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
Has anyone considered with the arguments concerning the securitization of mortgage loans and lenders having no right to foreclose due to not having the ability to link the homeowner with the debt and property. That the real reason for H.A.M.P. is to get your signature on something that re-validates the loan and paperwork?

Just a thought since so many people say they get an offer to TRIAL mod for 3 to 6 months the homeowners take the offer complete it as required and on time and then the lender forecloses anyway. Seems this was just a way for them to get you to admit the debt to me just wondering if it seems that way to others?

Quote 0 0
Bill

C A Butler wrote:
Has anyone considered with the arguments concerning the securitization of mortgage loans and lenders having no right to foreclose due to not having the ability to link the homeowner with the debt and property. That the real reason for H.A.M.P. is to get your signature on something that re-validates the loan and paperwork?

Just a thought since so many people say they get an offer to TRIAL mod for 3 to 6 months the homeowners take the offer complete it as required and on time and then the lender forecloses anyway. Seems this was just a way for them to get you to admit the debt to me just wondering if it seems that way to others?

I don't think it is a WAY to validate the debt, it was intended to help homeowners, but I think it CAN have that effect.  I think it depends on your situation.  Personally, I feel it is difficult to DENY the debt.  You signed a note and purchased a home.  I'm not sure ANY judge will buy that you aren't obligated to the debt.  While the information you give for a H.A.M.P. modification may confirm there is a debt, it does not PROVE who OWNS the debt or HOW MUCH IS OWED which is always important to attack. 

The H.A.M.P. may even intensify the question of who owns the debt when even receiving government money, the servicers seem reluctant to modify any loans even with qualified applicants.  The servicers constantly lose paperwork and attempt to find ANY reason to deny a modification.  This would see to be the actions of an entity that CANNOT modify your loan and is just going through the motions. 

I would not DISCOURAGE ANYONE from attempting to get a H.A.M.P. modification because it can often DELAY foreclosure proceedings, buying valuable time to find an attorney or prepare a proper defense.  I think when people apply for this modification they should be aware of the low success rate.  A quick google search will bring up pages of people complaining of how H.A.M.P. did not work.   

I would CAUTION people to carefully consider what information you are volunteering to the Plaintiff in a foreclosure case.  It could come back in a negative way. 

I'm not an attorney, and this is not legal advice.



Quote 0 0
Already There
Well I have a different take on HAMP...

All of this is IMO.. 

As a direct consequence to the bursting real estate bubble and the severe downturn in economic activity, The mortgage industry was faced with a huge crisis somewhere around 10 million defaulted loans, all ready to be foreclosed upon. But the system could not handle so mamy foreclosures at one time.

So the Banksters lobbied Congress for HAMP..,, As a program to allow the foreclosures to happen over a 2-3 year period. In the meantime the Banksters were able to lower payments in the mod trial period (cash they would have otherwise never seen) and the Politicians were able to tell the American people that they "cared"....

This is why virtually no one receives a modification and has served its intended purpose in spreading out the massive amount of foreclosers over a number of years.

Like I said all imo
Quote 0 0
    I have a very dark view of HAMP. I agree with the first opinion that it is just a trick by the servicers to get a person to affirm a debt that the servicer can not prove. This is especially true when it was a MERS mortgage to start with.
    The servicer does not own the loan. The original investors were paid off by TARP or FED quantitative easing funds. (Look at the spike in M1 by the Fed). The servicers are "pretender lenders" who can not prove their foreclosure case without fabricating documents. That is why the Notes are
counterfeit, the assignments are bogus, the whole action is fraudulent, very
often using a fraudulent trust that doesn't exist.
     The fact is the "originators" sold the Note multiple times to different investor Note pools. When the investors discovered they were robbed, they
complained loudly to the US government and the FED. These two made them
whole by borrowing from the future and simply creating enough money out of
thin air to pay off the pension,insurance and money market funds that were
defrauded. THE INVESTORS WERE PAID. THE DEBT NO LONGER EXISTS! (except to the US govt and the FED)
     The servicers are banking every dollar they take in, even though they do
not own the loan. They are not sending it on to the "already paid in full"
investors. Every time they foreclose, it is a free house for them if they can
fool the judge with phony paper work, which is 95% of the time.
     This is why I urge everyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see, and
who is not yet in foreclosure, DO A QUIET TITLE ACTION AGAINST THE SERVICER, MERS AND THE "DEAD ORIGINATOR OF THE LOAN. Force them to prove they are owed the money. After you win, sue the servicer to get back
all the money they took from you under false pretenses.
Quote 0 0
Moose
Mike H. is confused when he claims the investors were paid and the debt no longer exists.

