your case. In that regard, anything you have in writing that gets submitted to the court may very well end up being part of the record on review, so make sure it is accurate and understandable. Incomprehensible or incomplete submissions can muddy your appellate record and damage a successful appellate proceeding. In the same vein, make sure
anything presented to the court prior to trial that you want to be part of the record is transcribed.

Otherwise, there will be an insufficient record on appeal. This is particularly so when it comes to discovery disputes. Although they are common in present day litigation, judges hate discovery disputes. To preserve discovery issues for appeal, be sure to get a ruling, and make sure it is reflected in writing. Moreover, carefully review every pre-trial court order or other judicial communication, including court minutes, to ensure accuracy. Attempting to make corrections during the appellate process may not be possible.

Another significant area for appellate issues is the failure to timely identify experts. This is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, so it is important that one builds a record on the issue, particularly regarding any prejudice suffered by the untimely disclosure.

After Discovery Closes – The Motion in Limine

Once discovery has closed, consider carefully any motions in limine you may want to
make. Although motions in limine are not strictly necessary, they are helpful in identifying evidentiary issues for the judge and litigant and increase the chances of a substantive objection, sidebar, and ruling when the issue arises at trial. One potential pitfall – some jurisdictions require a party to renew an objection at trial after a motion in limine has been denied, so make sure to do so if necessary. See, e.g., State ex. Rel Missouri Highway and Transp. Com’n v. Vitt, 785 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1990) (“A motion in limine preserves nothing for review. Following denial of a motion in limine, a party must object at trial to preserve for appellate review the point at issue.”) (internal citation omitted). Also, if the Court delivers its ruling on a motion in limine orally, make sure it is transcribed properly by the court reporter.
Leave no doubt that you have raised (and obtained a ruling on) an issue.

Now the Trial – What to Keep in Mind

Above all else, when in doubt, object. Objections should be immediate and specifically describe the basis for the objection so the record is clear. Make the argument to win –
every objection should be more than just reciting labels, and should provide sufficient information for the trial judge to decide the issue. The goal is not to be coy with the trial judge and hope for a lucky break, but to be prepared to make an argument to win the issue at trial or, alternatively, on appeal. In addition, if you are the party proffering the evidence, make sure the proffer is on the record and that you expressly state why the evidence is being offered. This may require pressing on the judge to get the full objection on the record. If you fail to do so, you risk the appellate court not reviewing the claim on appeal. See, e.g., National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 290 Kan. 247, 274-75 (2010) (observing “purpose of a proffer is to make an adequate record of the evidence to be introduced … [and] preserves the issue for appeal and provides the appellate court an adequate record to review when determining whether the trial court erred in excluding the evidence.”). Also, always be careful of waiving any issues for appeal by agreeing to a judge’s proposed compromise on evidentiary issues.

An important but often overlooked consideration is the courtroom layout and dynamics. Well-thought and timely objections will be for naught if they are not transcribed. Sometimes the courtroom layout can make record preservation difficult. For example, if objections are made at sidebar conferences where the court reporter is not present, those objections may not make their way into the appellate record or be dependent on the after the fact recollections of others. See, e.g., Ohio App. R. 9(c) (describing procedures for preparing statement of evidence where transcript of proceedings is unavailable and providing trial court with final authority for settlement and approval). This should be avoided whenever possible.

Beyond objections, make sure all the evidence you need for your appeal is properly admitted by the trial court before the close of your case. All exhibits that were used at trial should be formally moved into evidence if there is any doubt as to whether they will be needed on appeal. If you had previously moved for summary judgment and lost, make sure you take the necessary steps at trial to preserve those summary judgment issues, especially in jurisdictions that do not allow interlocutory appeals.

Another important aspect of the trial is the jury instructions. Jury instructions should always be complete. Remember that the instructions you propose can be denied without error if any aspect of them is not accurate, so break them into small bites so that the judge can at least accept some parts. Specifically object to any jury instructions as necessary before the jury begins its deliberations. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c). Failure to do so will waive the right to have the instruction considered on appeal. See, e.g., ChooseCo, LLC v. Lean Forward Media, LLC, 364 Fed. Appx. 670, 672 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that defendant’s objection to jury instructions and verdict form during jury deliberations did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c) and noting that the “[f]ailure to object to a jury instruction or the form of an interrogatory prior to the jury retiring results in a waiver of that objection.”).

Additionally, when you lodge your objections, make sure you explain why the jury charge is in error since general objections are insufficient. See, e.g., Victory Outreach Center v. Meslo, 281 Fed. Appx. 136, 139 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that general objection to the court’s jury instructions and proposed alternative instructions, “were insufficient to preserve on appeal all potential challenges to the instructions” and were not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1)). If possible, have a set of written objections to the other side’s jury charges, and get the judge to rule on that, since judges like to hold such conferences off the record.

Also, do not overlook the verdict form. Know that when you agree to a particular form (general or special), that will mean that you are probably taking certain risks and waiving certain arguments one way or the other. Give this thought, and make sure that you know the rules of your jurisdiction on verdict forms so you can object if necessary. See, e.g., Palm Bay Intern., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A., 796 F.Supp. 2d 396, 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (objection to verdict sheet should be made before jury retires); Saridakis v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 2010 WL 2274955, at *8 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(c)(2)(B) states that an objection is timely if “a party objects promptly after learning that the instruction or request will be … given or refused” and that the Eleventh Circuit “require[s] a party to object to a … jury verdict form prior to jury deliberations” or the party “waives its right to raise the issue on appeal.”). (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Finally, pay careful attention to the closing argument. This can be an area where winning at trial by convincing a jury may be at odds with preserving the issue on appeal. On the flip side, many litigators are loath to interrupt a closing argument to object. If you need to object to preserve an issue, do so.

Post-Judgment – Final Things to Consider

First, determine whether certain arguments must be made post-judgment to preserve those arguments for appeal. Some arguments (such as those attacking the sufficiency of the evidence) must be made at that time or they are waived. See, e.g., Webster v. Bass Enterprises Production Co., 114 Fed.Appx. 604, 605 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that failure to challenge back pay award in post-judgment motion waived the issue on appeal absent exceptional circumstances that did not exist). Written motions post-judgment should include all relevant references to trial transcripts and evidence to make as complete and clean a factual record as possible.

Second, when the appellate record is being compiled, carefully double check the record to ensure its accuracy. Many times the trial court clerk or court reporter accidentally omits portions of the record. If this is not caught and corrected in a timely manner, you may be stuck with a bad record. Most jurisdictions have procedures in place for supplementing and correcting the record but understand them well in advance so there is adequate time to address any discrepancies before the appellate briefing is due.

Conclusion

Too often even seasoned trial lawyers get tripped up on appeal by not having an orderly and complete record. As a Pro Se litigator, you must never lose sight of the factual and legal issues in a case and what an appellate court will need to consider in making the desired determinations. As demonstrated above, a winning record requires thought at all stages of the litigation, not just when the notice of appeal is filed. With proper preparation, attention to detail, and forethought, one can ensure that the proper record on appeal is never in doubt.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

How Homeowners Can Avoid Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Scams

25 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by BNG in Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage mediation, Non-Judicial States, Scam Artists, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

avoid foreclosure, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, foreclosure defense, Foreclosure Rescue Fraud, fraud prevention, HAMP, homeowners, Loan Modification, loan modification specialists, Making Home Affordable, Mortgage Coupon, Scam Artists

The most devastating foreclosure rescue fraud scams are those that not only promise a modification, but also trick homeowners into believing the lender has agreed to the terms. The party then instructs the homeowner to pay the “new” modified mortgage payments to them, and they will forward the payment to the lender. In reality, the third party takes the payments and the money never reaches the lender. Homeowners are often blindsided by foreclosure notices after many months of believing they are paying the “new” payments to the lender. The scammers often use copies of government logos and have names that are similar to real government programs.

“Your modification is approved! Send us your new payments”
Operation asserts the homeowner has been approved for a modification then steals the homeowner’s “new” mortgage payments.

In one heartbreaking example, a woman from Lindenhurst, New York, received a flyer in the mail in early 2013 with the header “NOTICE OF HUD RELIEF.” Believing the flyer came from the government, she called the number on the flyer, and explained that she had tried working with her lender, but had no success. The third party told her that the lender was not being cooperative because they really just wanted to foreclose on her.

After sending the third party personal financial information, the homeowner quickly received a call back with some good news: they told her she was qualified for “HAMP through Making Home Affordable.” The homeowner was told she now had a mortgage that was a thousand dollars less than her current one, but this was a lie. Then the party told her there was one other thing she had to do before paying the new mortgage payment – pay a “reinstatement fee” of $6,000 that her lender required. Believing it was the final hurdle to reach relief, she sent in the $6,000. Then in March, April and May 2013, she made her new “trial payments” to the third party. They encouraged the homeowner to let them know when she sent the check so they could contact her lender with a tracking number.

Each month the homeowner received a “Mortgage Coupon” with what appeared to be various government logos on it, including the Making Home Affordable and Treasury logos. The homeowner stayed in close contact with the third party, diligently sending the checks.

In May 2013, the homeowner received a call from her lender, telling her she owed almost $30,000. She explained that she had received a loan modification and had already paid the reinstatement fee along with three mortgage payments. The lender representative told the homeowner that she may have gotten caught in a scam. Frantically, the homeowner called her main contact at the operation to which she had been sending her checks. The phone number was disconnected.
After losing almost $12,000, the homeowner is now facing foreclosure.

