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
Nye Lavalle
John Rao is a good colleague from NCLC and an "expert" in RESPA and other related predatory lending and servicing schemes. Here is a post sent to me that will be helpful to many... Remember, one of things MY expert in 1996 told me was that EMC's and bank's accounting systems could not properly account for a variety of reasons...

Reining in Home Mortgage Creditors
posted by John Rao
Thanks to everyone at Credit Slips for this opportunity to share a few thoughts about consumer credit and bankruptcy. True to my earlier promise, in my last post I want to come back to the topic of proposed legislative changes to chapter 13.

Four bills are pending in Congress which seek in different ways to limit the special protection mortgage lenders have in chapter 13 cases, so that home mortgages may be modified like other secured debts. A comparison of the four bills prepared by Mark Scarberry is available on the ABI website. An earlier post by Bob Lawless refers to a position paper, or “call to action”, on the subject prepared by four consumer organizations (National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, National Consumer Law Center, Center for Responsible Lending and Consumer Federation of America). My testimony at a House subcommittee hearing last month (and the testimony of Eric Stein of CRL) discusses reasons why the law should be changed. In this post, however, I put forth a different justification for doing away with the anti-modification provision in section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

For those not familiar with chapter 13 bankruptcy, this may seem hard to believe. Although the right to cure defaults on loans has been part of the Bankruptcy Code since 1978, mortgage creditors have to this day still not developed the ability to apply payments during a chapter 13 case in a manner which the law requires. Despite incredible advances in software and payment automation systems over the past few decades, mortgage creditors still use a manual accounting system (or more accurately a manual override of their normal system) to figure out how payments should be applied in chapter 13 cases.

Bankruptcy attorneys, trustees, and judges have known this for years but only recently have I come across a mortgage servicer willing to admit this in a court case. The mortgage servicer in In re Nosek, 363 B.R. 643 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2007) came up with a variety of excuses for failing to properly apply the homeowner’s payments (often by diverting payments to a suspense account). Not buying any of these excuses, the bankruptcy court said: “Even if Ameriquest must manually account for these payments . . . Ameriquest is not excused from doing it right, even if it is an administrative burden. ... Ameriquest is simply unable or unwilling to conform its accounting practices to what is required under the Bankruptcy Code, something this Court can encourage by assessing punitive damages under Section 105(a).” The court awarded $250,000 in emotional distress damages to the debtor and $500,000 in punitive damages against Ameriquest.

In its opening brief on appeal, Ameriquest described how most national mortgage servicers use a loan servicing program called Mortgage Servicing Platform (MSP), also known as Fidelity National Information System. This MSP system, Ameriquest stated in its brief, is not designed to deal with chapter 13 bankruptcy. And finally the admission we’ve been waiting for: “At present, no computer program exists that is capable of accounting for payments by Chapter 13 borrowers under the bifurcation scheme that is usually used in most Chapter 13 cases.”

What is the “bifurcation scheme” Ameriquest was referring to? The effect of a cure in a chapter 13 case is to nullify all consequences of the prebankruptcy default. This means that once the debtor’s chapter 13 plan is confirmed in a case involving a long-term mortgage, the debtor's ongoing regular mortgage payments should be applied from the petition date based on the mortgage contract terms and original loan amortization as if no default exists. All prebankruptcy arrears are paid separately under the plan as a part of the mortgage servicer's allowed claim. The problem is that mortgage creditors continue to treat timely payments received after the bankruptcy is filed as if they were late. This occurs based on the industry practice outside of bankruptcy of crediting payments received to the oldest outstanding installment due.

What this means for consumer debtors is additional costs in the form of unauthorized fees. Servicers cannot possibly override manually their automated payment processing systems every month for the three to five years of the plan. As payments are deemed late or insufficient, these systems automatically treat payments as unapplied and divert them to suspense accounts, impose late fees and additional interest charges, and order property inspections and other default related services the cost of which is charged to the borrower. Legal fees are imposed on debtors for groundless stay relief motions, typically without disclosure to the debtor or court approval. This breakdown of the servicing system also results in debtors often not being notified of interest rate adjustments on adjustable rate mortgages or payment changes on escrow accounts. It is not uncommon for debtors who successfully complete their chapter 13 plans to receive a bill for thousands of dollars of previously undisclosed improper fees once they emerge from bankruptcy. For example in In re Dominique, 368 B.R. 913 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 2007), the servicer failed to send escrow statements during the chapter 13 plan and just before plan completion, provided debtors with an escrow account review showing that a $6,397 escrow deficiency was owed. See also In re Jones, 366 B.R. 584 (Bankr.E.D.La. 2007).

