Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
After reading many post & searching I wanted to clarify some info

Is Argent Mortgage Closed?
If so who would be my lender?
I cannot find any information who my lender is?
I have tried CitResidental, who I thought took over for Argent?? I have asked my Servicer(Homeq) who my lender is and they will not tell me??? They state it doesn't matter as they are my servicer. Surprise
On our Foreclosure summons is says Argent Mortgage?
Any info would be appreciated, as I am speaking with an attorney today and would like to give as much info as possible.

Quote 0 0

Help wrote:
After reading many post & searching I wanted to clarify some info

Is Argent Mortgage Closed?
If so who would be my lender?
I cannot find any information who my lender is?
I have tried CitResidental, who I thought took over for Argent?? I have asked my Servicer(Homeq) who my lender is and they will not tell me??? They state it doesn't matter as they are my servicer. Surprise
On our Foreclosure summons is says Argent Mortgage?
Any info would be appreciated, as I am speaking with an attorney today and would like to give as much info as possible.

Also:  I have contacted my local recorders office and requested who they lender is. They stated is shows Argent Mortgage is on the deed. If it was sold or transfered is should show who is was assigned to.
So who is Homeq working for?
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Help-

     I am afraid this is where you are stuck a bit. It looks like there has not been a recording of your note after Argent went bye-bye, and the new note holder has assumed ownership. Although, HomeEq has continued to collect--or tried to collect. It doesn't NECESSARILY mean anything illegal is going on, although it could. It could be that the new note holder hasn't gone through the mess of files and sent off all the various recording documents yet. Or it could  be something far worse, but you don't know yet...

     You are likely going to have to get your lawyer to work on who actually owns the note. Forgive me, because I cannot remember... Are you in Foreclosure? If so, your f/c paperwork should state who is bringing the f/c and it must be the holder of the note, not HomeEq (unless they hold the note). That would be the first place to check if it applies...

     There is no easy answer on this, because it could be anyone, and no one here will be able to tell you...

     If you are in f/c check your paperwork. In either case, get your attorney up to speed and prepare him or her to get the information straight!

Good luck!

JB
Quote 0 0
Hello,
 
Argent/Ameriquest  was mergerd with Citifinancial. However, I'm in a battle right now as earlier in the year my 2nd was to of been serviced by Homeq as well. They wanted to foreclose in June 06. However, I found out before sale they didn't even know who their servicing loan for. And anyone they told me that could own note hasn't taken ownership.
 
This is so deceitful that they all seem to have a hand in it...As they never filed a assignment of mortgage to anyone in county records. So Homeq was suppose to be servicing for Ameriquest. With Wells Fargo as trustee. However what ended up being presented in court was a blank assignment document. They never knew who they were actually collecting for!
 
Get a grip this will be the worst nightmare of your life I think. As their trustees are involved, judges are involved, and attorneys are involved. By the way I filed a chp 13...And my attorney didn't believe us when he initially took our Banko case.
 
He wanted it proven in court has been and judge at least ordered that we don't have to pay them. However, we've still had financial issues. And well even when we were able to pay attorney and trustee he never filed adversary against Homeq. And now that we've been unable to pay and now possibly could again in the near future our bankruptcy attorney told me two weeks ago he won't file adversary because we've been unable to pay....
 
So good luck!
 
Kathy
Quote 0 0
The same thing has happened to us. County records do not show any assigns. I have already contacted Citiresidental and they have no record of us. As well as the 2 other names Homeq has given me! As of yesterday, they have yet given me a new name, which I will contact today!

Should I request they prove who the note holder is? As we have no yet responded to our foreclosure summons?

Also in our case our deed has wrong legal description, therefore was never filed correctly. Now the summons states due due scriveners errors the want to reform the deed. Stating we never fully owed the property.
Quote 0 0
New Bill
Defense to Foreclosure:  When the holder of a mortgage loan or anyone acting on behalf of the holder initiates a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure, (1) the consumer who has a rescission right under this bill may assert such right as a defense to foreclosure against the holder to forestall foreclosure, or (2) if the rescission right has expired, the consumer may seek actual damages (plus costs) against the creditor, assignee, or securitizer.
 