STATE LAWS

Ensure that Homeowners Are Covered Under State Laws Targeting Foreclosure Rescue Fraud: Many states have passed new laws to address foreclosure rescue scamming. However, some of these laws defined “homeowners” that the law was designed to protect too narrowly. For example, some state laws limit coverage to homeowners who are in default or foreclosure, and fail to reach many homeowners who are defrauded seeking to refinance their mortgage or are seeking mortgage relief because loss of job or unexpected medical costs. It is therefore important that state laws targeting foreclosure rescue fraud define homeowners broadly to cover fraud at any stage of the process.

As the foreclosure crisis grew, foreclosure rescue fraud – scams designed to capitalize on homeowners facing foreclosure by extracting thousands of dollars in exchange for empty promises of assistance – exploded and increased the pain of these homeowners. The proliferation of this type of fraud is not surprising. Homeowners with financial difficulties desperately need to find help to keep their homes and are vulnerable to scam artists posing as loan modification specialists, for example. Scam operators blanket television, radio, newspapers, and the internet with advertisements in English and Spanish, and also rely on street flyers, signs, billboards, and direct mail solicitation.

This saturation marketing, often filled with lies and exaggerations, plays on the trust of distressed homeowners. Scammers use high-pressure sales tactics and false guarantees of success to attract homeowners and to extract large upfront cash payments from homeowners, and then typically do little or no work to obtain the relief promised, essentially abandoning these homeowners. The homeowners not only lose the money they paid to the scam operation, but fall deeper into default and lose valuable time that could have been spent negotiating directly with their mortgage servicer or by going to free a HUD-approved housing counseling agency with true expertise in assisting homeowners in trying to save their homes.

As the foreclosure crisis was peaking, these scams replaced predatory lending as a major problem in the housing finance industry and scams resulted in what was known as the “second wave” of the foreclosure crisis. Indeed, many predatory lending operations morphed into foreclosure rescue scam entities.

“We volunteer all our hours with no payment.”

Alleged “Non-profits” Referring Homeowners to “Law Groups”

Attorney involvement in scams is growing and appears to be an effective means of ensnaring victims, but some homeowners still approach attorneys with skepticism. Attorneys, or someone pretending to be affiliated with an attorney, attempt to ease this skepticism by involving a “non-profit.” Anyone involved in preventing foreclosure or foreclosure rescue fraud knows the best resource for homeowners is a FREE, HUD – approved housing counseling agency.

The problem is that not every organization who claims to fit that description actually does. Some “non-profits” operate as lead generation agencies, gaining the trust of vulnerable homeowners. A search for “.org” in the Database produces over 1400 complaint hits. Homeowners meet with these “non-profits” and things appear to be in order. They aren’t asking for any money, the people seem very nice, and they begin to look over various mortgage documents, free of charge. Providing what appears to be a free service, the “non-profit” can make the homeowner feel at ease and also invested in the process. Once the homeowner is invested, the next level of the scam begins.

One homeowner from Rosedale, New York, began working with one of these “non-profits” in early 2013. She had received a flyer in the mail with the headline, “Economic Stimulus Mortgage Notification” that read, in part: “You are hereby notified that the property at (her address) has been pre-selected for a special program by the Government Insured Institutions. In addition, this property is pre-qualified for an Economic Advantage Payment or Principal Reduction Program, designed to bring your house payments current for less than you owe or your principle balance down. There are no restrictions on equity, credit ratings, or mortgage delinquencies.” The flyer said to contact “Your National non-profit representative” because this is the “last attempt to assist you with your financial situation.”

The homeowner was in need of a modification, so she called the “non-profit” listed on the top of the flyer. After working with the “non-profit” for a while, they told her that they did “all that they could,” and she needed to talk to “(Name withheld) Law Group.” This “Law Group” advertised that they “fight the bank.” They assured her that nothing could happen to her home as long as they were defending her, saying “(her lender) will not take her case until 2016,” giving her some much needed breathing room. After paying four thousand dollars to the “Law Group” and following weeks of empty promises, she was blindsided by a letter telling her that her mortgage was put into foreclosure just a few months after she began working with the “non-profit.”

To keep skeptical homeowners on the hook, the “non-profit” will stay involved throughout the process, assuring the vulnerable homeowner everything is fine. The “Law Group” extracts numerous fees from the homeowner, often saying, “the bank can’t do anything as long as we represent you.” Often in the end, the “non-profit” was started by the same attorney (or non-attorney) who started the “Law Group.” The homeowner loses thousands of dollars and is left wondering, if a “non-profit” will scam them, is there anyone they can trust?

“You’re eligible to join our lawsuit”
Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

The final selling point for many of these lawsuits is the assurances made to homeowners that nothing can happen to their homes as long as they are part of the suit. Some attorneys advise homeowners to stop paying their mortgage and instead pay monthly retainer fees to them. Month after month, homeowners pay the fee, believing the attorney is fighting for them. In the worst cases, the homeowner doesn’t realize the attorney is actually providing no service at all until a foreclosure notice arrives.

Attorneys Engaged in Foreclosure Rescue Fraud
Results in Higher Homeowner Losses

These “Law Groups” or “Law Networks” claim to include hundreds of lawyers from around the country and claim that they will connect homeowners to lawyers in their home state.

The Domino Effect of Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

The average dollar figure a homeowner loses in Attorney involved Scam is around $3600, and $2850 on non-Attorney Scams. This dollar figure does not take into account the potential domino effect of foreclosure and homelessness these foreclosure rescue scams can have.

Homeowners may lose over $3,200 in cash payments to a scammer, but then can end up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars more because their homes fall into foreclosure as a direct result of the scam.

At Reno Nevada Foreclosure Prevention Event: One story was particularly memorable.

It involved a homeowner named Bill, and his Dad. After the Lawyers’ Committee’s presentation, Bill’s father, who is in his 80’s, came to the Lawyers’ Committee’s table and asked that we speak to his son, who has medical issues and has difficulty walking. Bill opened his rolling filing cabinet, where he kept his mortgage documents meticulously categorized, and pulled out a large stack of papers from the section labeled “Name Withheld Law Center.”

Bill described his experience as follows: Towards the end of 2009, he received a flyer in the mail with the subject line, “RE: Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.” This “Modification PROGRAM” said he may be eligible for the “Governmental Economic Stimulus Act of 2009.” The flyer contained Bill’s name, address, and exact loan amount. There was a place for him provide his email address and phone number so the group responsible for the flyer could contact him.

After receiving the flyer, Bill began talking to the “Name Withheld Law Center” associated with it. He pulled out the contract that was sent to him, which contained a recognized attorney’s name because several state Attorneys General had obtained cease and desist orders against that attorney. The attorney doesn’t appear to have ever been licensed in Nevada, and while he had been licensed in California, his license was suspended in early 2013 for misconduct in three loan modification cases.

Bill paid just under two thousand dollars for a loan modification that he never received.

Bill’s Dad sat behind him and watched closely as Bill spoke about his experience with the “Name Withheld Law Group,” and about his life in general. Bill’s Dad’s eyes would well up from time to time.

This story is so moving because it accurately describes the effects of the foreclosure crisis and foreclosure rescue frauds on struggling homeowners. The vast majority of people looking for help to modify their mortgages don’t have an exploding rate mortgage. They, like Bill, have a normal 30 year fixed mortgage that they could afford pre-recession. Bill bought his home for around $280,000 in 2005, putting down a full 20%, which now is worth somewhere between $130,000 and $160,000. When he bought the home, like many Americans, he couldn’t foresee the worst recession since the Great Depression and the simultaneous housing collapse.

These homeowners became prime targets for foreclosure rescue scammers, having been blindsided by the recession and believing the guarantees of success by those who promised to save their homes.

Military Scams

Fake Military Discounts in Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

“We have a discount for military members & their families”

With more than three years of data in the Database – including over thirty-eight thousand complaints and over eighty-four million dollars in total reported losses – sadly there is no shortage of disturbing stories. From the dying cancer patient who was scammed out of thousands of dollars while he was trying to make sure his widow could afford the mortgage when he was gone, to the single woman who took in her sister’s four children after she passed away who was scammed into believing she was part of a fake lawsuit, then threatened by the same attorneys who scammed her after she complained. One type of troubling scam appearing over the past few years is the “Military Discount” targeted to active military service members and their families.

One man, a senior citizen from Fort Worth, Texas, had hit a rough patch when he was solicited by a third party. At that point, he was one month behind on his mortgage payments and was working hard to keep up. The company guaranteed him a loan modification for $1,600. He was hesitant to pay so much money when he was already struggling to stay current on his mortgage. Sensing his hesitation with the original price, the third party asked if he, or anyone in his family, was currently serving the country. After he explained that his daughter was currently serving the country in Iraq, the third party thanked him for his daughter’s service and told him that he was eligible for a military discount of $300. Lowering the price just enough to make it bearable for him, he paid the fee. Months went by with no results and no refund. The damage was not done there. The company advised him that he needed to stop making his mortgage payments in order to get the loan modification, so he did. He went from being just one month behind on his mortgage when he started working with this operation, to his home being sold in foreclosure.

State laws targeting foreclosure rescue fraud should define covered homeowners broadly, as those who seek foreclosure relief services can easily be defrauded before an actual foreclosure or mortgage payment default, thereby excluding them from the coverage of otherwise applicable consumer protection laws. Homeowners who are not yet in foreclosure and who have not fallen behind on mortgage payments should be encompassed in laws regulating third-party services in this area.