To make matters worse, a recent study by Katie Porter and Tara Twomey, which I am sure we will hear much more about later from Katie, raises serious questions about the accuracy of claims filed by mortgage creditors. The study finds that some mortgage creditors fail to satisfy the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 3001 by not including evidence of security interest perfection or an itemization of fees with proofs of claims.

Why is it that nearly 30 years after the Bankruptcy Code was enacted has the mortgage industry refused to demand that the MSP system (or any other system) be adapted to chapter 13? How difficult can that possibly be? Of course a system could be developed if the industry wanted it done. My theory is that this arrogance is caused by the special protection from modification home mortgage lenders have under the Code. These creditors have attempted to transform this provision into a blanket grant of immunity. Attorneys who attempt to challenge servicer practices know that the first defense raised by mortgage creditors is that the Code allows them to do whatever they like because their contract rights cannot be modified. For example, when the debtors in In re Padilla, 2007 WL 2264714 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Aug 03, 2007) contended the mortgage creditor who had sent them a bill for fees after they completed their plans had never disclosed the fees during bankruptcy, the creditor argued that requiring it to file fee applications under Bankruptcy Rule 2016 like other creditors would be an improper modification of its mortgage. The creditor in In re Sanchez, 372 B.R. 289 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Jul 24, 2007) made the same argument that “§ 1322(b)(2) renders the contractual language sacrosanct, and neither § 506(b) and Rule 2016 may be given effect.”

Recently in case after case in which consumer debtors have attempted to force compliance through plan provisions specifying payment application so as to obtain relief after discharge under new section 524(i), mortgage creditors have objected claiming that that plan provisions modify their rights under section 1322(b)(2). For example, see In re Collins, 2007 WL 2116416 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. Jul 19, 2007).

It is time to take away this “super-creditor” status from home mortgage creditors. Maybe then they will finally fix this enormous problem.
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Thanks for the post Nye.

     For those of you that may have use of this information, our friends at Fairbanks use the same payment processing system. I suspect that this post, and perhaps a call or two by your attorney may provide some useful information in your cases!!!

     I am sure there are other servicers as well, but I am keenly focused on hunting OWL!!

Good luck!

JB


Quote 0 0

Nye, I understand that many of these accounts were being held in Foreclosure Lawyers Accounts at their firms, we have been looking into this, and not being held in by the servicer.

Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Thanks for the post Nye, some interesting stuff here.

When I say the following know that I'm not against you or this guy.


Despite incredible advances in software and payment automation systems over the past few decades, mortgage creditors still use a manual accounting system (or more accurately a manual override of their normal system) to figure out how payments should be applied in chapter 13 cases.

They don't need to have a special program for Bankruptcy plans. THIS IS A BUNCH OF MALARKEY!
Could they invent one if they chose to do so? Yes they could! BUT AGAIN, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A "SEPARATE" program to exist!!!!!
This is a crock. Any computer program can be over ridden with "Special Security Clearance"

Why would Special Security Clearance be needed? Because you don't want any Tom, Dick, or Harry going into a computer program, and changing things around without knowing what they are doing.

Does "SPECIAL SECURITY CLEARANCE" exist? YES IT DOES!
Does it exist for all computer programs? YES IT DOES!

Now some further questions:

Does EVERY SERVICER have their own BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT? I don't know. IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER PLEASE CHIME IN AND INFORM US, IF YOU KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. THIS WOULD BE INTERESTING TO READ.

EMC HAS A BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT.
EMC'S BANKRUPTCY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE'S have "SPECIAL SECURITY CLEARANCE" to go into the system and override something if they so choose to do so.