 
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Folks-

Here's the rest of the Op-Ed piece written by Matthew Graham. If  you go to the link that Nye provided, there is a sample letter you can write to your representatitive(s) to request their support. I pasted the letter at the bottom of this post. Enjoy!

JB

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1182007_HR_3915_Discussion.asp

H.R. 3915: a FRANK Discussion

By Matthew Graham - OP-ED COLUMNIST

1727 Views - Printer Friendly - Email This Story To A Friend
 
RSSCOMMENTS(5)LINK HEREADD NEWS TO YOUR WEBSITE


I'm not going to rewrite the HR 3915 bibles that have already been written. This article will simply collate the most valuable information available on the bill at this time and of course you will get my opinion after I give you the facts. But PLEASE, before you share your opinion with anyone verbally or in writing, please do yourself the courtesy of making sure you understand the bill and its implications. Some housekeeping:

  • HR 3915 just passed committee in the house and is now moving to a vote. What is HR 3915? If you don't know, then please read it here.
  • If you still want to have an opinion about it, but can't be troubled to wade through the bureaucratic verbosity of a full house bill, here is a synopsis.
  • And if you haven't heard of the proposed updates to it and you are still planning on having an opinion, please check this out (this is how the bill passed committee).
  • Section by section summary of changes.

Finally, if you are not intimately familiar with the many factors of the "mortgage meltdown," I suggest my article as a primmer for the ensuing discussion. The following discussion on HR 3915 will be hard to follow unless you understand the background.

Now that's out of the way, how about a FRANK discussion (pun intended)? I'm really not going to get into the particulars of the bill as far as examining each aspect and discussing pros and cons. That has been done and you can also do it for yourself. There are a couple nice blogs out there where people have broken down and discussed several of the aspects. Here's an example

I'm not interested in debating with those of you with obviously radical opinions. The whole "mortgage meltdown" that caused this knee-jerk reaction is an infinitely "gray area." Those of you who respond to this issue with black and white zealotry are no doubt envied by proctologists for your amazing view of your lower GI tract. Let's take a nice walk down common sense lane and discuss the shades that comprise this gray area.


HOW DID WE GET HERE?

People have been burned. There's no doubt about it. Regardless of who is at fault, people, wholesale lenders, mortgage brokers, realtors, investors, banks, traders-many entities have lost money, lost their incomes, lost their assets, and lost their homes as a result of the housing sector mess. It's an unprecedented catastrophe that has a lot of people angry and feeling wronged. When people feel wronged, they tend to try to assign blame to another entity to mitigate their feelings of suffering. Further warm and fuzzies for these folks sometimes come in the form of lashing out against those they are blaming. On my other article "The Current State of the Mortgage Market," I get questions all the time about what percentage of the blame would I assign to a particular entity. I try to be as cordial as I can in responding to those questions and I will be cordial here: it's not that simple.

As far as addressing all the diverse items contained in HR 3915, The National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) has done a good job. Their testimony can be found here. Keep in mind there have been changes to the bill already in response to this testimony, which is good. But let me take a brief moment to address some of the more salient points, just so you know where I stand. Both the NAMB and all ethical, hardworking mortgage originators I know agree with the following points (not all of these are worded this way in the bill):

  1. I would be happy to support the implementation and enforcement of better minimum standards for ALL loan originators, this includes FDIC insured bank loan officers (the original bill greatly relieves this obligation for FDIC banks).
  2. I would support any reasonable anti-predatory lending laws.
  3. I would be happy to have one universal method of disclosing fees and income on a loan for ALL entities that originate a mortgage. (under the current bill, mortgage brokers and FDIC banks fall under different requirements).
  4. I don't think that a mortgage originator's net worth has any bearing whatsoever on how ethically and accurately they conduct their business. In fact, I know of people with a lot more money than me that got that money by overcharging clients! As it stands the bill calls for a large net worth requirement, which has since been reduced in revisions.
  5. As an originator, I absolutely, positively, must be allowed to use the feature of YSP in order to give my clients the most competitive quotes.
  6. There is no one you will encounter that supports truth in advertising more than I do. I think that organizations advertising low teaser, or negative amortization rates without warning the consumer about the implications, should be taken behind the barn and shot.

