Tag Archives: Borrower

What Homeowners Should Know About the National Mortgage Settlement for Borrowers in Bankruptcy and Case Trustees

19 Thursday Jul 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The National Mortgage Settlement (the “Settlement”) is an agreement among the federal government, 49 states, and the five largest mortgage servicers and their affiliates (the “Banks”).

The Banks are:
Ally Financial, Inc. (formerly GMAC)
Bank of America Corporation
Citigroup, Inc.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Wells Fargo & Company

The Settlement provides benefits to borrowers, including borrowers in bankruptcy, whose residential mortgage loans are serviced by the Banks.

Information concerning the Settlement and its impact on borrowers in bankruptcy can be found at a dedicated page on the United States Trustee Program’s website at http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/consumer_info/nms

In addition, the website http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com provides resources about the Settlement, including a copy of the Settlement, an executive summary of the Settlement, a fact sheet, and FAQs. The FAQs on that website discuss general issues, including:

• What Bank conduct is covered by the Settlement?

• What loans are covered by the Settlement?

• What are the financial provisions of the Settlement?

• How will the Settlement be enforced?

Finally, the Settlement requires the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the Banks’ compliance with the Settlement. The website for the monitor is: www.mortgageoversight.com

Question 1: What do these FAQs cover?

The United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees, has prepared these FAQs primarily for borrowers in bankruptcy or borrowers who are considering filing bankruptcy, including those who have lost their homes in foreclosure. These FAQs also address questions that trustees who administer bankruptcy cases may have.

These FAQs are provided as a basic resource and should not be considered legal advice. The United States Trustee Program is prohibited from providing legal advice. If you have any questions, you should consult an attorney.

Question 2: What bankruptcy issues did the Settlement address?

The Settlement addresses misconduct by the Banks in bankruptcy cases, including:

• Inflated or inaccurate claims.

Some of the Banks filed inflated or inaccurate documents in bankruptcy courts. When a borrower files for bankruptcy relief, the Bank may file a proof of claim or motion for relief from the automatic stay. These documents tell a bankruptcy court how much the Bank claims the borrower owes the Bank. The proof of claim also governs what a borrower in bankruptcy must pay through a chapter 13 repayment plan, and the motion for relief can determine whether the Bank may seek to commence to foreclose upon a home even if the borrower is in bankruptcy.

The accuracy of these documents is crucial. A number of parties, including the borrower in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court, the trustee administering the case, the United States Trustee, and other creditors, rely on these documents.

When a Bank inflates or misstates what a borrower in bankruptcy owes in these documents, the consequences can be severe. For example, the Bank may be paid too much and other creditors may not receive amounts they are owed. At worst, the borrower in bankruptcy is unable to propose a repayment plan that can be approved and the bankruptcy case is dismissed, or the Bank improperly obtains relief from the automatic stay and is permitted to foreclose on the borrower’s home. As a result, the borrower in bankruptcy loses the ability to keep the home and obtain a fresh start in bankruptcy.

• Improper accounting of mortgage payments made by borrowers in bankruptcy.

Some of the Banks misapplied payments made by borrowers in bankruptcy. When a Bank does this, it appears on the Bank’s books as if the borrower has failed to make regular monthly payments and the Bank can file a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay to foreclose upon the borrower’s home. This misapplication of payments also results in the Bank improperly asserting that the borrower is behind on mortgage payments and can lead to the Bank imposing loan default fees and other charges.

• Adding improper fees and charges to the mortgage accounts of borrowers in bankruptcy.

Some of the Banks charged borrowers in bankruptcy for services not warranted, or in amounts not allowed. For example, some of the Banks sought to recover escrow payments twice, and conducted unnecessary or excessive property inspections and appraisals.

• Charging “hidden fees” to the mortgage accounts of borrowers in bankruptcy.

Some of the Banks also imposed “hidden fees” – fees that are assessed during the bankruptcy case but are not disclosed until after a borrower in bankruptcy receives a discharge. This can result in borrowers believing they are current on their mortgages, only to have a Bank claim the borrowers owe additional amounts. This deprives borrowers in bankruptcy of the “fresh start” promised by the bankruptcy discharge. These hidden fees also often violate bankruptcy court orders finding that borrowers are current on their mortgages.