When the Mortgage Servicers "claim" they CANNOT MANUALLY OVER-RIDE THEIR SYSTEM, they are LYING!

Each and every computer program has over-riding capacity, and capability!
and this is determined through Security Clearance.

If the SERVICERS wanted to get the payments right, they could. But it is not profitable for them to apply the payments correctly.

The below is a quote from the article:
"Servicers cannot possibly override manually their automated payment processing systems every month for the three to five years of the plan."

Oh yes they can!
1. Special Security Clearance would allow them to go into the system the date that the Bankruptcy plan is "Approved" by the courts.
and
2. Take the Arearages, and defaults, and
3. Apply them to a SUSPENSE ACCOUNT ----- WITH NEW MEANING.
New terms of suspense account...... A place where the amount owed to the Servicer for the borrowers failure to pay. The total would be placed into the Suspense Account.
4. Each month a payment is sent to the SERVICE by the Chpt. 13 Trustee,
5. The payment would then be applied to the New Suspense Account.
6. Bringing down the total amount that the borrower owed on Suspense.
7. Until ALL past due, (arearages, defaults) have been paid for IN FULL.
8. By the Trustee.
9. A letter From the SERVICE STATING that ALL PAYMENTS for the default have been APPLIED,
and
10. THE borrowers account is now SHOWING CURRENT.

Now refer back to #1 and know that this would then show the borrower's loan as current. Alleviating the need for BPO's, Appraisals, Inspections, Corporate Advance Fees, misc. fees, and the such!
Okay off of my knowledge of HOW the payments of a Chpt. 13 could be applied correctly.

onto, this speculation.