It looks like most of these points will be addressed one way or another in the revisions to the bill. However, it is still unclear if FDIC originators will be held to the same standard as non-FDIC originators. Furthermore, there is still the issue of YSP not being paid on non-prime loans and the extremely crucial point that "non-prime" loans are not clearly defined in the bill.

BUT LET'S FORGET ALL THAT FOR A FEW MOMENTS

Follow me for a moment on a brief analogy. Drugs are a big problem in this country right? We lock up drug dealers, we lock up people who use drugs, and we lock up people that traffic drugs, right? No matter how much we try to punish and regulate drugs, people still use them. Even though people know that drugs are bad for their health, they continue to pursue them and create the demand for them. But if either the supply or the demand were to go away, there would be no drug problem. What if, instead of trying combat drugs on all fronts, the US Government just decided to punish people who used drugs? Traffickers, growers, and distributors could all do as they please, and they could even make their drugs available to the end user without penalty. Would this make any sense to you? Of course not.

Now, what if the grower's costs became so high that it was no longer cost effective to produce drugs? What if absolutely no one were producing any drugs? Would drug laws even be necessary then?

The drug of choice in the US for the last 5 years has been bad mortgage loans. It takes a whole supply chain for the end user to end up with a foreclosed house due to a bad loan. A consumer has to want the loan. A loan officer has to originate that loan. A bank or intermediary has to provide the funds for that loan. An appraiser has to generate a value for the security of that loan. Title companies have to insure against liens on that loan. A bank has to offer to underwrite the risk of that loan. And finally, the wall street investor has to create a demand for the Mortgage-Backed-Security that the loan will ultimately become.

The moral of the story is that there are multiple potential causes in any given mortgage scenario that can lead to the distressed mortgage and real estate market. That's why I scoff when someone blames just one aspect for the whole crisis. For example, "this whole meltdown is due to mortgage fraud," or "we wouldn't be in trouble if the ratings agencies hadn't said mortgage backed securities on non-prime loans were a safe investment." No, my friends, in this case, it has taken the whole village. To bring the analogy to a close, I would wager several of my body parts that the "growers and distributors" of our evil mortgage drug have learned their lesson the hard way. The same drug will not be available in the future and it has NOTHING to do with legislation.

Does anyone on the house financial services committee understand the market forces of the "economic village" that raises bad mortgages? I turned on CNBC 3 weeks ago to hear a certain chairman passionately impugning prepayment penalties on mortgages. It went something like this (eyes opened blazing wide, spit flying, voice raised, in an earnest tone of disbelief):

"I can't believe it, but I hear tell that a mortgage lender will actually offer a higher rebate to an originator on a loan when there is a prepayment penalty! Also, I've heard that a mortgage lender will actually offer a proportionally higher rebate to an originator on a loan with a proportionally higher interest rate. That is preposterous!"

Is it, Barney? You can't believe that an investor would be willing to pay a higher price in order to ensure a minimum guaranteed ROI? Are you frickin' kidding me?!? Do I have to explain this?

Let me break this down for those of you with glassy eyes in the audience. These days, mortgage money comes mostly from investors. If you can believe it, investors look at mortgage-backed investments just like any other investments: they want to know how much it costs and how much they can get back. If it costs less, they expect less back, if it costs more, they expect more back. If a minimum return is guaranteed (cough cough, prepayment penalty), then they are willing to pay slightly more for the investment. This is all ECON 101 type stuff.

YSP, or yield spread premium, is a "premium" paid to an originator for making loan at a certain "spread" above the current "yield." Investors pay that premium because higher interest rates mean higher dollars collected over time. For the layperson, this simply means the higher the interest rate on a given mortgage, the higher the amount of money it generates for the mortgage value chain. This allows the broker to make a rebate when they originate the loan, which is paid to them by the bank that funds the loan. The bank in turn can earn an SRP or service release premium when they sell the loan. The ultimate investor that services the loan in turn earns greater interest over time. Part of the travesty of current and proposed legislation is that it has two separate standards for disclosing YSP and SRP, when in fact they are more than analogous.