• Seeking relief from stay to foreclose while borrowers in bankruptcy have pending applications for loan modifications.

Some of the Banks separated their bankruptcy operations from other aspects of their mortgage servicing business, so they did not have a clear picture of the status of a borrower in bankruptcy’s mortgage.

For example, the Banks sometimes provided borrowers in bankruptcy the opportunity to modify the terms of their home loans. Modification has benefits for both the Bank, which continues to receive payments, and the borrower, who receives a more manageable monthly payment.

However, while applications for loan modifications were being processed by one group of the Bank, its bankruptcy operations might move forward with requests for relief from the automatic stay so the Bank could commence foreclosure.

Question 3: Will the Settlement impact borrowers in bankruptcy?

Yes. The Settlement requires the Banks to collectively dedicate approximately $20 billion toward various forms of financial relief for borrowers including principal reduction, forbearance of principal for unemployed borrowers, short sales and transitional assistance, and specific benefits for service members.

The Banks must also make payments to state and federal authorities exceeding $5 billion. Of this amount, $1.5 billion has been set aside to establish a “Borrower Payment Fund” administered by Rust Consulting LLC (the “Settlement Administrator”).

Much of this relief is available to borrowers in bankruptcy. A borrower should contact the appropriate Bank (see question 4) to determine eligibility for relief. A borrower should contact the Settlement Administrator regarding the Borrower Payment Fund (see question 5).

Additionally, the Banks must implement extensive new mortgage servicing standards, including provisions specific to borrowers in bankruptcy. These standards address what occurs when borrowers fall behind on their mortgage payments, including when borrowers file for bankruptcy relief. As explained in these FAQs (see questions 7 through 11), the servicing standards require, among other things:

• A single point of contact at each Bank for borrowers in bankruptcy, who want information or assistance when they fall behind on their mortgage payments;

• New processes to ensure that the Banks provide accurate information about the amount that borrowers in bankruptcy owe on their mortgages;

• Better dispute resolution processes;

• Clear itemization of the principal, interest, fees, expenses and other charges incurred prior to bankruptcy that the Banks claim in bankruptcy cases;

• Prompt posting of payments and proper designation of pre-and post- petition payments and charges;

• Timely disclosure of fees, expenses, and charges incurred after a ` borrower files for chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Question 4: How will borrowers in bankruptcy know if they are eligible for financial assistance under the Settlement?

The Banks may directly contact borrowers, including borrowers in bankruptcy. However, borrowers should not wait to be contacted. To determine eligibility, a borrower or their attorney should contact the appropriate Bank:

Ally/GMAC: 800-766-4622

Bank of America: 877-488-7814

(Available Monday – Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. (CT),
and Saturdays, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. CT))

Citi: 866-272-4749

J.P. Morgan Chase: 866-372-6901

Wells Fargo: 800-288-3212
(Available Monday – Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (CT))

A borrower should not use these phone numbers for questions concerning payments from the Borrower Payment Fund. See question 5 for information concerning these payments.

Question 5: Who can a borrower contact for information concerning payments from the Borrower Payment Fund?

The Settlement required the Banks to pay $1.5 billion to a “Borrower Payment Fund” that will be used to make payments to borrowers who lost their homes through foreclosure between and including January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. The Settlement Administrator has mailed Notice Letters and Claim Forms to eligible borrowers.

If you believe that you are eligible for relief and have not received a Notice Letter or Claim Form or have other questions concerning the Borrower Payment Fund, please contact the Settlement Administrator at 866-430-8358, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (CT).

Question 6: What if a borrower in bankruptcy already has a claim against a Bank?

The Settlement includes a release of liability by the federal government and the participating states for certain conduct by the Banks that occurred prior to the Settlement. The Settlement does not release claims a borrower, including a borrower in bankruptcy, may have under state or federal law, and a borrower does not need to choose between accepting relief under the Settlement and pursuing those claims.