The investors bought bonds on the market, expecting a return on their investment. They were/are paid in cash flows from borrower payments.

Servicers take advantage of borrowers every day. That does not mean the debt doesn't exist it means borrowers have to be vigilant.

Moose


Quote 0 0
What happened in my case is that BAC gave my information over to REDC Default Solutions out of plano, I recieved a
"Validation Notice" (they are a debt collector) of course it gives me 30 days to dispute the debt.  Could this be another way to "get ya" ? who knows but we all know what I did : )  
Quote 0 0
Anon
Moose

I totally agree that there is a valid debt by homeowners, they did sign a note, whether fraudulent or not, but there was also insurance products that were purchased to insure the trust against default.  When are these claims made. 

MBIA is suing everybody because they were tricked into insuring junk and now want there money back, they have paid out millions if not billions on these claims. 

So my question is, if the trust was made whole and the certificate holders, where paid off albeit at a loss, Does that then make the homeowners note unsecured, if the trust that it was in doesn't have any more certificate holders?  Are there debt buyers out there that are paying pennies on the dollar for a note that was somewhat paid off?
Quote 0 0
Bill
As posted before, this is a common theme on the website Living Lies.  Mr. Garfield does NOT take cases or litigate foreclosuresHE does seem to offer his services as an expert witness yet never posts cases where his testimony has helped in a case.  Mr. Garfield often makes the assertion that the investors were paid by insurance and therefore this payment is a third party payment on the borrowers debt.  A payment on the borrowers debt would relieve the borrower of the obligation.

Mr. Garfield ALSO claims that insurance payments and payments per the PSA by the servicer would count as payments by the borrower therefore the borrower is not in default because the payments are being made "by someone" an "unknown party". 

OF COURSE MR. GARFIELD CANNOT POST ANY CASE LAW, OR EVEN A DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS THAT ACCEPT THESE WING-NUT THEORIES

Mike H, who it appears is always "HELPING" others in foreclosure and never has litigated a foreclosure case quickly embraces these THEORIES and passes them on in posts as a solid defense strategy.   Just like Mr. Garfiled, Mike H knows of people, knows of cases, is working with people, is working on cases, but is NEVER able to post a case that supports his THEORIES, he just regurgitates what he reads off websites. 

Anyone considering DEFENDING THEIR HOME should RUN from any of these THEORIES. 







Quote 0 0
George Burns
Let us  return to the OP by C.A. Butler.

I have not personally read the documents but I have been told by 1 homeowner and by 1 Realtor whose client/friend, who both used HAMP, that it  was not a modification of the actual existing loan, but a new loan replacing the old loan.

If that really is the case, then it seems logical that HAMP is really just a way of replacing the old questionable note and assignments etc with new clean paper that is foreclosable.
Quote 0 0
Moose
George Burns wrote:
Let us  return to the OP by C.A. Butler.
...
If that really is the case, then it seems logical that HAMP is really just a way of replacing the old questionable note and assignments etc with new clean paper that is foreclosable.


Bingo - you'll also find the borrower no longer has any right to litigate against the servicer.
Quote 0 0
Bill

I have read the same thing.  IF you accept the final modification you will be required to WAIVE all of your rights.  This would not seem to be a good idea unless you received VERY favorable terms.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
While not entirely on point, I think this is related and gives food for thought:

http://www.propublica.org/article/even-after-mortgage-modification-shoddy-bank-practices-continue-to-hurt-hom?utm_source=socmed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=tweet6&utm_campaign=loan%2Bmods
Quote 0 0
TheEquitableOne
Anon,

You said: "I totally agree that there is a valid debt by homeowners, they did sign a note, whether fraudulent or not"

That doesn't really hold water.

If there were fraud involved that could void the contract.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...