The first draft of the bill proposed to completely do away with YSP! Newsflash: this is what allows mortgage brokers to be competitive and beat the pants off retail banks when it comes to quoting interest rates and fees! As a mortgage broker, I've NEVER, and I mean NEVER EVER, not been able to heartily beat a fee and rate quote from a retail FDIC bank. It's not even close. It's not even in the same ballpark. Whereas they are charging 6.75% on a 30 year fixed, I would be charging 6.125% with the same fees. Whereas some huge FDIC retail mortgage operations have a required income of over 2% between origination and YSP on a loan, my required income as a broker is whatever it takes to keep the lights on, and that's a lot less than 2%. If a client wants a no closing cost loan, I can offer that for them by making my income on YSP. If a poor, but hard-working family can qualify for a mortgage but not for the down payment, I can get them their loan using YSP to pay for their closing costs. 3915 would severely limit or do away with that.

The fact is that there have been "bad actors" in the industry that have been misleading clients and overcharging them. Whether they are small brokers or loan officers for large banks, there are people out there that will do anything to make a dime. The drafters of 3915 want to combat these folks, and I support them in that, but they are going about it in the wrong way. They are not-to use the clich�-coming anywhere close to "nipping to problem in the bud." Lucky for them the problem is already correcting itself at the root level. Simply put, investors are no longer buying the securities that made the bad loans available. That's it! The loans that are causing the mortgage melt-down don't even exist any more because they have proven themselves to be a detrimental investment for all parties involved. 3915 lashes out against a problem that has come and gone. Again, the roots are dead. The lesson has been learned. All that's required now is a little pruning to keep the growth healthy.

The pruning would be minimal but incredibly effective. Consumers need to be educated on how mortgage loans work. They need to understand what they are signing and what the implications are. They need to know whether or not there is a prepayment penalty. They need to know they can raise their interest rate and pay less fees, or lower their interest rate for a cost. The fact is that consumers should be EDUCATED on how the mortgage process works. The nature of the transaction should be DISCLOSED to them in a brutally simple and easy to understand manner. AND this disclosure should be universal for anyone who is originating a mortgage regardless of their net worth, and whether or not they work for a small mortgage brokerage or a large FDIC bank. All my clients know these things, and so do all the clients of other ethical mortgage brokers I know.

But of course, the government has to appear to be ruthlessly proactive in its approach to help the American public. The most alarming thing about it is that it falls into that dangerous category of legislation that appears to be a win-win because all it claims to do is PROTECT consumers. Psychologically, this tends to create mass lemming-ism and preclude ignorant constituents (and even congressmen/women) from reading the fine print. Any time a politician can dress something up in this manner, it will get an inordinate amount of support. Say for instance I want to save the whales. I would introduce a bill to "save the whales." Everyone would vote for it because who wouldn't want to save the whales? The only catch is that my bill saves the whales by feeding them humans! 3915 is not that black and white, and in fact, there are positive aspects of it as noted above, but it is not a panacea for the mortgage and housing convulsions our country has been experiencing.

I hope I have been clear in saying that a majority of the problems 3915 is attempting to address have already been resolved by the beautiful action of market forces. The remaining pruning should be done in a more sober and step-by-step approach. The House must realize that no one area of the market is responsible for our current turmoil. In fact, I will assert that consumers are afforded some of their very best deals by being able to work with smaller, local, independent mortgage brokers as opposed to FDIC banks. If you cripple the mortgage broker, then a semi-monopolistic pricing policy will emerge in the FDIC banking sector. Consumers will feel like they've been protected yet they will be paying 0.5% higher interest rates for their loans, and contributing to a sense of complacency among FDIC banks.

Our company's President, Tom Evans, has been using YSP for over a decade to continually amaze his clients with his competitive rates, offering choice to an educated consumer, and excellent customer service. His past customers would line up around the block in his support. Other people like him are out there, and they are crucial to the healthy competition that keeps rates low and customer satisfaction high. Bottom line: to a certain extent, 3915 is not selective against who it harms. The good guys get hurt just as much as the bad guys. You wouldn't destroy a rose just because some of the petals need pruning.