Question 7: Can borrowers in bankruptcy participate in the Settlement and receive financial assistance from other sources?

Yes. Borrowers, including borrowers in bankruptcy, may participate in the programs offered under the Settlement and other programs. For example, borrowers may be eligible for a separate restitution process administered by the federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”). For more information about the federal banking regulator claims process, please visit www.independentforeclosurereview.com or call 1-888-952-9105.

Question 8: Is there someone at the Banks whom borrowers in bankruptcy can contact with questions concerning their mortgage?

Yes. Each Bank has a single point of contact for borrowers (a “SPOC”), including borrowers in bankruptcy, who want information or assistance when they fall behind on their mortgage payments. The SPOCs for borrowers in bankruptcy must be knowledgeable about bankruptcy issues. Also, the Banks must have adequate staff to handle the calls.

Question 9: Do the Banks have special contacts that chapter 13 trustees can utilize to address trustee inquiries?

Yes. The Settlement requires that each Bank establish a toll-free hotline staffed by employees trained in bankruptcy to respond to inquiries from chapter 13 trustees.

Trustees should have received information regarding these hotlines. Any chapter 13 trustee who has not received this information should contact their local United States Trustee office.

Question 10: How does the Settlement address the Banks’ filings in bankruptcy courts going forward?

The Settlement imposes new standards on the Banks to ensure the accuracy of information they provide to bankruptcy courts. These standards are designed to ensure that the Banks provide accurate information about the amount that borrowers in bankruptcy owe on their mortgages.

Moreover, under the new servicing standards, the Banks must implement better dispute resolution processes. If a Bank files inaccurate or misleading documents in a bankruptcy case, a borrower can use these new procedures and make a complaint with the Bank.

In addition, with respect to proofs of claim and certain affidavits attached to documents filed in bankruptcy courts, the Banks must correct any significant inaccuracies promptly and also provide notice of the correction to the affected borrower or counsel to the borrower.

Question 11: What kind of information must the Banks provide concerning a mortgage when a borrower files for bankruptcy?

For a borrower in a chapter 13 (repayment) case, if a Bank files a proof of claim, the Bank must include an accurate and clear statement of exactly what the Bank claims the borrower owes. That statement must itemize the principal, interest, fees, expenses, and other charges that the Bank claims is owed as of the filing of the bankruptcy case.

Question 12: How does the Settlement affect how the Banks apply mortgage payments made by borrowers or a trustee in bankruptcy?

The Banks must promptly post payments received from a borrower or trustee while a borrower is in bankruptcy and accurately designate payments between any arrearage owed before the bankruptcy filing and what is owed for regular mortgage payments after the filing. The Banks must also reconcile accounts, including funds held in suspense accounts, at the end of each bankruptcy case and update their records so they are consistent with the account reconciliation.

Question 13: How does the Settlement affect what the Banks charge after a borrower files for bankruptcy?

The Banks must timely disclose fees, expenses, and charges incurred after a borrower files a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. A Bank waives fees, expenses, and charges of which the Bank has not given timely notice to the Borrower. The Banks must also timely give notice to a borrower of any changes in payments the borrower will have to make due to, for example, interest rate adjustments or changes in the escrow amount.

Question 14: Should a trustee administering the case of a borrower in bankruptcy seek to recover funds received by the borrower under the Settlement?

Eligible borrowers in bankruptcy may receive payments from the Banks as a part of the Settlement. A trustee should consider all relevant circumstances when deciding whether to seek turnover of the payments in a particular case. Factors to consider include:

• The payment amount and any interest of a non-debtor spouse or other person in the payment;

• The cost of recovering and administering the payment, including litigation with a borrower in bankruptcy who may seek a judicial determination regarding whether the funds are subject to administration;

• The extent to which recovering the payment will enable creditors to receive a meaningful distribution; and

• The applicability of state and federal exemptions.

The United States Trustee Program will not seek to compel a trustee to recover payments that the trustee, in the exercise of discretion, decides not to recover.