We know the SUSPENSE ACCOUNT EXISTS, Does anyone here (besides me) now think that the above was the Original Reason the SUSPENSE account was created? I think it was, but I think that the Servicers realized it was more profitable for them to use it negatively, ~vs~ truthfully. So that's what they decided to use it for.



~~~~DON'T LET THEM LIE TO THE COURTS, THEY CAN FOR FACT, APPLY THE PAYMENTS APPROPRIATELY IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.

THIS IS A CROCK OF CRAP, AND THEY KNOW IT!
Quote 0 0
Joe B
     ahhh yes, and now we can show that they lied.

     Think about it... if they say they can't override the system and then they do, what does that mean? If they say they can override the system, but didn't what does THAT mean?

     So, you see, they have painted themselves right square into a corner.

     Incidentally, if you have ever had a late fee reversed, they overrode the system manually in order to reverse that fee. Of course they can override the software, it's just inconvenient, and not to say less profitable!

     So, bottom line is that the servicers can apply all of our payments properly. However, for various reasons they do not; ranging from incompetence to fraud. So now we know what they think the system can and cannot do. So line up your expert witnesses to refute or support it.

     They may have helped us more than they think...

JB
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
NOPE, has to be manually done and VERY Expensive. Even without bankruptcy, my family and I spent more money on auditors and accountants (over $100,000) more than note and they NEVER reconciled account. It was ME spending over 3 years to look at 20 different loan histories and docs who finally figured the data out which became the genetic map and blueprint for ALL mortgage servicing abuse and what led me to coin the term predatory servicing.

I reconciled all the docs to the penny and figured out ALL of the scams and schemes. Search for PredBear report on this site or on net.

These are complex financial engineering schemes and if you think some EMC flunky is going to be able to figure out, let alone their accountants and lawyers, you are greatly mistaken. I can tell you how many judges lately have been coming up with same conclusion.

However, there are THREE VERY IMPORTANT LESSONS I have been preaching for YEARS!!!!

LESSON #1

They DON"T OWN the note and have no standing and ALL of the rightful parties to the fraud are NOT before the court. The pleadings are ALL bolierplate and you must ANSWER each allegation by denying them and providing the bais for denial. We are doing so now in many cases.

Next, the assignments are after the fact and many times forgeries and do not show who owns anything. Even if you get the actual note, the hundreds of notes we have inspected contradict the records and assignments and what has been recorded in the county records, with or without the MERS scams.

Next, NEVER BEIEVE ANYTHING they testify to or say. You must get proper documents and discovery [usually about 5000 to 10,000 pages minimum] ad have someone who not only reviews EACH PAGE and line, but understands what they mean and say. THIS IS WHY I ASK MANY OF YOU FOR DOCS AND SOME OF YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN.

This is where you find hidden investors, others advancing payments, pool mortgage insurance and the like. This is what I do for dozens of lawyers around the nation. YOU CAN NEVER BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY AND MUST PROVE THEM WRONG WITH "THEIR" DOCUMENTS!

LESSON # 2

NEVER BELIEVE THE NUMBERS. You must audit and reconcile and do very detailed depos and MAKE them prove every nickel and dime and show support for every charge and penny! They NEVER get it right and have many accrual buckets in their MSP systems. You need someone like Marie to decipher or someone that knows forensic accounting.

LESSON # 3

When caught, they will always claim MISTAKES. You must have witnesses and stat analyses done to show it is not random error, but intentional financial engineering schemes they were warned of years ago. WHen caught with hand in cookie jar, they will always say is was a bag of gummie bears. No sense, no logic, just plain ol perjury and fraud!!!

If you don't follow these 3 basic rules, YOU WILL LOSE! I GUARANTEE IT. Ask Jack Wright what I told his lawyer con and my own lawyer cons who did not listen to us. i was right, our lawyers were wrong, but then again, they were working against us, not for us!




Quote 0 0
Harry
Everyone----

Here is the document that Nye was referring to --link at the bottom because it is too big to post. Incidentally, the Pew's are his adoptive parents from what I understand. Therefore, he has an emotional as well as financial tie to this issue as some of you may have surmised from his posts. Even if I have been misinformed about the relationship with the Pews, you can tell from Nye's posts that he has a fair amount of experience in this area, and from the document, spent $250K in fighting it!

From Nye's document: "However, due to the fraudulent and predatory actions of EMC, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and SOA, it has taken 10 years, over 8000 hours and the expenditure of over $250,000.00 to fully document and prove the allegations made in this report."
 
For those of you keeping score at home, this represents 10 years spending 20 hours per week every week to accumulate 8000 hours--or put another way, every second from January 1st to November 30th for an entire year! Can ANYONE on the planet be more informed on this issue than Nye? I would bet a guy with this much information could write a book on what he has learned. We should all be fortunate enough to marshal the types or resources Nye has had at his disposal, and I think we should all be grateful that he is so willing to share his lessons.

However, I think Nye may have misinterpreted an important point on the ability to manually override the "system." There is NO doubt, as Joe and beenawhile state, that the system can be overwritten. Yes, it may be manual, and it may be time consuming and expensive----so what. This is THEIR problem, not ours!! It CAN be done---they choose not to!!! If it was too expensive to do manually, then write some new code...after all how expensive could this be? 

http://www.msfraud.org/Articles/predbear.pdf

Semper Gumby!!

Harry
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