Again, the reasonable solution here is to make sure that mortgage terms are disclosed properly. From there, it's a free market. If Big Bank A is offering you 6.75% with $5000 in closing costs and I can do 6.75% with no closing costs, do you, as a consumer, care if my income is paid by the lender? Bad actors should be removed from the industry whenever possible, true, but the ultimate "drawbridge" is the fact that investors are no longer offering certain mortgage products combined with the potent medicine of consumer knowledge. Once we can ensure that ALL mortgage originators are on an even playing field and that consumers all get the exact same type of disclosure from any mortgage originator, then the problem is truly solved. The consumer then knows the rules of the game and can do exactly what they are supposed to in a free market: make their own choices as to what's in their best interest.

I would urge you to take immediate action against this bill, however, it has undergone, and will probably undergo future revisions. Don't take that to mean that no action is required though. Keep yourself informed on the changes in the bill. Thousands of your own dollars in mortgage interest are at stake.



Sample letter:

11/9/2007

<<YOUR STATE REPRESNTATIVE>>

Dear President George W. Bush, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator John McCain, U.S. Rep. Harry E Mitchell:

We want to express our opposition to H.R. Bill 3915. We believe it is burdensome to the independent mortgage broker, anti-competitive, and in the name of consumer protection, it will actually harm consumers. In an already tough lending and real estate environment, this bill will put additional unneeded pressure on real estate prices and cause unforeseen harm to homeowners, mortgage professionals and real estate professionals everywhere. It will also limit the choices consumers have in finding a residential mortgage loan to strictly large financial institutions.

Sincerely,

<<YOUR NAME>>
<<YOUR ADDRESS>>

http://www.namb.org/images/namb/GovernmentAffairs/Section%20by%20Section.pdf

We endorse the NO on H.R. 3915 Petition to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, U. S. Senator John McCain, President George W. Bush, U. S. Rep Harry E Mitchell.

Read the NO on H.R. 3915 Petition

110,000 Total Signatures as of 11/7/2007
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?HR3915


Good luck and good hunting!!

JB
Quote 0 0
~Beenawhile
Wow is exactly what I said yesterday. In the "HOW THE SCAM WORKS" thread. 
heres the link.
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=1685429&trail=105



HOW DID WE GET HERE?People have been burned. There's no doubt about it. Regardless of who is at fault, people, wholesale lenders, mortgage brokers, realtors, investors, banks, traders-many entities have lost money, lost their incomes, lost their assets, and lost their homes as a result of the housing sector mess. It's an unprecedented catastrophe that has a lot of people angry and feeling wronged.

Quote 0 0
.
How did we get here? 



Mr. Graham is trying to say the industry should stay in control.
Quote 0 0
Is Argent Mortgage out of business???????

If not any contact numbers???
Quote 0 0
While I'm not sure if this helps or not I thought I'd at least try to elaborate. When the things that have happened my info was transferred to Citi. But surprisingly they don't manage everything out of the same offices.
 
So this number goes to their offices in AZ- Maybe it'll help. 800-422-1498 or caller id also showed this number recently for my account. 480-753-2600. Even though Citi is a big company you would think they'd have different things centralized to some degree but no such luck.
 
Also I got desperate enough yesterday I called the notary who signed the fraudelent sub trustee appointment in my case. And she put me in touch with someone with Homeq who actually put this out there to the attorneys to commit their fraud so I'm waiting to hear back. If I get any news worth a dam I'll post her number later.
 
Please check everything county records has!
 
Best of luck!
 
Kathy
Quote 0 0
Moose

Help wrote:
Is Argent Mortgage out of business???????

If not any contact numbers???


First, Argent was what is commonly known as a "wholesale" mortgage provider, in other words, they used brokers to have loans originated. They did not hang on to loans - they almost all went into securitization pools and wound up being serviced by other companies, typically another sister company, AMC Mortgage Servicing, but it could be another servicer.

When the parent company of Argent, Ameriquest and AMC started failing, they sold Argent and AMC to Citi.

Essentially, Argent and AMC simply have a new parent. 

The fact that the recording hasn't caught up yet may just be a clerical error that will probably have to be brought to their attention.  Or your loan may be one of those that involve some seriously illegal stuff that was going on at Argent.