Some state and federal laws prohibiting foreclosure rescue fraud directly or indirectly (including through prohibitions on deceptive business practices) are only enforceable by government entities.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know About the Residential Mortgage Lending Market

11 Wednesday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Areas of Liability, CFPB’s Response, Consumer Actions, Content, Contractual Liability, Forms, Governmental Liability, Lenders and Vendors, MBA Letter, Regulatory (CFPB), Residential Mortgage Lending Market, RESPA, Scope, Secondary Mortgage Market, The Dodd Frank Act and CFPB, The TRID Rule, Timing, Tolerance and Redisclosure

Introduction and Background

Residential mortgage lenders have long been required to disclose to their borrowers (i) the cost of credit to the consumer and (ii) the cost to the consumer of closing the loan transaction. These regulatory disclosure requirements arise from two statutes – the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA). The regulations were designed to protect consumers by disclosing to them the costs of a mortgage loan (TILA) and the cost of closing a loan transaction (RESPA). These disclosures have in the past been enforced by multiple federal agencies (the Federal Reserve Board, Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration) and provided to consumers on multiple forms with sometimes overlapping information (the Truth in Lending disclosures, the Good Faith Estimate, and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement).

The Dodd Frank Act and CFPB

In 2010, the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd Frank Act) created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), consolidated the consumer protection functions of the above-federal agencies in the CFPB, transferred rulemaking authority under the statutes to the CFPB, and amended section 4(a) of RESPA and section 105(b) of TILA requiring CFPB to issue an integrated disclosure rule, including the disclosure requirements under TILA and sections 4 and 5 of RESPA. The purpose of the integration was to streamline the process and ensure that the disclosures are easy to read and comprehend so that consumers can “understand the costs, benefits, and risks” associated with mortgage loan transactions, in light of the “facts and circumstances.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(a).

The TRID Rule

The CFPB issued a propose rule in July, 2012. The final TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure (TRID) rule was published in late 2013, amended in February, 2015, and went into effect on October 3, 2015. More than simply streamlining the existing process, the TRID rule replaced the entire disclosure structure, changing the form, timing, and content of the disclosures.

Scope – The TRID rule applies to most closed-end consumer mortgages, but not to home equity loans, reverse mortgages, or mortgages secured by anything other than real property (dwellings, mobile homes, etc). It does not apply to lenders who make five or less mortgage loans a year. It does, however, apply to most construction loans that are closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property, but not to those that are open-end or commercial loans.

Forms – The TRID rule replaced the forms that had been used for closing mortgage loans with two new, mandatory forms. The Loan Estimate or H-24 form (attached as Exhibit 1) replaces the former Good Faith Estimate and the early TILA disclosure form. The Closing Disclosure or H-25 form (attached as Exhibit 2) replaces the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and the final TILA disclosure form.

Content – Among other information, the three page Loan Estimate must contain (i) the loan terms, (ii) the projected payments, (iii) the itemized loan costs, (iv) any adjustable payments or interest rates, (v) the closing costs, and (vi) the amount of cash to close. If actual amounts are not available, lenders must estimate. Among other information, the Closing Disclosure must contain (i) loan terms, (ii) projected payments, (iii) loan costs, (iv) closing costs, (v) cash to close, and (vi) adjustable payments and adjustable rates as applicable. The required forms are rigid and require the disclosure of this information in a detailed and precise format.

Timing – The TRID rule requires a creditor (or mortgage broker) to deliver (in person, mail or email) a Loan Estimate (together with a copy of the CFPB’s Home Loan Toolkit booklet) within three business days of receipt of a consumer’s loan application and no later than seven business days before consummation of the transaction. A loan application consists of six pieces of information from the consumer: (i) name, (ii) income, (iii) social security number, (iv) property address, (v) estimated value of property, and (vi) amount of mortgage loan sought. 12 C.F.R. §1026.2 (a) (3)(ii). After receiving an application, a creditor may not ask for any additional information or impose any fees (other than a reasonable fee needed to obtain the consumer’s credit score) until it has delivered the Loan Estimate.

The TRID rule also requires a creditor (or settlement agent) to deliver (in person, mail or email) a Closing Disclosure to the consumer no later than three business days before the consummation of the loan transaction. The Closing Disclosure must contain the actual terms of the loan and actual cost of the transaction. Creditors are required to act in good faith and use due diligence in obtaining this information. Although creditors may rely on third-parties such as settlement agents for the information disclosed on the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, the TRID rule makes creditors ultimately responsible for the accuracy of that information.

Tolerance and Redisclosure – If a charge ultimately imposed on the consumer is equal to or less than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, it is generally deemed to be in good faith. If a charge ultimately imposed on the consumer is greater than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, the disclosure is generally deemed not in good faith, subject to certain tolerance limitations. For example, there is zero tolerance for (i) any fee paid to the creditor, broker, or affiliate, and (ii) any fee paid to a third-party if the creditor did not allow the consumer to shop for the service. Creditors may charge more than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate for third-party service fees as long as the charge is not paid to an affiliate of the creditor, the consumer had is permitted to shop for the service, and the increase does not exceed 10 percent of the sum of all such third-party fees. Finally, creditors may charge an amount in excess of the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, without any limitation, for amounts relating to (i) prepaid interest, (ii) property insurance premiums, (iii) escrow amounts, (iv) third-party service providers selected by the consumer and not on the creditor’s list of providers or services not required by the creditor, (iv) and transfer taxes.¹ If the fees and charges imposed on the consumer at closing exceed the fees and charges disclosed on the Loan Estimate, subject to the tolerance levels, the creditor is required to refund the consumer within 60 days of consummation of the loan.

If the information disclosed on the Closing Disclosure changes prior to closing, the creditor is required to provide a corrected Closing Disclosure. An additional three-day waiting period is required with a corrected Closing Disclosure if there is an increase in the interest rate of more than 1/8 of a percent for fixed rate loans or 1/4 of a percent for adjustable rate loans, a change in loan product, or a prepayment penalty is added to the loan. For all other changes, the corrected Closing Disclosure must be provided prior to consummation. If a change to a fee occurs after consummation, then a corrected Closing Disclosure must be delivered to the consumer within 30 calendar days of receiving information of the change. If a clerical error is identified, then a corrected Closing Disclosure must be delivered to the consumer within 60 calendar days of consummation.

Impact on Relationships Between Lenders and Vendors

The TRID rule is detailed and highly technical and the CFPB has published very little official guidance as to the interpretation of the rule. As a result, the various members of the industry are interpreting the rule widely differently and applying it with the according lack of uniformity. An example of the kinds of disagreement arising is the issue of whether the final numbers can be massaged in order to avoid re-disclosure and delivery of a new Closing Disclosure at closing or after. This has led to significant conflicts between creditors and settlement agents as to what the TRID rule requires. Some have described it as a “battle field” with settlement agent’s following creditor’s varying instructions but documenting “everything.”

Impact on Secondary Mortgage Market

The implementation of the TRID rule has also apparently begun to cause delays in closing consumer mortgage loan transactions, with closing times up month over month and year over year since October. Loan originators are also reporting decreases in earnings and attributing some of that decrease to implementation of the TRID rule. Moreover, Moody’s has reported that, because some third-party due diligence companies have been strictly applying their own interpretations of the TRID rule in reviewing loan transactions for “technical” violations (i.e., inconsistent spelling conventions and failure to include a hyphen), these firms have found that up to 90% of reviewed loan transactions did not fully comply with the TRID rule requirements. The fact that most of these compliance issues appear to be technical and non- material has not dampened concerns.

MBA Letter

Indeed, these concerns were set forth by President and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association David Stevens in a letter to CFPB Director Richard Codray on December 21, 2015 (letter attached as Exhibit 3). In the letter, Stevens identified the problem, proposed a possible interim solution, and asked for ongoing guidance. The problem, according to Stevens, is that certain due diligence companies have adopted an “extremely conservative interpretation” of the TRID rule, resulting in up to a 90% non-compliance rate. This could put loan originators in the position of being unable to move loans to the secondary market or having to sell them at substantial discounts, and could ultimately lead to significant liquidity problems. It is also unknown how the government sponsored entities (GSEs) will interpret the TRID rule, and whether they too will adopt such conservative interpretations and ultimately demand loans be repurchased and seek indemnification for the lack of technical compliance. Stevens proposed written clarification on a lender’s ability to correct a variety of these technical errors, but also noted a significant need for ongoing guidance and additional written clarifications.

CFPB’s Response

On December 29, 2015, Director Cordray responded to Stevens’s letter, reassuring him that the “first few months” of examinations would be corrective, not punitive, and focused on whether creditors have made “good faith efforts to come into compliance with the rule.” Cordray also noted the GSEs have indicated that they do not intend to exercise repurchase or indemnification remedies where good faith efforts to comply are present.²Cordray also addressed the ability to issue a corrected closing disclosure in order to correct “certain non- numerical clerical errors” or “as a component of curing any violations of the monetary tolerance limits, if they exist.” Interestingly, in this context Cordray raised the issue of liability for statutory and class action damages, noting that “consistent with existing . . . TILA principles, liability for statutory and class action damages would be assessed with reference to the final closing disclosure issued, not to the loan estimate, meaning that a corrected closing disclosure could, in many cases, forestall any such private liability.”

Cordray went on to say that, despite the fact that TRID integrates the disclosures in TILA and RESPA, it did not change the “prior, fundamental principles of liability” under either statute and as a result that:

(i) there is no general assignee liability unless the violation is apparent on the face of the disclosure documents and the assignment is voluntary. 15 U.S.C. §1641(e).

(ii) By statute, TILA limits statutory damages for mortgage disclosures, in both individual and class actions to failure to provide a closed-set of disclosures. 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).

(iii) Formatting errors and the like are unlikely to give rise to private liability unless the formatting interferes with the clear and conspicuous disclosure of one of the TILA disclosures listed as giving rise to statutory and class action damages in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).