The Pews are my mom and dad. My natural mom and adoptive dad I have known since I was 14.

The system has a backout door, but cant be programmed to account for different types. Would be too complex and costly and not give the servicers an out. The Same company that creates 70% of the system, Fidelity, also handles back office and private label as well as default servicing.

So, you may think you are getting a letter or complaint from EMC or are dealing with an EMC employee, but in reality its a Fidelity employee posing for EMC silently. Also, look at EMC's website for borrowers and read copyright notice, it's not EMC!
Quote 0 0
Sorry, but I refuse to buy their crappy explanation why they cannot keep an accurate record. 

It is easier for them to hide the fraud when they hide behind the excuse no
technology exists.

What incentive does a servicer have to keep an accurate record?
Nothing, since their MONEY is collected on fees and services outside
the normal collection of principal and interest.

This is about bankruptcy and the aftermath.

The same thing happens to borrowers who are not behind on their payments.

It happened to me nearly every month.

The last few months I was making payments with the $1,000.00 extra principal payments, I finally got help from a Fairbanks EVP sent over
from PMI.

He had to manually change the record to correct the misapplications.

Was this a normal practice?  I'd have to say no since the first time
he did it, the computer changed it back to show inaccurate application of my funds.  Boy, was he p.o'd when I informed him the record was again
inaccurate.

My experience with Fairbanks and their computer program was that it was programmed to make mistakes and I believe it was deliberate.

Why is it okay to have this kind of program.  If a customer service rep says
they fixed the record, that the computer wipes out that change and puts you right back to being in a default situation?

Why are servicers getting away with this?  Want to try and run a business
yourself this way?  You'd be headed off to jail.

At the very least they are not qualified to accept repayment of mortgages.
If they cannot provide an accurate accounting of your payments v what you owe, their case should be dismissed with prejudice and the servicer should receive a take nothing verdict. 

I'd keep the punishment simple.  $1,000,000.00 punitive and an injunction
to preclude the servicer from collecting  mortgage payments.

I bet they'd get a programmer hired pronto to fix the computer program.
Then they'd have to prove it to the judge they have fixed the problem
before he lifts the order against them.

They'd either fix it or go out of business.

Hopefully, somebody is going to make it clear, this is standard operating
procedure against all borrowers and not just a bankruptcy issue.

It seems to me that the bankruptcy judges are more, what is the word I am looking for?  Proficient?  Don't have a lot of tolerance for issues that cannot be proven and misconduct seems to  make them grouchy.

Please don't accept the B.S. statement that the technology does not exist.

If I can figure out my own payment record by just using any old amortization schedule, then they ought to be light years ahead of me since that is
what their business is all about.  Or is it?  Just a fee driven foundation of their profit center?

To Hell with that $5.00 or $10.00 monthly fee they collect for processing the loan payments properly is the right answer.  Gimme the fees, lots of fees
that the servicer gets to keep and not pay the noteholder one penny of it.

Dee

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Verrrry interesting. Too expensive? Impossible to do?

Is it only in the mortgage servicing sector that these problems exist? How do credit card and auto financing places deal with BK contingencies? Banks deal with BK in their computers all the time. I am with Dee; I refuse to believe that the technology does not exist! I believe the WILL to USE the technology is what is lacking!

Could it just be that it is more lucrative to take a home as compared to a used automobile or the flat panel TV and computer financed on the credit cards?

Quote 0 0
anon2
I am with you Dee. There is absolutely no excuse in hell why there should be accounting "errors". This is what they do right? Except when the money was poring in they didn't have to account for it.

Isn't this reminiscent of a story from American Gangster or a drug dealer or out of Vegas when they were making so much money they had to weigh it because it took too long to count.Who cares if they were out a hundred grand or two. Oh wait, these guys are American Gangsters. Coming soon another program starring Angelo Mozilo and Larry Litton. Making history with the likes of Frank Lucas, Meyer Lansky and Al Capone.
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Folks-

     In my opinion, we are all missing the more important point. If they say they cannot (or will not) properly account for payments, how can anyone trust that the rest of their "system" works properly?

     Come on, can't you see the cross examination: "Mr. Servicer, you say your system cannot properly post BK payments. What other limitations does your system have? How do you know? Have you reviewed the software code yourself? Have you reviewed Mr. and Mrs. Serviceabusevictims account to ensure that there are no other "system" limitations on their account? blah blah blah....

     This is almost a gold mine!! At least in my opinion. My lawyer and I are gonna have some fun...

JB
Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
EVERY computer program CAN be over written.

see post #4.

Someone said it was too time consuming for them to go through every account, monthly to apply the payment where it should go.

OK, I understand that. but understand this.

if they weren't creating defaults, & putting Escrow on the accounts, & all the other fees.

they wouldn't be getting as many phone calls, faxes, or QWR's that they needed to spend their time addressing.

If they applied the payments properly, (sure it might take them on average 5 minutes longer) then great! The spent their time well.

but if they don't apply the payment properly this month, next month they will spend anywhere from 30 minutes - 2 hours on the phone dealing with the borrower telling them they are wrong.

Logically, which is the most time effective? The payment's applied appropriately, in the matter of a 5 minute manual over-ride is much more time effective than the phone calls they have to deal with afterwards.