The toll-free number for Citi is:  800-430-5262, but I would only use that to get the physical address of where to send your RESPA letters.  What they show for California is a PO Box and you can't get a signature on CRR mail to a PO Box.

Citi Residential Lending
P.O. Box 11000
Santa Ana, CA 92711-1000

The Illinois office has a physical address:

Citi Residential Lending
1600 McConnor Parkway
Schaumburg, IL 60173

Make sure you put "ATTENTION - LOAN SERVICING - RESPA QWR" on the envelope.


Moose







Quote 0 0
Moose wrote:

Help wrote:
Is Argent Mortgage out of business???????

If not any contact numbers???


First, Argent was what is commonly known as a "wholesale" mortgage provider, in other words, they used brokers to have loans originated. They did not hang on to loans - they almost all went into securitization pools and wound up being serviced by other companies, typically another sister company, AMC Mortgage Servicing, but it could be another servicer.

At first is was Ameriquest, then AMC Servicer who transferred to Homeq
Who has given me 3 different Note Holders?
When the parent company of Argent, Ameriquest and AMC started failing, they sold Argent and AMC to Citi.

Essentially, Argent and AMC simply have a new parent. 

The fact that the recording hasn't caught up yet may just be a clerical error that will probably have to be brought to their attention.  Or your loan may be one of those that involve some seriously illegal stuff that was going on at Argent. What do I look for???
Doesn't the current "note holder" have to be proven in court?
Or is Argent still legit?

The toll-free number for Citi is:  800-430-5262, but I would only use that to get the physical address of where to send your RESPA letters.  What they show for California is a PO Box and you can't get a signature on CRR mail to a PO Box.

Citi Residential Lending
P.O. Box 11000
Santa Ana, CA 92711-1000

The Illinois office has a physical address:

Citi Residential Lending
1600 McConnor Parkway
Schaumburg, IL 60173

Make sure you put "ATTENTION - LOAN SERVICING - RESPA QWR" on the envelope.


Moose








Quote 0 0
Moose
Help - You had asked about Argent but now indicate it was Ameriquest?

If you dealt with an independent broker, it would have been an Argent-originated loan and until they got the pool filled AMC would have been the servicer. Once the loans were securitized the Trustee selects the servicer to act on their behalf, in your case, apparently HomeEq.

The foreclosure suit filing papers should identify who is acting on behalf of whom.  Typically, the local law firm acts on behalf of the servicer, who acts on behalf of the trustee who acts on behalf of whomever is the current holder of the notes - which at least based on what you've said about the foreclosure and what's on the county records, it appears for some reason is/was Argent Mortgage (now Citi).

Given the nature of some of the people involved at Argent, it is very possible your loan was completely botched up and could have been llegally constructed, and it's possible they simply haven't completed the recording process.

But, and again, this isn't legal advice, your first order of business is to figure out whether or not you can afford to stay there at the same time you're putting up a legal fight.  The next step after that is to find an attorney.

In some states, the foreclosure process can be alarmingly short.

Moose








Quote 0 0
Moose wrote:
Help - You had asked about Argent but now indicate it was Ameriquest?

If you dealt with an independent broker, it would have been an Argent-originated loan and until they got the pool filled AMC would have been the servicer. Once the loans were securitized the Trustee selects the servicer to act on their behalf, in your case, apparently HomeEq.
Argent did originate the loan,through a broker
Was serviced by Ameriquest Mortgage servicers then AMC Servicers than to current Homeq Servicers.
The foreclosure suit filing papers should identify who is acting on behalf of whom.  Summons states: BLA BLA BLA..as trustees for HomeEQ-thats it
Typically, the local law firm acts on behalf of the servicer, who acts on behalf of the trustee who acts on behalf of whomever is the current holder of the notes - which at least based on what you've said about the foreclosure and what's on the county records, it appears for some reason is/was Argent Mortgage (now Citi).
It doesn't state who the note holder is?
Other that Argent in the "mortgage" we originally signed. No assigns
Again my question is who is holding my note??? 

Given the nature of some of the people involved at Argent, it is very possible your loan was completely botched up and could have been llegally constructed, and it's possible they simply haven't completed the recording process.