(iv) The listed disclosures in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a) that give rise to statutory and class action damages do not include either the RESPA disclosures or the new Dodd-Frank Act disclosures, including the Total Cash to Close and Total Interest Percentage.

Cordray concluded his letter by noting that “the risk of private liability to investors is negligible for good-faith formatting errors and the like” and that “if investors were to reject loans on the basis of formatting and other minor errors . . . they would be rejecting loans for reasons unrelated to potential liability” associated with the disclosures required by the TRID rule.

While the promise of a good faith implementation period and the assurance that TRID does not expand TILA liability to RESPA disclosures offers some comfort to creditors, Cordray’s letter is not a compliance bulletin or supervisory memo, was not published in the Federal Register, and does not appear to be an official interpretation of the TRID rule that would bind the CFPB or any court. Moreover, his comments focus primarily on statutory damages and do not take into consideration potential liability for actual damages and, importantly, attorney’s fees.

Potential Areas of Liability

Despite these assurances, creditors still must concern themselves with potential liability for TRID violations. The following is list of the main sources of potential liability for TRID violations.

Regulatory (CFPB) – The CFPB has the ability investigate potential violations via its authority to issue civil investigative demands, a form of administrative subpoena. 12 U.C.C. §5562(c). Upon a determination of a violation, the CFPB can issues cease-and-desist orders, require creditors to adopt compliance and governance procedures, and order restitution and civil penalty damages. CFPB may impose penalties ranging from $5,000 per day to $1 million per day for knowing
violations.

(A) First tier – For any violation of a law, rule, or final order or condition imposed in writing by the Bureau, a civil penalty may not exceed $5,000 for each day during which such violation or failure to pay continues.

(B) Second tier – Notwithstanding paragraph (A), for any person that recklessly engages in a violation of a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $25,000 for each day during which such violation continues.

(C) Third tier – Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for any person that knowingly violates a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $1,000,000 for each day during which such violation continues.

12 U.S.C. § 5565(c)(2).

Other Governmental Liability – Creditors could also face potential additional claims pursuant to the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).

Consumer Actions – While statutory damages may be limited under TILA to $4,000 in individual suits and the lesser of 1% of company value or $1 million in class actions, that does not account for potential liability for actual damages and attorney’s fees.

Contractual Liability – Absent a specific contractual carve out for technical violations of TRID, originating lenders and creditors may also face potential liability for violation of contractual representations that the loans they are selling were originated “in compliance with law.”

Conclusion

The problem with the TRID rule is that, like the legendary metal bed of the Attic bandit Procrustes, it is a one size fits all regulation and industry participants are going to get stretched or lopped in the process of attempting to fit every transaction into the regulation’s apparently inflexible requirements. Time may well bring additional CFPB guidance, either in the form of the CFPB’s formal, binding interpretations of the rule or in the form of regulatory decisions. Such guidance may then give industry participants a better understanding of how to make and close mortgage loans and avoid liability in process. In the meantime, we can expect further delays, disagreements, and, ultimately, enforcement and litigation.

¹ There had been disagreement on whether transfer taxes (property taxes, HOA dues, condominium or cooperative fees) were subject to tolerances or not. On February 10, 2016, in a rare instance, the CFPB issued an amendment to the supplementary information to the TRID rule to correct a “typographical error” and clarify this issue, amending a sentence that had read that these charges “are subject to tolerances” to read that such charges “are not subject to tolerances” (emphasis added).

² In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both issued similar letters on October 6, 2015 advising that “until further notice” they would “not conduct routine post-purchase loan file reviews for technical compliance with TRID,” as long as creditors are using the correct forms and exercising good faith efforts to comply with the rule. In these letters, the GSEs further agreed not to “exercise contractual remedies, including repurchase” for non-compliance except where the required form is not used or if a practice impairs enforcement of the loan or creates assignee liability and a court, regulator, or other body determines that the practice violates TRID. Similarly, the Federal Housing Administration issued a letter that “expires” April 16, 2016, agreeing “not to include technical TRID compliance as an element of its routine quality control reviews,” but noting that it does expect creditors to use the required forms and use good faith efforts to comply with TRID.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud & Restitution

10 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Restitution, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Foreclosure, homeowners, Law, Lawsuit, Loan, Monetary Restitution, Mortgage fraud, Nevada, Ninth Circuit, Pro se legal representation in the United States, Restitution

During the peak of the housing boom in Las Vegas, Russell, a mortgage loan processor for a large bank, reviewed a mortgage application. Everything appeared to be in order: this particular type of mortgage loan required no income verification because the buyer had excellent credit and the home would be an owner-occupied property. Russell approved the loan for the bank.

Unbeknownst to Russell and the bank, the applicant was actually a “straw buyer,” using his name and credit to buy the house at the insistence of his business partner, but not actually intending to live in the house. All the applicant had to do was sign a few documents and both the applicant and his business partner would profit from exploding housing prices. The applicant’s credit would allow the pair to purchase a single-family residence for $295,000, and then, before the first mortgage payment came due, they would flip the property, that is, immediately sell the home, and profit from the home’s extraordinary short-term appreciation. The applicant never planned on living in the house nor making any mortgage payments, despite his execution of loan documents to the contrary.

Unfortunately, housing prices did not continue their fantastic escalation and the pair were unable to sell the home. Not surprisingly, neither the applicant nor his business partner made any mortgage payments and the home went into foreclosure. At the time of the home’s foreclosure, the house had a fair market value of $265,000. However, the bank that relied on the applicant’s information had too many similarly situated properties at the time of the foreclosure and decided to keep the home in inventory until it could sell the home at a later date.

Meanwhile, the financial institution became suspicious of the applicant and realized he never even moved into the house, despite claiming on his Uniform Residential Loan Application that this would be an “owner-occupied” property.

Concerned with an increase in mortgage fraud, the lender tipped off authorities, who subsequently investigated and arrested the straw buyer and his business partner. Almost a year later, the partners pled guilty and were sentenced, inter alia, to pay restitution to the financial institution. At the time of sentencing, the home had a fair market value of $145,000.

The court ordered restitution based on the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) concerning fraud and property. The victim, in this case the bank, argued its amount of loss equaled $295,000 (the amount originally borrowed) less the current fair market value of the property returned, $145,000; thus, the court should order the defendants to pay restitution of $150,000. On the other hand, the defendants argued that at the time the property was returned to the financial institution, the value of the home was $265,000. And because the bank had control over the property since that point in time, and had the ability to sell it any time, the defendants should not be liable for the further declining
market conditions. Thus, the defendants argued they only owed restitution of $30,000. Alternatively, the judge could consider a third possibility: recent recommendations from US Sentencing Guidelines. Under these new guidelines,
the court determines the fair market value of the home on the defendants’ sentencing
date.

But, if the bank had not sold the home by that date, that fair market value would be based on the county’s assessed value of the property. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is situated, the Assessor’s Office updates property values annually and, depending on the specific time frame in this hypothetical, the assessment value can range from a lagging property assessment valuing the home at $280,000 to a more current assessment valuing the home at $125,000.

Which measure of restitution and subsequent calculation is best? That is, which value most adequately compensates the injured victim without unfairly burdening the defendants? The Ninth Circuit would side with the defendants in this case, having previously held that the value of the home on the date the bank gains control is the proper measure of restitution. Accordingly, the defendants in this case would be ordered to pay only $30,000 in restitution. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit would hold that the “property” stolen was the money used to finance the home purchase, and not the actual home.

Subsequently, the “property” is not returned to the victim until the bank sells the
house and gets the entire amount it loaned to the defendants back. For that reason, if the bank sold the home by the sentencing date for $145,000, the defendants would be ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution. And if a judge considered the US Sentencing Guidelines, she would look to the local assessor’s office to determine the correct value. Thus, the amount of restitution a defendant pays depends on where the mortgage fraud takes place and whether the presiding judge considers the US Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, mortgage fraud restitution is not uniform throughout the United States.

This note discusses the circuit split in applying the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 to mortgage fraud crimes—specifically, the difference in the mortgage fraud restitution formula. In Part I, I provide an introduction to mortgage fraud. In Part II, I provide background on the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which established a directive to courts to order restitution to identifiable victims. Further, the Act indicated, albeit imprecisely, that the restitution amount is based on the property’s value on the sentencing date, less the property’s “value” on the date the property is returned. Regrettably, the Act does not provide a definition of the word property,” which has resulted in a circuit split. Three circuit courts calculate the mandatory restitution as the property’s “value” based on the date the property is returned—that is, the property’s fair market value on that date. On the other hand, four circuits insist that the “value” of the property can only be determined when the bank actually sells that property. In Part III, I will discuss the circuit split where courts disagree on the “appropriate” restitution calculation.

In an effort to provide a uniform calculation, last year the US Sentencing Commission proposed changes to the US Sentencing Guidelines. While the Guidelines are only advisory and not mandatory, these recent amendments result in a third possible calculation that I discuss in Part IV.

Finally, in Part V, I critique each of the three imperfect approaches. In addition, I provide comparisons to various state foreclosure deficiency statutes as an illustration of alternative calculations. I conclude by proposing an amendment to the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act that, in the cases of collateralized loans obtained by fraud, defines “property” as the actual property fraudulently obtained: cash. In addition, I propose an additional “good faith” clause to the amendment to prevent banks from holding onto a foreclosed property longer than necessary. The sooner a property is sold, the sooner the bank recuperates some of its lost funds and the sooner a defendant knows the restitution
amount he must pay.