~~~~~SO, WE NOW KNOW THAT
1. TIME IS NOT AN ISSUE.
2. WE NOW KNOW, THEY CAN OVER-RIDE THE SYSTEM IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
3. WE NOW KNOW, THEY CHOOSE NOT TO OVER- RIDE THE SYSTEM,
AND
4. IF THEY CLAIM THEY CAN OVER-RIDE THE SYSTEM, BUT DON'T BECAUSE
5. IT IS TOO MUCH TROUBLE, BECAUSE IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME.
THEN WE KNOW
6. THEY ARE LYING OUT THEIR AZZEZ.


What would applying the payments correctly resolve?
1. Their employees, spending less time on the phone.
2. Their employees, spending less time getting, faxes, and addressing them.
3. Their employees spending less time on QWR's.
GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY, can you imagine how much money they would save here in man hours alone? If they just did it properly?
4. With less man hours needed, to handle all of the complaints, they wouldn't need so many employees. Since the ones they have would be more productive.
5. Which gives another added bonus to this, for it would be how much in savings per year? for having a smaller brood/inventory of employees.

That's two ways that they would have saved HUGELY so far, ( by applying payments appropriately.)

6. They wouldn't have to pay out bonuses to their representatives as "HUSH MONEY" and good job pats on the back.

They would save money here also.

7. Their entire offices would run much smoother.
8. More efficiently
9. Less stress on the employees which means
10. Less Health Insurance Costs.
The list goes on and on....... feel free to add to the benefits of this list, and as to why they SHOULD apply the payments appropriately.

But truth is we all know they like the fraud, they like the stress, and they enjoy the evil lives they are living, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this in the first place.

BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE THE CHOICE TO OVER-RIDE THE PROGRAMS, THEY JUST CHOSE NOT TO. SO THEY CAN ALL ROT IN HELL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

read post #4 above.
~beenawhile


Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
I whole heartedly agree with you Joe, and that was one of my thoughts as well. Well said.
They CAN NOW HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE with this

Joe B wrote:
Folks-

     In my opinion, we are all missing the more important point. If they say they cannot (or will not) properly account for payments, how can anyone trust that the rest of their "system" works properly?

     Come on, can't you see the cross examination: "Mr. Servicer, you say your system cannot properly post BK payments. What other limitations does your system have? How do you know? Have you reviewed the software code yourself? Have you reviewed Mr. and Mrs. Serviceabusevictims account to ensure that there are no other "system" limitations on their account? blah blah blah....

     This is almost a gold mine!! At least in my opinion. My lawyer and I are gonna have some fun...

JB

Quote 0 0
anon2
Everyone knows that the accounting is fixed. That is the whole point. They didn't care. This is why they hired high school dropouts. Oh wait I am insulting high school dropouts. They were making so much money selling the mortgage backed securities whatever they were making in the servicing end was peanuts compared to that. Mozilo dropped $326,000,000.00 in stock options this year alone. Do you think he cared about the  peanuts he was making on the servicing fees.

I know, you know, everyone knows. I am three years along now. When I pointed out that their crazy postings didn't make sense (cents) get the pun? people told me I was nuts. Banks don't make mistakes or rip off customers on purpose do they?

They don't care. They really don't care. Its called collateral damage. Just like the big time drug dealers don't care how many people they kill. Oh wait I am insulting drug dealers by comparing them to big mortgage.

Of course its negligence.
Quote 0 0

They should be forced to use a different program that would be easier to correct. It is well known that their programs automatically add a lot of bogus fees. Their should be regulations on the programs that they use.

Quote 0 0
Joe B
T and T-

     I agree with you, but I have a quick question...

     You say it is well known about their system and bogus fees... etc. Do you have anything that you can provide concerning this? In other words, is their case law that demonstrates that this system does XYZ improperly? Do you or anyone have sworn testimony, etc?

     I am not questioning you or the veracity of your statement. Rather, I am looking for something to help my own case. If I can demonstrate that they are relying on a "known" faulty or deficient system, then I think that helps!

Thanks!!

JB
Quote 0 0
When I was playing, "where'd they hide the mortgage payment this month,

I got really p.o.d when I finally accepted their conduct was a deliberate
plan against me, guiding me towards forclosure.