But, and again, this isn't legal advice, your first order of business is to figure out whether or not you can afford to stay there at the same time you're putting up a legal fight.  The next step after that is to find an attorney.
We have found an attorney, but I am still trying to educate my self.
As I am no attorney, I woundered if they have to prove who hold the note?
Homeq doesn't? I understand they are working on behalf of someone.
In some states, the foreclosure process can be alarmingly short.

Moose
Thanks, I hope I am getting all this right, don't mean to sound stupid.
Help








Quote 0 0
Joe B
Help-


     I think Moose is asking the right questions and helping you in all the right ways. If you could do us a favor and write down exactly what the summons says; no blah blah please. If you could write it down here for us, we can tell you who THEY say the note holder is. Now, it doesn't mean that they ARE the note holder, but we can tell you they think it is. Based on your previous post, it looks like HomeEq, but if you could write it all down, we can nail it for you...
  
     Don't worry about asking lots of questions. This can all be very difficult, and we all are really trying to help. Well, at least most of us are trying to help. So, ask away, and we will do what we can to help. Then you can go to your attorney with some decent information!

JB
Quote 0 0
Sorry always afraid to share too much info.

Summons states:
U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee
c/o Homeq Servicing Corporation
Raleigh NC

Plaintiff

-vs-

John Doe

First count

1. Plaintiff says that it is the owner and holder of certain promissary note and mortgage deed, copies are attached.


The Original Mortgage attached states  Argent Mortgage Company LLC
Quote 0 0
Moose
OK, now we're getting somewhere.

HomeEq is the Servicer.
US Bank, NA is the Trustee.
Argent (now Citi) is still the noteholder.

Apparently, this is a relatively new loan if Argent made it and hasn't sold it yet. Sometimes they let loans "season" to improve their risk picture before the pool is sold. It appears they sold the servicing rights but not the note, and given that your county records still show Argent as the leinholder, that makes more sense.

Or, AMC was the primary or "master servicer" and when a default arrose it assigned the "special servicing" or "default servicing" to HomeEq.  If you ran into trouble while AMC was servicing the loan, that may very well be why it was switched.  It may have become too toxic to be sold.

And they've attached a copy of the note to the filing, at least that's what the complaint says.  If you still have a copy from your closing, you should compare the two carefully. If you don't have yours, you may get lucky if the title company who did the closing has kept one. 

This looks like a garden-variety foreclosure, but again, Argent was notorious for putting together self-destructing loans.

FYI, Ameriquest created AMC Mortgage Servicing as a seperate subsidiary. Word is they wanted to get into servicing loans from other lenders as well and those lenders would balk at having their customers seeing "Ameriquest" all over everything.

Hope some of all of this helps.

Moose



Quote 0 0
Well I spoke to the lady in Homeq again about all of this. They still want to look for their blank assignment still. LOL ...I told her they already had an opportunity to show their right to do this and haven't provided anything at all.
 
I really can't see what their holding off for....Either own up and settle quietly or they'll be a new trial lawyer to deal with I'm sure from my side....
 
Best of Luck!
 
Kathy
Quote 0 0
Moose

This is not a new loan it was originated in 2005
Quote 0 0
Help

Help wrote:
Moose

This is not a new loan it was originated in 2005

Also Citiresidential has no records of our mortgage

Quote 0 0
Help
Help wrote:

Help wrote:
Moose

This is not a new loan it was originated in 2005

Also Citiresidential has no records of our mortgage

Ooopppsss   Forgot to add that Ameriquest Mortgage 1 month, then Amc serviced our loan for only about 2months then transfered to Homeq, Homeq has had it for about 1 1/2 years

Quote 0 0
Here's an article I picked up from another site....Hits the nail on the head to what I've been telling you. Someone has to own. Whose reporting on your CBR? The article below references Deutsche Bank. However, same story! See I haven't lost my mind! Maybe ask HOMEQ to show assignment that was filed with county records since their giving you no answers as to who owns. Tell if can't provide they'll be the ones paying the penalty charges not you!


http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/arti..._Boyko/01.html

Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Tossed Out of Ohio Federal Court - "They Own Nothing!"
2007-11-12

by Moe Bedard and Aaron Krowne

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Eastern Ohio United States District Court, on October 31, 2007 dismissed 14 Deutsche Bank-filed foreclosures in a ruling based on lack of standing for not owning/holding the mortgage loan at the time the lawsuits were filed.