Question 15: How does the Settlement affect the trustees’ review of the Banks’ proofs of claim?

Generally, the Settlement will not alter a trustee’s review of claims filed by the Banks. If a trustee concludes, based on a review of a Bank’s bankruptcy filings, that a Bank violated the Settlement, the trustee, usually will contact the United States Trustee’s office in the jurisdiction in which the case was filed.

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/

Advertisements

What Homeowners Must Know About Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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;

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 Must Know About Mortgage Servicing Fraud

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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;

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 Must Know About Mortgage Fraud Schemes

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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;

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/

 

Why Homeowners Need to Shift the Burden of Proof To Foreclosure Mills

05 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by in Affirmative Defenses, Appeal, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

CASE STUDY:

This case brings to mind why homeowner MUST shift the burden of proof to foreclosure mills in order to save their homes or the courts will ‘assume’ that the burden rests on the homeowner. (Which it does not). Borrower has no burden of proof as the burden of proof is squarely shouldered by the illegal entity bringing a judicial or non judicial foreclosure proceeding against the homeowner, in order for them to show that either they owns the Note or had the rights of enforcement on the Note. Even if they “own the Note,” they might not have the “right to enforce it”, even if they are “holder of the note, and does not own it“, they might not have “standing to bring the action“, per UCC. (That is the law of negotiable instruments – and your “Note” is a negotiable instrument just like a “Check”.

SO FOLKS! DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND MAKE THEM PROVE IT! DO NOT LOSE YOUR DREAM HOME BASED ON MERE IGNORANCE!

U.S. BANK NATL. ASSN. v. SPICERNo. 9-11-01

2011 Ohio 3128 U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee On Behalf of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-3 Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gregory M. Spicer, Defendant-Appellant, and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Marion County.
Date of Decision: June 27, 2011.

OPINION

SHAW, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Gregory M. Spicer (“Spicer”) appeals the December 9, 2010 judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas overruling his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶2} On November 22, 2006, Spicer executed a promissory note with Intervale Mortgage Corporation (“Intervale”) for a mortgage loan in the amount of $212,000.00 to purchase a residence located at 1517 Eagle Links Drive in Marion, Ohio. The loan documents identified Decision One LLC (“Decision One”) as Intervale’s servicing agent and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as Intervale’s nominee for matters related to Spicer’s loan. The mortgage was recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office on December 1, 2006.

{¶3} In February of 2007, Spicer received a letter from Select Portfolio Servicing (“SPS”) notifying him that the servicing of his mortgage loan had been transferred from Decision One to SPS and that, as of March 1, 2007, SPS would be the entity receiving his mortgage payments.

{¶4} On September 22, 2008, Bill Koch, an assistant secretary for MERS, issued a “corporate assignment of mortgage,” which evidenced that MERS, as nominee for Intervale, assigned Spicer’s mortgage to Appellee, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, on behalf of the holders of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-3 Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-3 (“U.S. Bank”). This assignment of Spicer’s mortgage was subsequently recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office.

{¶5} On September 25, 2008, U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure against Spicer alleging the note to be in default because Spicer failed to make the monthly payments on the note since April 28, 2008, and the default had not been cured. The complaint alleged that a balance of $208,865.11, plus interest remained outstanding on the promissory note. U.S. Bank requested judgment against Spicer for this amount, plus late charges, advances made for the payment of taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, or cost incurred for the protection of the mortgaged premises. U.S. Bank also requested the trial court to order a foreclosure and sale of the property. The record demonstrates that Spicer was properly served with the complaint on October 21, 2008.

{¶6} Spicer failed to appear or otherwise enter into the action and on January 5, 2009, U.S. Bank filed a motion for default judgment which was subsequently granted by the trial court. On January 12, 2009, the trial court entered a decree in foreclosure and ordered the property to be sold. The property was scheduled for a Sheriff’s sale on April 17, 2009.