A. What is Mortgage Fraud?

In the hypothetical above, the partners executed mortgage fraud by using the applicant’s name and credit as a “straw buyer.” That is, a person who allows his name to be used in the loan process but has no intention of actually making any mortgage loan payments. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms. For example, a person commits loan origination fraud when he misrepresents or omits information on a loan application upon which an underwriter ultimately relies to write a loan. Mortgage fraud can also occur with illicit programs aimed at current homeowners who are having trouble with their payments. Lately, this type of foreclosure rescue fraud is increasing. These types of scams focus on homeowners on the verge of foreclosure. Criminals promise to “stop or delay the foreclosure process,” and, in return, homeowners sign over their property to the criminals.

Mortgage fraud can also include “flopping.” Flopping occurs when a bank agrees to a short sale with the homeowner who then attempts to get the lowest price possible by purposefully damaging the soon-to-be-sold house. The house is then bought by an accomplice, cleaned up, and immediately flipped for a profit of upwards of 30 percent. In 2011, Nevada ranked second to Florida in the Mortgage Fraud Index (MFI), a ranking of states based on reported fraud and misrepresentation investigations. The FBI investigates mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by financial institutions.

The number of mortgage fraud SARs filed in 2011 was 93,508. To put this in perspective, in 2003 the number of reports filed was less than 7,000. However, mortgage fraud may be decreasing: 2012 SARs are down 25 percent compared to the previous year.

B. Why Does Mortgage Fraud Matter?

Mortgage fraud is a “significant contributor” to our economic crisis. Mortgage fraud has contributed to an increasing number of home foreclosures, decreasing home prices, and tightening of credit because of investor losses attributable to mortgage-backed securities. Further, “[t]he discovery of mortgage fraud via the mortgage industry loan review processes, quality control measures, regulatory and industry referrals, and consumer complaints lags behind economic indicators—often up to two years or more, with the impacts [of the fraud] felt far beyond these years.” Undeniably, reports of mortgage fraud persist and are continually emphasized in the news.

Lenient underwriting standards and a booming housing market have shaped a perfect backdrop for fraud to thrive. However, “[b]y 2007, real estate values began to fall and mortgage lenders began experiencing large losses due to fraud, reducing their ability to fund new mortgage loans.” The economic implications of mortgage fraud are staggering. The actual dollar amount attributed to mortgage fraud is unknown, however in 2010 alone “more than $10 billion in loans originated with fraudulent application data.”

Moreover, in fiscal year 2012, 70,291 SARs were filed with losses of $2.69 billion. And while the number of mortgage fraud instances has decreased, the dollar amounts involved in instances of fraud has increased.

C. Why Restitution?

Until the early 1980s, courts did not habitually consider restitution as part of sentencing guidelines. In fact, if a court ordered restitution, it was usually based on the defendant’s ability to pay. The passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) in 1982, its subsequent revision in 1986, and later the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) in 1996 empowered federal judges to order restitution to victims of certain crimes without consideration of the defendant’s ability to pay. Unfortunately, victims receive only a fraction of the costs from crimes through restitution, as not all defendants have the resources to pay the restitution and their income potential diminishes significantly once they are in jail. However, as courts consider both the MVRA and the frequently cited public policy argument for restitution (making the victim whole), courts consequently order restitution awards to mortgage fraud victims. Indeed, “[v]ictims in mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution.

D. The Split

When a court convicts a defendant of mortgage fraud, and the defendant’s return of the property alone is not enough to fully restore the identified victim, the court will try to offset this deficiency in one of two ways. The Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits determine restitution based on the property’s fair market value the day the victim receives title to the property. The Third, Eighth, Tenth, and, most recently, Seventh Circuits hold the shortage is calculated based on the actual sale of the collateral real estate. Thus, the value of the property is unknown until the property has been sold and the lender receives the net proceeds. Consequently, this split “sets up a potential case for the U.S.
Supreme Court to decide whether the MVRA requires a court to determine restitution based on the fair market value of collateral real estate on the date it is returned to a victim . . . or the cash value upon foreclosure sale.”

II. THE MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT OF 1996

Congress first enacted legislation in support of victims’ rights with the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA). The act included a broad provision for victim restitution. In considering the bill, the Committee on the Judiciary indicated that [t]he principle of restitution is an integral part of virtually every formal system of criminal justice, of every culture and every time. It holds that, whatever else the sanctioning power of society does to punish its wrongdoers, it should also insure that the wrongdoer is required to the degree possible to restore the victim to his or her prior state of well-being.

However, while this report indicated the importance of requiring restitution,
the Act only provided that a Court may order the defendant to pay restitution. Congress expanded and amended legislation for victims in future legislation, most notably in the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. Congress identified one of the primary purposes of the Act as “requiring Federal criminal defendants to pay full restitution to the identifiable victims of their crimes.” In addition, Congress specifically made mandatory restitution applicable to fraudulent crimes against property. Moreover, Congress explicitly identified the legislation’s purpose:

This legislation is needed to ensure that the loss to crime victims is recognized, and
that they receive the restitution that they are due. It is also necessary to ensure that
the offender realizes the damage caused by the offense and pays the debt owed to the
victim as well as to society. Finally, this legislation is needed to replace an existing
patchwork of different rules governing orders of restitution under various Federal
criminal statutes with one consistent procedure.

If restitution is appropriate, a court may only award it to identifiable victims. A
federal crime victim is defined as “a person directly and proximately harmed as
a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” Further, restitution is only applicable to crime victims when the
defendant is actually convicted. In addition, “[a] ‘victim’s’ participation in a
fraudulent mortgage scheme . . . will generally exclude the victim from
restitution.”

It should also be remembered that restitution, “like all criminal sanctions . . . is a sanction of limited application.” Restitution is only complete, then, when payment of the obligation is complete. In jurisdictions that allow “extended or nominal payment mechanisms,” which can prolong the repayment, the variable time value of money may cause any restitution to be technically incomplete, even once the balance is repaid in full. Unfortunately, only 17.4 percent of measured property offenses resulted in criminal charges. Where convictions of mortgage fraud do result, however, courts consider the language of the MVRA in awarding restitution:

The court may also order restitution . . . . The order may require that such defendant
. . . return the property to the owner of the property . . . or . . . if return of the property . . . is impossible, impractical, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of . . . the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction, or . . . the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned . . . .

Accordingly, when the return of the property is inadequate restitution, the MVRA states that the offset value must be determined as of the date the property is returned. However, the statute is silent as exactly how to measure the value of the property on that date. Consequently, in the absence of clear guidelines, three possible formulas have arisen.

III. THE CIRCUIT SPLIT

With a lack of clarity in defining “property” in the MVRA, the circuit courts have split in their interpretations of restitution. Two circuits have followed the Ninth Circuit in determining that the value of the property is the fair market value on the date of the property’s return, arguing that once the property is returned to the victim, the victim has control over the property and may dispose of the property whenever it chooses. Accordingly, these courts calculate the fair market value of the property based on the date the property is returned rather than waiting for a later sale. Conversely, four circuits hold that the “property” can only be valued when the house is eventually sold and the proceeds are provided to the victim because cash, not real estate, was the actual
property the defendants took from the victim.

A. The Ninth Circuit Method

A bank would say a restitution calculation can only be determined when the property is sold, but a defendant would argue that if a bank holds on to the property in a declining market, it is unfair for the defendant to pay more in restitution than what the property was worth when the victim regained control of it. The Ninth Circuit method considers the fairness of a bank refraining from selling a property immediately, and ultimately agrees with the defendant’s argument.

After the passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act in 1982, the Ninth Circuit became the first circuit court to consider mortgage fraud restitution. The court turned to an earlier decision in a timber theft case for property valuation guidance. In United States v. Tyler, the defendant was ordered to pay restitution for his theft of timber from a national forest. However, the victim, the federal government, did not sell the timber upon its seizure and in fact purposefully held onto the timber, claiming it needed the timber for evidentiary purposes in its case against Tyler. During the period between the
arrest and sentencing, timber prices declined. The district court found that the
amount of restitution equaled the difference of the timber’s value from sentencing
date and the higher value when defendant actually stole the timber. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the District Court and held that the defendant should not have an increased restitution when the victim decides to retain the property. The court reasoned that the defendant’s conduct did not cause the subsequent loss the government experienced and therefore restitution was properly calculated as the property’s value on the date the victim regained control of the timber.

The Ninth Circuit subsequently applied this logic to a mortgage fraud context in United States v. Smith, where the defendant obtained loans secured by speculative real estate. The court determined that the credit against restitution should be based on the value of the property on the date title is transferred to the victim. The court noted, “[a]s of that date, the new owner had the power to dispose of the property and receive compensation.” Because the victim has control over the property’s sale once the property is returned, “[v]alue should therefore be measured by what the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date.”

The Smith decision served as the “keystone for all of the subsequent decisions.”
The Ninth Circuit reinforced this valuation method in later cases. Further, in United States v. Gossi, the court elaborated on its prior decisions that value should be based on the date the victim has control over the property. Specifically, the court noted that what comes with control of the property is the power to dispose, which allows the victim to sell the property anytime and provides no immediate calculation of restitution. Subsequently, the court cited Smith, stating the “[v]alue should therefore be measured by what the financial institution would have received in a sale as of that date.” Finally, this past year, the Ninth Circuit upheld its mortgage fraud restitution calculation in United States v. Yeung. In Yeung, the defendant enlisted five people in a scheme involving false information on straw buyers’ loan applications in order to purchase and refinance homes in Northern California during the booming housing market. The district court considered a sentencing memo indicating that Yeung should pay restitution in the amount of the “outstanding principal balance on the defaulted loans less any money recovered from a sale of the properties used as collateral for the loans.”