Judge Boyko issued an order requiring the Plaintiffs in a number of pending foreclosure cases to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating Plaintiff (Deutsche Bank) was the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage as of the date the Complaint was filed, or the court would enter a dismissal.

The Court's amended General Order No. 2006-16 requires Plaintiff (Deutsche Bank) to submit an affidavit along with the complaint, which identifies Plaintiff as the original mortgage holder, or as an assignee, trustee or successor-interest.

Apparently Deutsche bank submitted several affidavits that claim that Deutsche was in fact the owner of the mortgage note, but none of these affidavits mention assignment or trust or successor interest.

Thus, the Judge ruled that in every instance, these submissions create a "conflict" and they "do not satisfy" the burden of demonstrating at the time of filing the complaint, that Deutsche Bank was in fact the "legal" note holder.

While the decision is great for homeowners in distress (due to providing a new escape hatch out of foreclosure), it is a big blow to the cause of sorting out the high-finance side of the mortgage mess.

Jacksonville Area Legal Aid Attorney, April Charney, broke this news to us via email and made these comments in regards to the Ohio Federal Court ruling (emphasis ours):

This court order is what I have been saying in my cases. This is rampant fraud on every court in America or nonjudicial foreclosure fraud where the securitized trusts are filing foreclosures when they never own/hold the mortgage loan at the commencement of the foreclosure.

That means that the loans are clearly in default at the time of any eventual transfer of the ownership of the mortgage loans to the trusts. This means that the loans are being held by the originating lenders after the alleged "sale" to the trust despite what it says per the pooling and servicing agreements and despite what the securities laws require.

This also means that many securitized trusts don't really, legally own these bad loans.

In my cases, many of the trusts try to argue equitable assignment that predates the filing of the foreclosure, but a securitized trust cannot take an equitable assignment of a mortgage loan. It also means that the securitized trusts own nothing.

So with this decision, it appears confirmed that investors in the mortgage debacle may in fact own nothing---not even the bad loans they funded! It seems their right to the cash flow from the underlying properties does not extend to ownership of the properties themselves; thus clouding the recovery picture considerably.

Charney further remarked to us:

This opinion, once circulated and adopted by state and Federal courts across the country, will stop the progress of foreclosures, at first in judicial foreclosure states, across America, dead in their tracks.

We agree with additional remarks Charney made pointing out that this decision has major adverse implications for the prospects of an amicable financial workout for the various investor contingents in mortgage-backed securities (MBSes). Doubt is cast on where the full write-downs will eventually land, and this uncertainty can only be expected to further harm the market value of MBS and MBS-based synthetic securities, already in shambles purely due to rising underlying delinquencies. Investors in these securities might have assumed---wrongly, it turns out---that they actually owned some "real estate" in these deals.

To paraphrase Jim Cramer, "They own nothing!"
Quote 0 0
O -

Bronx politician issues hit list of subprime lenders

Quote 0 0
O -
Quote 0 0

i'm trying to find a phone number to deutsche bank national trust co tr. in west palm beach, fl 33416 so i can talk to them about a piece of property they have in california, thank you.  

Quote 0 0
I am in a real problem..  they lied to me.  they gave me interest variable instead of fix.  i signed for fix.  the bank sent me a note with a signature that looks like mine but is not mine.  this is fraud.  clearly.  now they dont want to help me.  they are responsible for this mess. 
Quote 0 0
I have a 1st and second mortgage.. My nightmare began  when Argent recorded two mortgages. They never correctly closed the First.. When I tried refinancing my primary mortgage I was told that their was an existing 3rd lean on my property!!
I lost my job early in 2009 was in the process of a short sale (for almost a year) but lost the buyer because I, with a "Lawyer" was unable to resolve the Argent open mortgage.. I'm currently working and trying to save my property from foreclosure but trying to resolve this open mortgage still remains a nightmare...
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...