{¶7} On April 13, 2009, Spicer sent an ex parte letter to the trial court requesting a stay in the sale proceedings. Spicer’s letter was placed in the record with a “received” stamp, but was not “file-stamped” by the clerk of courts. Moreover, there is no evidence that Spicer served this letter on counsel for U.S. Bank or that U.S. Bank was otherwise made aware of the existence of this letter.

{¶8} On April 23, 2009, U.S. Bank filed a “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” with the trial court. In this motion, U.S. Bank informed the court that “Plaintiff and the borrower have entered into a loss mitigation agreement.” On April 24, 2009, the trial court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to withdraw the property from the scheduled Sheriff’s sale.

{¶9} On June 23, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an “Alias Praecipe for Order for Sale” requesting an order of sale and for the Sheriff to appraise, advertise, and sell the property.

{¶10} On August 10, 2009, a notice of sale was filed. The sale was scheduled to take place on September 18, 2009. U.S. Bank subsequently filed another “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” stating that the parties “have entered into a forbearance agreement.” The trial court subsequently granted U.S. Bank’s motion to vacate the order of sale.

{¶11} On March 31, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a second “Alias Praecipe for Order for Sale” requesting an order of sale on the property and notice of sale was subsequently filed, scheduling the sale of the property. On June 22, 2010, U.S. Bank then filed a third “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale.” The reason cited for this motion was that the parties “are in the process of negotiating a loss mitigation agreement.”

{¶12} On July 12, 2010, the trial court granted U.S. Bank’s motion to withdraw the property from the Sheriff’s sale; however, the court also noted in its order that “No further withdrawals of sale will be allowed.”

{¶13} On July 15, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a “Pluries Praecipe for Order for Sale without Reappraisal” requesting that another order of sale be issued on the property. Sale of the property was scheduled for November 19, 2010.

{¶14} On October 21, 2010, nineteen months after the trial court issued its decree in foreclosure on the property, Spicer filed a “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.” Notably, this is the first formal appearance entered by Spicer in this action. In this motion, Spicer argued that he was never given the original loan documents evidencing his loan with Intervale, and that his original loan had been “shuffled around and assigned to various parties.” Spicer further alleged that there is no proof U.S. Bank was properly assigned the promissory note and mortgage. Spicer also claimed that he is a victim of “robo-signing”1 by SPS, the servicing agent for his mortgage loan. In support of his motion, Spicer attached several internet articles and blogs, which generally discussed the alleged misconduct of some mortgage companies.

{¶15} In this motion, Spicer also requested that the trial court stay the Sheriff’s sale until it can be proven “who has actual position [sic] and ownership of the original mortgage and standing to foreclose on the mortgage.” However, he failed to specifically claim in this motion that he is entitled to relief pursuant to any of the enumerated grounds listed in Civ.R. 60(B) with respect to his instant case, or otherwise attempt to satisfy any the requirements a movant must prove in order to be entitled to Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment.

{¶16} On October 25, 2010, Spicer filed a supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale” and attached several more unauthenticated articles and documents about MERS and Intervale, which were not of direct relevance to his case.

{¶17} On October 28, 2010, Spicer filed another supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” attaching an amicus brief written by the Ohio Attorney General, which was filed in relation to a Cuyahoga County case, a separate and distinct case from Spicer’s case. Spicer argued that this other case was of particular relevance to his case because it involved U.S. Bank and its counsel of record in the case sub judice. Spicer urged the trial court to impute to his case any misconduct alleged against U.S. Bank in the Cuyahoga County case. Spicer also filed more internet articles generally examining the causes of the mortgage crisis, specifically the role of “robo-signing” by lenders in foreclosure actions.

{¶18} On November 4, 2010, Spicer filed a third supplement to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” now arguing that U.S. Bank had no standing to bring the underlying foreclosure action because the original mortgage lender, Intervale, did not have authority to execute mortgages in Ohio. Spicer further argued that U.S. Bank did not sign the original promissory note and does not have the original “wet ink” promissory note in its possession. Spicer also identified, for the first time, the two individuals who signed affidavits in support of the foreclosure proceedings from MERS and SPS,2 and accused them of being “robo-signers” who “lack personal knowledge of the facts herein.” (Supp. Mot. Nov. 4, 2010 at 2).