Applying the US Sentencing Guidelines, rather than the MVRA, the district court ordered a restitution award in excess of $1.3 million. The Court of Appeals, however,
indicated that a financial institution has control of the property either when the
property is sold or when, citing Smith, the lender “had the power to dispose of
the property and receive compensation,” and therefore restitution should be
based on the fair market value on the date the property is returned. One distinction in Yeung, however, involved a loan purchased on the secondary market. One of the loans had been sold from the originating lender to a loan purchaser at a discount. The court indicated that the “property” in such circumstances is the actual loan, and not the original real property. The court determined that the restitution calculation in this type of circumstance must consider how much the loan purchaser paid for the loan, “less the value of the real property collateral as of the date the victim took control of the collateral property.”

Further, the court disagreed with the district court’s calculation of one property’s value. The district court determined the value of one of the properties as $363,863—the amount the victim received from the property’s sale. However, this sale did not occur until sixteen months after the victim took control of the property. Accordingly, the court found the actual value should be determined from the date the victim took control of the property. Two circuits follow the Ninth Circuit’s restitution calculation. In both United States v. Reese and United States v. Holley, the Fifth Circuit maintained that a property’s value is determined based on the date the collateral property is returned to the lender. Further, in Holley, the Fifth Circuit specifically analogized the facts of Holley to the Smith case in subscribing to the Ninth Circuit calculation

Relatedly, in United States v. Boccagna, the Second Circuit performed an extensive analysis of how property value should be measured, ultimately agreeing with the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. The Boccagna court noted that the MVRA does not define how to determine the value of property. Instead, the court stated, the “law appears to contemplate the exercise of discretion by sentencing courts in determining the measure of value appropriate to restitution calculation in a given case.” The court found the property’s sale price was lower than the fair market value and remanded the case to determine this value as part of the restitution calculation.

B. The Seventh Circuit Method

In contrast, four circuit courts presume the fair market value is determined only by the actual sale of the property. I have referred to this calculation as the Seventh Circuit method because of that court’s recent decision in which it analyzed all circuit holdings to date. However, these decisions begin outside of that circuit. The Third Circuit, in United States v. Himler, observed that the return of the property would be inadequate to compensate the victim, and explicitly disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s view that value of the property is “as of the date the victim took control of [it].” The court noted instead that real estate is an illiquid asset, and “is only worth what you can get for it.” Thus, the court held that restitution would equal the original loan amount, less the eventual amount recovered from a sale. Surprisingly in this case, waiting until the sale actually
occurred resulted in the defendant paying less restitution than he would have if the fair market value had been used. The condominium in Himler sold for significantly more than its presumed value when title was transferred, due to favorable market conditions.

The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. James, also concluded that value is based on the actual foreclosure sales price and not an appraised value when the property is returned to the mortgage holder. The court noted that the MVRA “generally uses the term ‘value,’ and does not limit calculation of ‘value’ only to the use of the ‘fair market value’ of the property at issue.” Further, because the statute does not specifically mention value as being fair market value, there are other examples of value that may be appropriate, such as foreclosure sales price and replacement price. The court subsequently noted that
value can be a flexible concept, and a court with discretionary powers should keep in mind the purpose of restitution—to make the victim whole. The court concluded, therefore, that the foreclosure sale price in that case reflected a more accurate measure of the victim’s loss. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit, in United States v. Statman, used the foreclosure sale price of a fraudulently purchased bakery business in calculating the restitution award to a state’s small business-funding agency. While the defendant wanted the court to consider the appraised value of the bakery, the court cited James and determined that a foreclosure sale price was a permissible calculation method. The court also agreed with the Tenth Circuit; its decision aligns with the public policy concerns, which justify the existence of restitution in the first place—the need to make victims whole for the actual loss. While this case involved financial fraud, and not mortgage fraud per se, the chosen calculation method aligns this circuit with the sale-price camp.

Most recently, in United States v. Robers, the Seventh Circuit joined the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits concluding “it is proper to determine the offset value [of property that is returned] based on the eventual amount recouped by the victim following sale of the collateral real estate.” The court observed that because the victim loaned cash to the defendants to purchase the property, the cash was therefore the “property” taken, not a home. Basing its opinion on the plain language of the MVRA, the Seventh Circuit decided that “ ‘property’ must mean the property originally taken from the victim,” the value can only be determined by the amount of cash returned to the victim from a sale.

IV. YET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE—US SENTENCING GUIDELINES

The US Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rules that set out uniform sentencing guidelines for various offenses. The Guidelines are not mandatory,
and while judges have discretion in sentencing, courts must consider the Guidelines
in determining a defendant’s sentence. Moreover, a court of appeals reviewing a sentence that follows the Guidelines will consider the sentencing reasonable per se. Under these Guidelines, the factors considered when imposing a sentence include restitution to the victim. Further, the Guidelines state that, “[i]n the case of an identifiable victim, the court shall . . . enter a restitution order for the full amount of the victim’s loss, if such order is authorized under 18 U.S.C. . . . § 3663.”

The US Sentencing Commission annually reviews the current Guidelines and proposes amendments to reflect inadequacies in recent sentences. Recent revisions to the Guidelines, however, are not consistent with the latest Seventh Circuit decision in Robers. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress issued a directive to the US Sentencing Guideline Commission to review and amend federal sentencing guidelines related to “persons convicted of fraud offenses relating to financial institutions or federally related mortgage loans and any other similar provisions of law.” The amendment subsequently attempts to address the inconsistencies with Application Note 3(E) and “credits against loss rule,” which offsets a victim’s
loss by any credit the victim has already received. In general, the rule deducts the fair market value of the property returned to the victim from the amount of restitution the defendant is required to pay. In other words, the restitution is offset by the collateral’s fair market value. The Commission specifically addressed the situation that the circuit courts have wrestled with—when the victim gets the collateral back but has not disposed of the property, resulting in a problematic value calculation. The Commission noted this and, in an attempt to provide uniform guidelines, it proposed two changes. The first change established a specific date of the fair. market value determination: “the date on which the guilt of the defendant has been established.” The second change “establishes a rebuttable presumption that the most recent tax assessment value of the collateral is a reasonable estimate of the fair market value.” The Commission suggests that a court may consider the accuracy of this measure by examining factors such as how current the assessment is and the jurisdiction’s calculation process. In sum, a court ordering restitution following these Guidelines would establish the value of the property based on the official date of the defendant’s guilt. In addition, if the property has been returned to the victim but remains unsold, a court will use the local tax assessor’s value of the property to determine the property’s value.

V. CRITIQUE OF THE THREE CALCULATIONS

The absence of a definition for the term “property” in the MVRA is the root of the different applications of the statute throughout the country. “When the court defines ‘property,’ the question is whether the statute refers to the property stolen or the property returned. They are not necessarily equivalent, particularly in the context of complex financial instruments . . . .” However, as stated previously, the Act’s purpose is to make the victim whole, and no matter which formula is used, each calculation has the potential to not achieve this goal.

A. The Ninth Circuit Method: Control as the Impetus

There are several advantages to the Ninth Circuit mortgage fraud restitution calculation method, which holds that the fair market value should be calculated based on the date the property is returned to the financial institution victim. First, the date reflects the date that control over the property has been returned to the victims. Accordingly, the bank then has the power to dispose of the property at its discretion without additionally penalizing the defendant if the victim refrains from selling the property on that date. For example, a victim may decide to hold on to the property, as in United States v. Tyler or United States v. Smith, coincidental with a declining market. A victim may have too
many properties in inventory to immediately put a particular property up for sale. Or a victim may be making a calculated business decision to retain the property for a certain period of time for accounting purposes. No matter the purpose behind the retention, it is unfair to place the additional penalty that coincides with declining real estate prices on the defendant who had no control or even influence over the property’s sale.

Second, this specific date requires no guesswork when attempting to calculate the amount of restitution, which results in better efficiency. On the date the bank gets the property back, an appraisal can determine the property’s fair market value. The court can immediately calculate the restitution amount with this figure. Waiting until the property actually sells could result in a delay of months or years to determine how much the actual proceeds from the sale are. As a result, the court has an almost immediate figure to apply to the calculation and can order the restitution award right away. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit calculation method has some considerable weaknesses. First, real estate is an illiquid asset, and determining fair market value of an illiquid asset is difficult. An appraisal only suggests what the house could sell for, not what the house actually will sell for. In addition, appraisals are based on historical data of home sales, and during sharp market increases or decreases an appraisal will not reflect the most up-to-date real estate prices.

Second, the recent housing bubble created an economic environment where home prices decreased at a radical rate. Traditionally, such sharp declines are not a concern with real estate over the long run because, while real estate prices fluctuate, they eventually trend upward. However, in situations like the recent drops in home values, the victim-lender can be punished for the market decline, despite the fact the victim was actively trying to sell the property. In addition, amidst tightening credit conditions, fewer buyers may qualify to purchase a home. This results in too much supply, not enough demand, and
consequently puts further downward pressure on home prices. The victimlender
is therefore penalized for market conditions beyond its control and consequently
does not receive complete restitution. Further, a victim financial institution is not in the business of selling homes; it is in the business of making collateralized mortgage loans for qualified buyers. Not only will the lender have costs associated with selling the
home (for example, carrying costs or realtor commissions), the lender cannot make a sale magically happen, especially if the home is situated in a market flooded with other foreclosure sales. Thus, when the lender eventually sells the home, it can potentially face a greater loss, an inequity beyond its control.

B. The Seventh Circuit Method: Cash Proceeds are the “Property”

As discussed in Part II, the Seventh Circuit, along with three other circuits, requires a sale of the property in order to establish the net proceeds offsetting a restitution award. These circuits distinguish that the property fraudulently obtained was the cash proceeds to finance a real estate purchase, not the actual home. Thus, this method recognizes the illiquidity of real estate and instead requires cash proceeds from a property’s sale; therefore, no return of the property for restitution purposes occurs with just the transfer of title or “control” over the property.