I'm pretty sure I have a letter from a Executive Vice President thanking me for pointing out the problem with the computer program.

There is another letter I have from a VP of Fairbanks that they are not
set up to handle on time payments and extra principal payments.  I am
one of two people that make extra principal.

More BS there are plenty of people paying extra principal, they are just
not being given credit for it.  It  is used to pay phony fees.

When I sent my checks for more than the principal and interest due for that
month, the COMPUTER DECIDES, how the borrower would most likely would chose to have their payment attributed.

How do you like that for an answer?.  The computer decides?  Most likely
how the borrower wants it attributed.  Her nose ought to be about six feet long with that lie.

Yes, please put my payment in a suspense account.  Assess a late fee, steal my equity, cancel my insurance and put another policy into place that
costs 6 or 7 times more than the 1 I have.

They are supposedly in business to collect borrowers payments, properly
attribute them and get paid their piddly $5.00 fee from the noteholder.

Forclosure was never meant to be a way to steal your house but that is exactly what is happening.

Dee





Quote 0 0

FYI, CreditSlips.org is, I believe, owned by Prof. Katherine Porter and has some rather significant contributors including Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren.

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Oh, this is nuts! Let's just say it: THE SERVICERS ARE LYING THEIR BUTTS OFF!

I have a truck loan through a real bank doing it's own "servicing". It is set up like any loan; I agreed to send X amount of dollars every month for X number of months until the loan was satisfied. Just like a mortgage....

After the first few months of sending the regular payments I began sending the awful, horrible, dreaded "EXTRA PRINCIPAL PAYMENT"...OMG! What did the bank do? Did I melt their systems down? Did they have to call to see what I was doing by sending extra money ? Did they screw up the whole account and then try to take the truck?

Nothing happened!! I got statements that show I sent X dollars. There is a line that says "principal" and one that says "interest" so I know the split. AND I now get statements that show $0.00 due every month. I continue to send them money anyway. They continue to apply the funds and send me a statement showing the P/I split with zero dollars due for that month.

For the love of God...it is possible to do this. It has always been possible to handle this situation. It is not rocket science for pity's sake. Every bank does it correctly; only servicers have problems.

We have addressed this throughly in the past at this very site. The servicers use proprietary computer platforms that they built or had built themselves. They were deliberately set up this way as an easy portal for foreclosure. Anything out of the norm (such as Dee's extra principal payment) sends them and the monkeys running them into a doomsday scenario. They screech about the sky falling and then try to steal the money and the house. The more money you send, the more the computers and the monkeys screeches for foreclosure.

It is the servicing platforms and the ignorant fools running them that cause much of the problem. The software to apply payments correctly is out there; the servicers CHOOSE NOT to use it.

Look, Ocwen built its own servicing platform and is now peddling it to other companies (God help us!).

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 10, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSECN) announced today that Tavernier Capital Partners, LLC ("Tavernier") has chosen REALSynergy(r), Ocwen's commercial and multi-family loan servicing platform, to support its growing commercial loan portfolio.


According to Leland Harty, Chief Operating Officer of Tavernier, a system with the capability to ". . . efficiently manage the servicing requirements of Tavernier's current $1.6B commercial and multi-family loan portfolio while permitting Tavernier to handle future portfolio growth" were key factors in their decision to select REALSynergy(r).

REALSynergy is an advanced, Windows-based full-service commercial and multifamily loan servicing system. "REALSynergy's flexibility, end-to-end servicing capabilities and 24/7 web-based access to key loan data for Investors and Borrowers were must haves for Tavernier in its selection process to find the best possible technology solution to manage its portfolio. We're proud to have Tavernier as a new client and we look forward to supporting them as they continue to grow," commented Debbie Winslow, Director of REALSynergy.

I bet you can Google "[Insert servicers name here] mortgage servicing platform" and find several of these platforms built by different servicers. And they will all contain the same flaw; an inability to deal with anything out of the norm. A late payment, BK, extra principal all will send them into a tailspin.

I have said, still say, and always will say that the servicing platform flaw was deliberate since others have managed to "get it right the first time".

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...