{¶19} Notably, in each of his supplements to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale,” Spicer again failed to identify any grounds on which he is entitled to relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).

{¶20} On November 8, 2010, U.S. Bank filed its memorandum in opposition to Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.” U.S. Bank argued that Spicer failed to satisfy the burden required to be shown by a movant that he or she is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). Specifically, U.S. Bank asserted that Spicer failed to identify what grounds, if any, exist for vacating the judgment, provide any operative facts or admissible evidence in support of such grounds, failed to identify a meritorious defense to the foreclosure proceedings—i.e. why the loan is not in default for Spicer’s non-payment, and that his Civ.R. 60(B) motion was not timely.

{¶21} U.S. Bank further asserted that it is the real party in interest to bring the foreclosure proceedings and argued that Spicer had waived this issue by failing to raise it until nineteen months after the decree in foreclosure was entered by the trial court.

{¶22} On November 15, 2010, Spicer filed a “Reply Brief” to U.S. Bank’s memorandum in opposition to his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.” In his response, Spicer urged the trial court to follow a procedural rule adopted by the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas requiring plaintiffs to follow certain directives in filing complaints for foreclosure in that court. Spicer also, for the first time, alleged that he is entitled to relief on one of the grounds listed in Civ.R. 60(B), specifically Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which is the “catch-all” provision under the rule, permitting the court to vacate a judgment “for any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.” Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Spicer argued that U.S. Bank “is perpetrating a fraud upon this court” and asserted several unsubstantiated allegations to support his position. Spicer also maintained that his motion is timely because Civ.R. 60(B)(5) does not state a specific timeframe to bring the motion, but rather requires the motion to be filed within a “reasonable time.”

{¶23} U.S. Bank filed a response to Spicer’s “Reply Brief” on November 19, 2010, and attached several documents refuting Spicer’s various allegations, including that it was not the real party in interest under Civ.R. 17(A) to file the foreclosure action.

{¶24} On November 22, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a fourth “Motion to Vacate Order for Sale and Withdraw Property from Sale” requesting the trial court to temporarily refrain from executing the sale in order for U.S. Bank to comply with recent directives issued by the U.S. Treasury Department.

{¶25} On December 9, 2010, the trial court issued its decision overruling Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.” Specifically, the trial court determined that Spicer failed to timely raise the defense that U.S. Bank was not the real party in interest under Civ. R. 17(A). The trial court also concluded that Spicer failed to satisfy his burden demonstrating he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Furthermore, the trial court found the following with respect to Spicer’s allegations of misconduct by SPS:

As no misconduct has been alleged against [SPS], Defendant Gregory Spicer has not shown sufficient grounds [for] the granting of relief from judgment in this action. This is particularly true since said Defendant did nothing to object to the original judgment being rendered in this action, and did nothing to attempt to obtain relief from judgment until 21 [sic] months after the Judgment was rendered in this action. Said Defendant has made absolutely no showing that he had not failed to make his mortgage payments as agreed under the promissory note.

(JE, Dec. 9, 2010 at 4).

{¶26} Spicer subsequently filed this appeal, asserting the following assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THAT FORECLOSURE IN THIS ACTION WAS FILED ON JANUARY 12, 2009, AND THAT DEFENDANT GREGORY SPICER DID NOT FILE HIS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2010. THIS 21-MONTH DELAY IS WELL BEYOND THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT NOTHING IN THE RECORD OF THIS ACTION SHOWING THAT THE SERVICER OF THE MORTGAGE QUESTIONED, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., OR THAT BILL KOCH HAS ENGAGED IN ANY OF THE MISCONDUCT.

{¶27} For ease of discussion, we elect to address Spicer’s assignments of error together.

{¶28} In his first assignment of error, Spicer claims that the trial court erred when it found that he did not file his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment until twenty-one months after the trial court rendered judgment on the foreclosure action.3 Spicer appears to argue that his April 13, 2009 ex parte letter to the trial court served as a functional equivalent for a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and, therefore, his motion should be considered timely because it was sent to the court only three months after it rendered its foreclosure judgment.