In addition, this method provides a more exact amount to the restitution calculation. With an appraisal, a court only has an approximation of what the house is worth. With an actual sale, the court knows specifically what the home sold for, and also has information on the true net proceeds to the lender.

Finally, this method also provides a buffer of protection for a victim trying to sell a property in a declining housing market. If the victim is unable to sell the property immediately, and home prices continue to plummet, the victim will not be financially punished by an ensuing lower sales price of the property. Thus, by treating the property as cash proceeds and not calculating the restitution award until there is a sale of the property, this allows the victim to come closer to achieving full restitution because the funds returned are the original amount that was taken.

This calculation method, however, has some distinct disadvantages. First, calculating the amount of time a home will be on the market is a challenge. For example, in a downturn economy, is it appropriate for the defendants to wait for the home to sell for months or years? At what point should the restitution award sentence be official? Without an established time period for a requisite sale, there will be a decrease of both efficiency and certainty as the defendant will have to wait longer to find out what the value of the property is and therefore how much restitution is necessary. In addition, what if the lender purposely holds on to the property longer than necessary? Indeed, victim banks could make a “business decision” to hold onto a property for years before attempting to sell. This type of allowance does not encourage an efficient method of asset redistribution, which can delay economic recovery in a down economy. Further, what if the victim holds an improper foreclosure auction—for example, by failing to advertise the foreclosure sale—and subsequently purchases the home itself for an amount far lower than fair market value because of a (not surprising) lack of buyers? Should the
lender be rewarded for its misbehavior? On the other hand, some would argue
that between the two parties—a convicted criminal who attempted to defraud a
financial institution and a more innocent lender who trusted the criminal borrower—
the defendant should absorb the risk.

Further, it is possible in a booming housing market that a defendant will owe no restitution. For example, if the defendant fraudulently obtained a home loan for $200,000 and the victim lender subsequently sold the property for $205,000, the defendant will be absolved from restitution. However, if part of the goal of restitution is to make the victim whole, the victim is more than compensated in a booming housing market.

Moreover, this type of calculation can have an adverse effect on other types of property. Knowing that the value of the property is not calculated until the item is actually sold, a criminal has little incentive to actually return the property. This would not be a concern for real property, but the same legal framework could be applied to other forms of collateral that can be moved and hidden, like cars. Thus, a thief can choose to hold on to the property or never return the property because of a lack of incentive to return it immediately. Accordingly, “[t]he decision is focused on the statute’s goal of making victims whole but potentially interferes with the statute’s goal of returning property to
victims.” Consequently, “[i]f a defendant is going to be on the hook for the offset amount regardless of when the property is sold, then why return the property? Also, the decision may have the unintended consequence of interfering with the marketplace . . . .”

Finally, the loan in question in these circumstances is for a collateralized asset. The actual home provided security to the lender. As such, the lender bore the risk when it made the loan; however, the lender also understood it could foreclose on the home in case of default. Thus, this cost of doing business is already accounted for and a victim lender understands this type of risk when providing mortgage loans.

C. US Sentencing Guidelines: Local Property Assessment is the Real
“Value”

As discussed in Part IV, the US Sentencing Guidelines establish the date of valuation as the conviction date of the defendant. In addition, if the property has not sold by that date, the local property tax assessor’s value of the home is the value of the property for restitution calculation purposes. There are several advantages to this approach. First, if every circuit applied this approach, these guidelines would result in a uniform application throughout the country and would eliminate the conflicting restitution awards. In addition, this approach sets a number that can be calculated and independently verified. An individual could easily confirm the tax assessor’s value of the property and calculate the restitution.

Moreover, the Guidelines allow flexibility. For example, if a court determines that an assessed value is too divergent from a property’s fair market value, the court has discretion to address these differences and assign a fair market value.

The Guideline method, however, has potential disadvantages. First, as previously
noted, the assessed value may not be near the fair market value of the property, and a battle of experts may ensue as both the defendant and the victim claim otherwise. In addition, this discrepancy may afford too much discretion to judges when the goal of the Guidelines is to set a uniform policy.

In addition, this approach disregards the Seventh Circuit method recognizing that the property taken was the actual cash for the home loan. Instead, by relying on a tax assessor’s value if the home remains unsold, the Commission determined that the “property” is the tangible real estate, and not the cash that was lent. Again, if the victim were unable to sell the home in a declining housing market, the restitution award would fail to compensate the victim for its true loss.

D. Alternative Methods of Calculation – State Deficiency Statutes

The problematic issue of fair market assessment is not unique to restitution.
Every state and the District of Columbia have a deficiency statute, whereby a lender can obtain a deficiency judgment to recover the difference between a foreclosure sale price and the current outstanding balance owed on the mortgage loan. Not every jurisdiction, however, calculates this deficiency in the same way. For example, Nevada calculates the home value based on the actual sale price, not the fair market value when the property is returned to the lender. However, the court may also consider the home’s appraised
value in its determination.

Some states maintain that a foreclosure sale price determines the value of the home when calculating a deficiency judgment. In other words, these states determine that a property’s value is only determined at the time of the property’s sale. Therefore, this calculation is similar to the Seventh Circuit method whereby a property’s value can only be determined following a sale of the real estate.

Other states consider the fair market value of the property when considering a deficiency judgment. States that consider the fair market value at the time the property is returned coincide with the Ninth Circuit calculation method. Notably, some of these states are states that have had a high number of foreclosures and are within the Ninth Circuit: for example, Arizona and California. Other states provide that the courts have discretion to determine the appropriate value of the property. This discretion is analogous to the alternative offered by US Sentencing Guidelines. This alternative is available when a court deems the property’s assessed value is inappropriate and provides that a court has authority to consider other evidence in its determination of a property’s value.

Thus, just as there is a lack of uniformity in the restitution calculation depending on which state you live in, there is a corresponding lack of uniformity regarding deficiency judgments. While most states follow the foreclosure sale approach recognizing the property’s value can only be determined with an actual sale, this approach does not account for the amount of time a financial institution can choose to hold onto the property. It further fails to account for the lack of control a mortgagor has over the sale process. On the other hand, while the fair market approach recognizes the importance of the control aspect, this approach does not consider a mortgagee’s potential inability to sell in a down economy.

E. Analysis

Restitution is founded primarily on the idea that the victim should be made whole for his property loss. The actual property that was defrauded from a victim in mortgage fraud is the money lent as part of the real estate transaction.
Therefore, until the actual money is returned, equity has not been restored to the victim. However, equity also demands that a victim not take advantage of the criminal defendant and hold on to the returned real estate property longer than necessary to sell the real estate property. Therefore, there should be a limitation to ensure a victim does not unreasonably allow the property to languish. Accordingly, a “good faith” requirement should be included in any amendment to the MVRA, requiring a victim to sell the property to recoup funds with good faith. Thus, a defendant who believes a victim unfairly held onto a property for too long may petition the court to reduce the amount of restitution owed if the victim did not commence the sales process with good
faith.

If Congress were to amend MVRA, it should provide a definition of the term “property” to help distinguish between properties at the different phases of a financial transaction. Because of the diverse types of financial fraud—e.g. mortgage fraud compared with securities fraud—the term “property” may have more than one meaning within these contexts, and may also change throughout the transaction. For instance, consider a scheming debtor who fraudulently obtained a margin loan to purchase both mortgage backed securities and corporate bonds. The property “stolen” initially in this case is the fraudulently obtained cash used to purchase the assets. However, after the margin loan is received, the property now consists of two types of financial instruments within
the debtor’s portfolio. Indeed, the property in its current form (financial assets)
can be converted back to the form of the original property (cash). However, with the current definition of property, it is unclear if that conversion is even required.

The definition of property should state that “property” is defined as the specific or particular type of asset (such as cash) that the defendant secured from the victim. This way, the “property” returned to the victim (money) will be the same type of property stolen (money used to purchase the home). In addition, similar to many state statutes prohibiting insurance companies from operating in bad faith, the Act should prohibit victim-lenders from operating in bad faith.

VI. CONCLUSION

Defendants, like the partners in the fictional story in the introduction, could face varied restitution awards depending on which state they commit the mortgage fraud in. This lack of a uniform approach results in inadequate restitution to victims. If the goal of the MVRA is to make victims whole, a more standardized and consistent calculation of restitution is required. Providing a definition of property in the MVRA would provide this uniformity. Further, requiring victims to act in good faith as they attempt to convert property back to the type of asset they were deprived of will help ensure defendants aren’t unfairly punished.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

26 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Securitization, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bank forecloses, bankruptcy court, Foreclosure, homeowners, Ibanez Case, Loan, Massachusetts, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Pro se legal representation in the United States, US Bank, wrongful foreclosure

Many homeowners who found themselves in wrongful foreclosure situation may have a valid defense, against the perpetrators of these crimes.

How much does it cost to get justice, when a bank forecloses on your house illegally? Thousands of ex-homeowners don’t pursue their rights to a financial settlement because they assume they couldn’t pay the legal fees.

In fact, it costs less than you fear. Consumer lawyers take a few cases at no charge. More likely, you’ll pay fees — upfront or on a monthly plan — tied to the lawyer’s estimate of the time it will take and your ability to pay. If they win your case, they’ll collect from the financial institution, too.

Before readers attack the “greedy lawyers” for defending “deadbeat” clients who couldn’t repay their mortgage loans, let me quote from a groundbreaking decision of 2011 by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court reversed two foreclosures because the banks — Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, acting as trustees for investors — couldn’t prove that they actually owned the mortgages. Judge Robert J. Cordy excoriated them for their “utter carelessness.” The fact that the borrowers owed the money was “not the point,” he wrote. The right to deprive people of their property is a powerful one and banks have to prove they have the legal standing to do so.