{¶29} First, we observe that in his April 13, 2009 letter, Spicer simply requests the trial court to stay the Sheriff’s sale. In reviewing this letter, we note that Spicer fails to mention Civ.R. 60(B), let alone make any statement that can be construed as a request for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). In addition, Spicer neglects to cite any legal authority which supports his position that his ex parte letter, which does not contain the contents required by Civ.R. 60(B) in substance or in form, should be construed by the trial court as a timely filed motion for relief from judgment.

{¶30} Moreover, pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(7) we are not required to address arguments that have not been sufficiently presented for review or supported by proper authority. Therefore, it is well within our purview to disregard this assignment of error. See App.R. 12(A)(2). Nevertheless, in reviewing this issue we find no authority supporting Spicer’s contention that the trial court erred when it determined that he failed to file his Civ.R. 60(B) motion until twenty-one months after the foreclosure judgment was entered.

{¶31} Spicer also argues under this assignment of error that the trial court erred in determining that he is not entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). Initially, we note that in order to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, a party must show 1) a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; 2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the five enumerated grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and 3) the motion is made within the required timeframe. In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239, 242, 690 N.E.2d 535, 1998-Ohio-466; Douglas v. Boykin (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 140, 145, 699 N.E.2d 123.

{¶32} The elements entitling a movant to Civ.R. 60(B) relief “are independent and in the conjunctive; thus, the test is not fulfilled if any one of the requirements is not met.” Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d. 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 1994-Ohio-107. “The decision to grant or deny a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B) lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. An abuse of discretion means that the trial court was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable in its ruling. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.

{¶33} On appeal, Spicer argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), which is the “catch-all” provision of the rule permitting a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the judgment.” This provision of the rule is not subject to the one-year limitation in filing as motions filed under Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2), and (3).4 Rather, motions filed on the grounds of Civ.R. 60(B)(5) are required to be filed in a reasonable time.

{¶34} In support of his position, Spicer argues that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest to bring these foreclosure proceedings and that U.S. Bank and its servicing agent SPS had committed a “fraud upon the court.” The trial court addressed both of these issues in its judgment entry overruling his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion to Stay Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶35} First, with respect to Spicer’s argument that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest to bring these foreclosure proceedings, we note that the trial court concluded that Spicer waived this argument because he failed to timely assert it. Civil Rule 17(A) provides, in pertinent part:

Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. * * * No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest.

{¶36} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that “[t]he purpose behind the real party in interest rule is to enable the defendant to avail himself of evidence and defenses that the defendant has against the real party in interest, and to assure him finality of the judgment, and that he will be protected against another suit brought by the real party at interest on the same matter.” Shealy v. Campbell (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 23, 24, 485 N.E.2d 701.

{¶37} As previously noted by this Court, a majority of appellate courts infer that the defense that a party is not the real party in interest can be raised after an initial responsive pleading, and if it is not raised in a timeframe relative to that initial pleading stage in the proceedings, then the defense is waived. First Union Natl. Bank v. Hufford, 146 Ohio App.3d 673, 677, 2001-Ohio-2271, ¶13, 767 N.E.2d 1206 citing Travelers Indemn. Co. v. R.L. Smith Co. (Apr. 13, 2001), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-014, Hang-Fu v. Halle Homes, Inc. (Aug. 10, 2000), 8th Dist. No. 76589, Robbins v. Warren (May 6, 1996), 12th Dist. No. CA95-11-200; see also Mid-State Trust IX v. Davis, 2nd Dist. No. 07-CA-31, ¶58 (affirming this principle on similar facts and concluding that the issue of standing for the real party in interest defense is waived if not timely asserted).

{¶38} Here, the record demonstrates that Spicer failed to enter a formal appearance in this action until more than nineteen months after the trial court entered its decree in foreclosure on the property. Spicer provides neither the trial court nor this Court with any explanation why he was unable to make any appearance in the underlying foreclosure proceedings, let alone timely raise this issue during the initial pleading phase. Rather, Spicer simply makes blanket assertions that U.S. Bank is not the real party in interest without submitting any evidence to substantiate his claim. Moreover, Spicer cites no legal authority to support his position. Accordingly, we do not find the trial court’s determination that Spicer failed to timely assert a real-party-in-interest defense to be an abuse of discretion.

{¶39} Spicer’s second basis that he is entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is his assertion that U.S. Bank and SPS have committed a “fraud on the court.” In making this argument Spicer relies solely on Coulson v. Coulson, (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 12, 448 N.E.2d 809. In Coulson, an attorney represented to the court that he was counsel for the Plaintiff in a divorce action at the same time he was colluding with the Defendant in the action, by drafting a separation agreement on the behalf of the Plaintiff at the direction and upon the terms dictated by the Defendant. Id. at 13. The domestic relations court relied on the attorney’s representation and approved the separation agreement and incorporated it into its judgment, unaware of the attorney’s prior arrangement with the Defendant. Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the attorney’s actions in this instance constituted a “fraud upon the court.” Id. at 16-17.

{¶40} As explained by the Supreme Court, fraud upon the court embraces the “`species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by the officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.'” Coulson, 5 Ohio St.3d at 15 quoting MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE (2 Ed.1971) 515, paragraph 60.33.

{¶41} As the basis for his claim that U.S. Bank and SPS committed a fraud upon the trial court, Spicer alleges that Bill Koch, the individual who effectuated the assignment of Spicer’s mortgage between Intervale and U.S. Bank, is a “robo-signer.” However, Spicer provided the trial court with no evidence to substantiate this claim other than unauthenticated internet articles discussing the alleged misconduct of mortgage lenders in the industry. There is nothing in these articles or Spicer’s unsupported allegations that can be construed as a “fraud upon the court.” Spicer simply failed to provide any relevant evidence to demonstrate misconduct on the part of U.S. Bank or its servicing agent, SPS in this matter.

{¶42} In addition, we note that Civ.R. 60(B)(5) applies only when a more specific provision of the rule does not apply. Strack v. Pelton (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 172, 174, 637 N.E.2d 914, 1994-Ohio-107. Moreover, Civ.R. 60(B)(5) is not intended to be used as a substitute for any of the other more specific provisions of Civ.R. 60(B). Caruso-Ciresi, Inc. v. Lohman (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 64, 448 N.E.2d 1365. Here Spicer’s allegations of misconduct against U.S. Bank and SPS are more akin to the traditional legal concept of fraud, which is specifically addressed by Civ.R. 60(B)(3). However, as previously mentioned, a motion filed pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(3) must be filed within one year from the entry of the judgment the movant seeks to vacate. Spicer’s “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment” was filed several months after the expiration of this timeframe. Accordingly, for all these reasons we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Spicer is not entitled to relief under Civ.R. 60(B) and overruled his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale.”

{¶43} Based on the foregoing, Spicer’s first and second assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

ROGERS, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.

FootNotes

1. Here, Spicer is referring to media reports covering the alleged widespread misconduct by mortgage servicers and banks during foreclosing procedures. Such alleged misconduct includes employees of these entities signing affidavits purporting to have knowledge of the contents of foreclosure files that the employees never actually reviewed and, therefore, have no personal knowledge of relative to the foreclosure proceedings.2. SPS is also the servicer for U.S. Bank on Spicer’s mortgage.3. As a point of clarification, Spicer filed his “Motion for Rule 60(B) to Vacate Judgment and Motion for Stay of Sheriff’s Sale” nineteen months after the trial court entered its judgment of foreclosure. However, Spicer’s initial filing of his motion was captioned as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, but contained none of the required substance of such a motion. It was not until two months later, twenty-one months after the trial court’s foreclosure judgment, that Spicer actually included Civ.R. 60(B) elements in his “Reply Brief.”4. Civil Rule 60(B) specifically provides, “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.”

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