American law cannot allow property seizures based on backdated, incomplete, or fraudulent documentation, no matter what the circumstances are. Otherwise, no one’s home is safe. Courts enforce private property rights through the cases brought before them. In other words, lawyers.

The Massachusetts case began not with consumers, but with the banks themselves. They asked the courts to affirm that the foreclosures were valid so they could get title insurance. That pulled the borrowers — Antonio Ibanez and Mark and Tammy LaRace — into the fray. When the horrified courts looked at how the foreclosures had gone down, they said, “no way,” and gave the former owners their property back.

Ibanez, a special ed teacher, bought the home for investment in 2005 and defaulted in 2007 on a $103,500 loan, according to the court papers. Even since, the house has been boarded up. Ibanez filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, so he now has title to the home and no obligation on the debt. The mortgage investors will take the loss.

The LaRaces borrowed $103,200 to buy their home in 2005 and also defaulted in 2007. They had an offer on their home, but the servicer foreclosed anyway. (During the trial, the foreclosing law firm admitted that servicers are graded on how quickly they can liquidate a mortgage.)

The LaRaces have moved back into their long-unattended home, but first they had to clean up mold, fix plumbing, and make other repairs. They would gladly resume payments on the mortgage, their lawyer Glenn Russell says. But the trustee bank doesn’t own the loan. The investors don’t own it because the mortgage was never transferred properly. The original lender, Option One, no longer exists. So whom do they pay?

This important case opens the door to thousands of foreclosure do-overs in Massachusetts at the time, and continuing and equally influenced courts in other states, as well. But there hasn’t been a rush by lawyers to get involved, probably because the field is complex and not especially remunerative. No class actions have been certified, as at that time or shortly thereafter, so the cases proceeded one by one. The financial trail can be hard to track (the Massachusetts documents were unwound by mortgage-fraud specialist Marie McDonnell). The lawyer — often, a sole practitioner — is up against the awesome resources of major financial institutions.

Neither Ibanez nor the LaRaces were charged for their lawyer’s services. Collier had file a claim for wrongful foreclosure and was paid from any settlement. Russell did the same. At the time, Russell also thinks the LaRaces are owed something for the cost of repairing their home.

Very few cases start as pro bono, however. Lawyers who defend consumers have bills to pay, just as the banks’ corporate attorneys do. You may opt to fight it Pro Se using the package from our website, or if you want to fight an unfair foreclosure, you might be offered one of several arrangements:

An upfront fee. “Many of my clients were formerly very successful individuals,” Russell says. On average, the value of the homes of the people who contact him is “somewhat north of $500,000.” He suggests a fee based on their means.

Monthly payments. If you’re not making monthly mortgage payments, some portion of that money could be applied to legal expenses. Collier says he puts the payments into escrow and retains them if he gets the house back (he says he always does, in predatory lending cases).

Bankruptcy payment plans. The clients of North Carolina bankruptcy attorney Max Gardner are usually in a Chapter 13 monthly repayment plan. Each state sets the maximum attorney’s fee, payable as part of the plan.

Mostly, the attorneys get paid by suing the financial institutions, who settle claims or suffer court judgements due to their own illegal activity. People who beat up on consumer lawyers scream that they bring frivolous cases just for the fees. But consumer lawyers only get paid if their case is good, so they’re pretty rigorous about whom they choose to represent. “I was called crazy for practicing in this area of law, as in ‘I would be broke’ by not getting enough fees,” Russell says. “Three years later, I am still here and still living my motto of helping people first.”

Most homeowners are successful fighting there case Pro Se using the package we offer for fighting Foreclosure, as your interest is at stake, and you have the most to lose, not Attorneys. They gets paid whether you win or lose. However, homeowners equally have options when fighting wrongful foreclosure.

If you think you have a case, your toughest challenge isn’t fees, it’s finding a lawyer with the expertise to press your claim successfully, Gardner says. If you don’t have a personal reference for a qualified lawyer, the best place to look is the website of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Next best: the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. In either case, ask if the lawyer has won other securitization, mortgage servicing, and foreclosure cases. “They have to know what documents to ask for,” Gardner says. That’s what wins.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know About Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adjustable rate mortgage loan, Borrower, borrowers, credit reports, Financial reports, hardship, homeowners, Loan Modification, mortgage loan modifications, Mortgage note, refinance a loan, Refinance Fraud, Refinancing, servicer

Concerns with mortgage loan modifications do not always involve fraud. Each state has provisions and requirements for a senior lien holder to modify a loan and retain their lien position.

A typical fraudulent issue involving loan modifications is as follows:

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 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

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

Best Practices
• Underwrite all modifications. The financial institution should ensure that modification files include:
o Documentation of Hardship.
o Borrowers’ willingness and ability to continue to pay debt and retain property.
o Independent verification of information (employment, income, occupancy) provided.
o New credit report.
o Analysis of sustainability of performance post-modification.
o Referral to reputable credit counseling service.
• Establish legal department protocol for review of modification agreement (different states have different laws and language).
• Establish strong post-modification loan performance reports.
• Review Uniform Retail Classification and Account Management Policy
• Ensure proper accounting for delinquencies, trouble debt restructuring, charge-offs, and the allowance for loan and lease losses.

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.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Servicing Fraud

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Landlord and Tenant, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Borrower, borrower loan, current balance, delinquency reports, Financial institution, mortgage loans, Mortgage servicer, Mortgage Servicing Fraud, remittance reports, servicer, servicer reports, servicing audit

As a homeowner, it is your duty to know what is going on, in your home mortgage.

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 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
o 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.

o 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.

Best Practices
• Perform annual on-site review of loan files and servicer reports.
• Establish internal audit reviews that include a sampling of loans handled by each servicer and verify collateral lien status for such loans.
• Obtain and reconcile reports to document and verify total amount of loans serviced, payments and allocation, servicer fees, delinquent loans, etc.
• Verify receipt of funds on loans authorized for sale by a servicer.
• Review, at least annually, the servicer’s registration status, licensing status, financial health and capability, and compliance with the servicing contract/agreement.
• Establish a contingency plan should the servicer be unable to perform its contractual obligations.
• Verify current insurance policies and amounts of coverage (flood and hazard).
• Verify payment of property taxes.
• Review, as documented in board meeting minutes, management reports on mortgage servicers (annual reviews, quarterly performance reports, aging reports, loan modification reports, delinquency reports, etc.)
• Establish appropriate limitations on access to internal bank systems and records.
• Establish appropriate conflict of interest policies prohibiting compensation/ payments from service providers to bank employees.
• Review of internal and external audit reports of the servicer.
• Review customer complaint processes, procedures, and reports.
• Review analysis and trend reports comparing a servicer’s operations and statistics with Mortgage Bankers Association’s statistics.
• Obtain and review samples of original payment documents (e.g., borrower loan payment checks) to verify that the borrower is the source of payments and that funds from other sources are not being used to make payments or hide delinquencies.

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.
• 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.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud Schemes

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Landlord and Tenant, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Scam Artists, Title Companies, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Appraiser, Asset Rental, Borrower, Builder Bailout, Buy and Bail, Buyer, Chunking, Closing/Settlement Agent, Double Selling, Equity Skimming, Fake Down Payment, Fictitious Loan, Fraudulent Appraisal, Fraudulent Documentation, Fraudulent Use of Shell Company, Identify Theft, Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud, Loan Servicer, Mortgage Servicing Fraud, Originator, Phantom Sale, Processor, Property Flip Fraud, Real Estate Agent, Reverse Mortgage Fraud, Seller, Short Sale Fraud, Straw/Nominee Borrower, Title Agent, Underwriter, Warehouse Lender

Mortgage fraud has continued to increase since the 2005. 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, refinance fraud, and mortgage servicing fraud.

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.

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
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 house that cost less due to the decline in market value. After obtaining the new property, the borrower “walks” or “bails” on the first loan.

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.

COMMON MECHANISMS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES

This Post Paper 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.

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.

COMMON PARTICIPANTS
Various individuals participate in mortgage fraud schemes. The following list consists of common participants in such schemes and each is linked to the glossary:

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Closing/Settlement 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.

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.

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

Underwriter – 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 verification 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.

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.

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.

CONCLUSION
Mortgage fraud continues to result in significant losses for financial institutions, as well as, the Homeowners. It is imperative that homeowners understand the nature of the various schemes and recognize red flags related to mortgage fraud. This knowledge and use of best practices will help with the prevention of mortgage fraud, and financial losses to the homeowner.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

FightForeclosure.net

~ Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Category Archives: Foreclosure Defense

What Homeowners Must Know About Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

What Homeowners in Foreclosure Must Know About TRO and Injunction

The Remedies Available Through An Injunction

The Timing Implications Involved In Seeking Or Defending An Injunction

Ex Parte Injunctions

Preliminary Injunctions

The Role of the Injunction Bond

The Role of the Appellate Court

Permanent Injunctions

What Pro Se Homeowners Must Know About Appellate Issues and Record on Appeal

How Homeowners Can Avoid Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Scams

What Homeowners Must Know About the Residential Mortgage Lending Market

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud & Restitution

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

What Homeowners Must Know About Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Servicing Fraud

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud Schemes

Share this:

Like this:

The Remedies Available Through An Injunction

The Timing Implications Involved In Seeking Or Defending An Injunction

Ex Parte Injunctions

Preliminary Injunctions

The Role of the Injunction Bond

The Role of the Appellate Court

Permanent Injunctions

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: