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
Ed Cage

josefina wrote:

“Well I need to refinance my home - EMC carries 20% of my loan- They have denied subordinating themselves to second place which they are any way - this hinders me from getting my house refinance - which means that EMC instead of helping me is forcing me to default on my responsibility - I do not understand their logic !!!”

 

Dear josefina,

(Talking like I know more than I do): Hopefully you already knew if you have two separate entities holding your note and one does not want to cooperate on your particular plans to re-finance they can stall your refinance plan and force some unfriendly terms on you.

1) Don't take the position that "EMC is forcing you to default." This position will fall on deaf ears with virtually any 3rd party decision maker.

2) You MUST keep your payments CURRENT no matter what!

3) Good News I think: EMC is a servicer. I am unaware of them having a track record in the note holder/owner position. If anyone knows different, I'd like to hear about it. Assuming they are not really a 20% note owner on your loan, that might improve your position.

4) Bad News I know: Anytime EMC is involved you can expect criminal fraud.. That's why EMC is essentially defunct: Criminal fraud and complete financial collapse due to litigation (Including a half dozen class actions) which will make Ameriquest's $400 million dollar judgment(s) look like a bar tip.

5) Since EMC is already being run by Bear Stearns the picture is increasingly bleak. Bear is the ultimate *Satan* of mortgage fraud.

 

Josefina, please do not default completely.. That's what EMC/Bear wants you to do. On the other hand virtually all the servicers that I know of recklessly throw around the word "default." It's an extremely serious word but it is overworked.

 

The thing that bothers me the most about your post is your explanation that “EMC is forcing you to default.”  Even though I honestly believe EMC is the second biggest mortgage fraud perpetrator, never think for a moment that sort of strategy will get you anywhere. Keep your payments current as you try to unravel this.  I will seek more competent advice than I am qualified to render myself.  

 

Ed Cage

972-596-4363

ecagetx@tx.rr.com

Quote 0 0
H. Gosh
Ed Cage wrote:

3) Good News I think: EMC is a servicer. I am unaware of them having a track record in the note holder/owner position. If anyone knows different, I'd like to hear about it.

Ed Cage

972-596-4363

ecagetx@tx.rr.com


EMC does in fact stand in note holder/owner positions.  I have seen notes directly endorsed to "EMC".  Please be careful of what advice you give to people. 
Quote 0 0
Quote:
Originally posted by H. Gosh
EMC does in fact stand in note holder/owner positions.  I have seen notes directly endorsed to "EMC".  Please be careful of what advice you give to people.
 

The IDENTITY of the owner and HOLDER are matters to be determined through DISCOVERY.  NO ONE discussing these matters theoretically at this or any other message board can have any CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of the facts of YOUR CASE.

I think that we can ALL agree that Josephina should seek counsel from and attorney and that she should look to the pleadings and discovery responses in HER CASE to ascertain the true facts.

However, I would ADD that even IF you have seen "endorsements" to EMC or ASSIGNMENTS to EMC, this does NOT mean that EMC is the owner or the holder of the note!  THis means that EMC has produced some evidence in support of such an allegation.

I have now seen enough evidence of ROUTINE FABRICATION of documents in a mortgage foreclosure setting that I can confidently state that it is MORE LIKELY that such an endorsement is evidence of document fabrication than it is evidence that EMC was actually EVER the endorsee and the actual holder of teh promissory note.

The FACT of the matter is that the servicer is almost NEVER the routine HOLDER of ANY promissory note, even IF the servier were the OWNER (which is very RARE).  To the contrary, the holder will be an institutional custodian.  And there are established WELL DOCUMENTED procedures for obtaining the promissory note from the custodian.  This is RARELY actually done!

At the outset of my own litigation with MERS and CitiMortgage, I faced alternative sworn averments that (a) MERS was the owner and holder, and (b) CitiMortgage was the owner and holder.  These averments were also supported by a FALSE affidavit.

MERS is NEVER the OWNER.  In this instance CitiMortgage was NEVER the owner.  MERS was NOT the holder at the date of its claim.  CitiMortgage was NOT the holder at the date of it suit.  The promissory note was sitting in the custodian's vault during this interval despite contrary sworn averments by these entities.  The attorney for MERS and CitiMortgage has admitted as much.  The FALSE averments have NOT yet been corrected.  If these entities continue to proffer these averments or fail to CORRECT these averments at trial, I WILL be seeking disciplinary action against two attorneys!

Frankly, I do NOT think it will come to that.  I am inclined to believe that the attorney now representing MERS and CitiMortgage in my litigation is a person of integrity who was being LIED TO by his client and the prior lead counsel.  And I believe that he values his law license.

I am in GREAT SHAPE because of NUMEROUS legal errors made by the other side and the running of a statutory LIMITATIONS PERIOD.  But my case is VERY UNUSUAL and probably NOT directly relevant to ANYBODY else's situation.  

What I am basically saying here is TWO-FOLD.  First, Josephina will need DISCOVERY to smoke out representations as to the owner / holder.  Second, Josephina and her lawyer should NOT accept the responses at FACE VALUE.  The document fabrication within the industry has become SO EGGREGIOUS, that the fraud can often be readily demonstrated with minimal effort by those actually FAMILIAR with REAL documentation.  And CATCHING the mortgage investor and servicer in FALSE representations in court is NOT without consequences and bargaining advantage!

However, I would also absolutely ratify what Ed CAGE said:  "You MUST keep your payments CURRENT no matter what!".  A lottery ticket would be a far betterr investment than a dollar saved from your mortgage payment precipitating a technical default.  You want to AVOID foreclosure litigation if at all possible!    
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Dear H. Gosh:

My opening line was “(Talking like I know more than I do)”

 

The quote you selected was:

"3) Good News I think: EMC is a servicer. I am unaware of them having a track record in the note holder/owner position. If anyone knows different, I'd like to hear about it."

My last line was:

I will seek more competent advice than I am qualified to render myself.

 

Even the title itself was a question: “HELP NEEDED: Does servicer EMC also carry notes themselves?”

 

(I’m not sure how many more disclaimers I can enclose to a request for help.)

 

What you see above from me is hardly “advice.” If you indeed have such an example of EMC being a note holder sans their servicing position kindly post it.

 

Respectfully,

Ed Cage

972-596-4363

ecagetx@tx.rr.com

Quote 0 0
I want to CLARIFY that EMC Mortgage was the seventh largest mortgage originator NATIONALLY in 3rd Qtr 2006 ($34.2 billion).  I would EXPECT that EMC would have been the ENDORSER of the promissory notes SOLD to FNMA / FHLMC or private conduits OR secuirtized by EMC.

I would also EXPECT that EMC Mortgage would have been the ENDORSEE of mortgage production PURCHASED from smalled corresponing mortgage banking concerns.

I would NEVER expect to see EMC as the ENDORSEE of ANY promissory note it routinely services for othe rmortgage investors.  Even if FORECLOSING for the institutional mortgage investor the promissory note would be ENDORSED IN BLANK and transferred to EMC's custody by a WELL DOCUMENTED transfer by the institutional custodian of the promissory notes.

An ENDORSEMENT to the servicer would seem to me to be PRIMA FACIA SUGGESTIVE of evidence fabrication!
Quote 0 0
H. Gosh
Ed Cage wrote:

Dear H. Gosh:

My opening line was “(Talking like I know more than I do)”

 

The quote you selected was:

"3) Good News I think: EMC is a servicer. I am unaware of them having a track record in the note holder/owner position. If anyone knows different, I'd like to hear about it."

My last line was:

I will seek more competent advice than I am qualified to render myself.

 

Even the title itself was a question: “HELP NEEDED: Does servicer EMC also carry notes themselves?”

 

(I’m not sure how many more disclaimers I can enclose to a request for help.)

 

What you see above from me is hardly “advice.” If you indeed have such an example of EMC being a note holder sans their servicing position kindly post it.

 

Respectfully,

Ed Cage

972-596-4363

ecagetx@tx.rr.com


Now, now, now, you know full well I can't post some other person's note on this web site.  Just rest assured I have seen an endoresement making a note payable to EMC.  This may in fact be a fabrication, but then again it may not be, since I also spoke to the originator who stated that they did in fact sell the note to EMC and endorsed said note to EMC.  HOWEVER, and this is a big point - the note is on real estate with many, many problems. 
Quote 0 0
Quote:
Originally posted by H. Gosh
Now, now, now, you know full well I can't post some other person's note on this web site.  Just rest assured I have seen an endoresement making a note payable to EMC.  This may in fact be a fabrication, but then again it may not be, since I also spoke to the originator who stated that they did in fact sell the note to EMC and endorsed said note to EMC.  HOWEVER, and this is a big point - the note is on real estate with many, many problems. 


I believe that this would bear out the corresponding mortgage banking relationship model.  The originator, probably a smaller mortgage lending concern, sells the mortgage SERVICING RELEASED to EMC, usually within about thirty days of origination and very often the SAME DAY as origination.

In such a situation, the originator would typically ENDORSE the note to EMC Mortgage and EMC would no doubt service it themselves (at least until the serving rights are sold).

As stated above, when the originator has already sold the mortgage to the secondary mortgage market institutional investor -- FNMA, FHLMC, a private conduit or an Investment banking concern aggregating for securitization -- the loan is ENDORSED IN BLANK and would NOT typically be again ENDORSED, just traded with the blank endorsement. 

A KEY to distinguishing whether an endorsement is REAL or a fabrication is the TIMING of the asserted transfer!  There is often other PUBLIC information that may show whether the endorsement is valid or a fabrication.  This is something that probably requires both discovery and a good expert witness! 
Quote 0 0
Joe B
WAR-

     Great information as always! Quick question, that I hope is an easy one: In your last post, you say that there is a place for other "public" information to verify the validity of the endorsement. I can think of the obvious one (county records). However, are there more places?

     Thanks again. You are a fountain of knowledge!!

JB
Quote 0 0
Joe B.:

Quote:
Originally posted by Joe B.
Great information as always! Quick question, that I hope is an easy one: In your last post, you say that there is a place for other "public" information to verify the validity of the endorsement. I can think of the obvious one (county records). However, are there more places?


In short, YES.

Actually, promissory notes are almost NEVER recorded.  Mortgages and deeds of trust ARE recorded, together with assignments and releases of the same.

So there is NOT going to be any public indication of the endorsement of a promissory note appearing within County real property records.  At one time, one could still rely upon the recorded ASSIGNMENTS to show the chain of title of the promissory note changing hands. 

But the emergeance of MERS has obviated the need to record the individual assignments.  The assignments and changes in beneficial ownership are typically tracked on the MERS system instead.

Through discovery, whenever MERS is involved, the defendant should be seeking the MERS chain of ownership records.

Even where MERS is NOT involved, it seems that investors have recently become VERY casual about recording their assignments.  Frankly, this is INSANITY.  There are some very compelling legal reasons why the investor should be laying awake at night worrying if they HAVEN'T recorded their assignments!  Whichever lawyer told them this would be a clever idea should be FIRED.

But it APPEARS that the assignments are NOT being recorded to ENABLE a subsequent FABRICATION of records!  And from what I can tell, this appears to be WIDESPREAD.

Having clarified somewhat why your inferences in this regard are INCORRECT, I am actually going to withhold this particular answer from public posting so that I do NOT unnecessarily take the lenders to school in how to AVOID making some of the mistakes they seem to be making.  I WOULD be willing to share this information with you via private communication, if you would generally AGREE to similarly treat this information as slightly sensititve.  Similarly, I would be inclined to help anyone else litigating with major mortgage servicers or investors who ARE being victimized by the fabrication of documents!

To this end, I would ask those facing such a situation to send me the underlying documents and I will advise that person WHETHER the documents appear to be fabricated and IF SO, the evidence which would PROVE such fabrication.  TO this I will ADD that EVERYONE facing a judicial foreclosure should be using DISCOVERY to obtain the facts in THEIR PARTICULAR CASE.  If you are ASKING FOR AND RECEIVING the correct documents, these will usually ultimately PROVE a fabrication, IF a fabrication has taken place. 

There is another reason to do this.  When caught LYING, your adversaries will simply assert that there was a clerical error -- a mistake.  If there is only ONE fabricated document and NO DISCOVERY, the Judge will probably let your adversaries get away with this nonsense.  When you can show a consistent pattern of LIES, DECEIT and DECEPTION and a program of fabrication that involves compounding on e lie with another, you will be building a very nice case for dismissal and possible sanctions and disciplinary action against those that are lying to you!

Now and then, records produced can be VERIFIED against OTHER records beyond the control of the lender.  And it is here that I may be able to help you and others.  IF when going before the court to seek a motion to compel discovery you can SHOW THE JUDGE EVIDENCE of material fabrication, I think most judges are going to GRANT your motion to compel.  And faced with EVIDENCE of their FABRICATION, the mortgage investors and servicers and going to be LOOKING TO SETTLE.

Drop me an e-mail with some more particulars as to your identity and your telephone number and I will TELL YOU precisely WHERE to look.  Send me your suspect instruments and I can probably tell you wether they were fabricated and show you HOW to prove it!  Nothing would delight me MORE than for several of you to give lenders, investors and servicers a very good SPANKING over the fraudulent fabrication of records!

Finally, I should add that with literally a million mortgage foreclosures going on nationally, I cannot readily answer an unlimited number of e-mail messages.  I previously offered to take a look at the records of the first ten people to correspond with me.

I apologize to the extent that this response is a bit more cryptic than most.
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

William you don't ever need to "apologize" for anything.

There is not a person in here that is not deeply grateful for your participation in this forum.

Thanks and warmest personal regards,
Ed Cage
ecagetx@tx.rr.com
972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
Moose
EMC does indeed buy notes and their related mortgages. In fact, they are considered one of the last-resort toxic loan dumps. What many don't realize, and won't be drawn out in discovery without confidentiality stipulations and a court ordered seal of the records, is that they acquire the notes at a significant discount from face value when the original holder(s) tire of having them contaminate their portfolio.

In other words, there will be a hidden profit in the foreclosure, and unless your attorney understands how to extract that information during discovery and is prepared to weather the blizzard of delays and motion practice, the court will never see the actual profit motivation.

Moose


Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Thanks Moose.  That makes perfect sense to me in that particular context if EMC was to buy the entire note.

But keep in mind Josefina says, "EMC carries 20% of my loan."  Which still  does not make sense.. Plus like everybody else, I don't trust much of anything EMC/Bear Stearns says. I can't construct a scenario in my mind whereby servicer EMC would carry only a fraction of her note.  Can you?  

Sincere thanks,
Ed Cage
ecagetx@tx.rr.com

972-596-4363
 
Quote 0 0
Unless something has significantly CHANGED in the secondary mortgage market of which I am UNAWARE, the idea of fractional ownership of whole loans seems particularly UNUSUAL, though perhaps this is happening within the context of some of these distress sales of defaulted mortgages described by Moose.  Though I am unfamiliar with the transactions described by Moose, this arrangement MAKES SENSE TO ME and Moose speaks with the authority of someone who has specific information backing up these assertions.  I am inclined to believe that this is happening.

Usually fractional ownership of mortgages is only within the context of mortgage backed securities where the trustee is the owner in a representative capacity for the MBS trust and holders of trust securities are the beneficial owners of fractional undivided interests in the mortgage pools owned by these trusts.

The servicer IS usually interested in the mortgage loan through the mortgage servicing spread, the difference between the gross note rate and the net note rate, usually about 1/2% but sometimes richer.

My GUESS is that something has either been lost in translation OR misrepresented.  EMC might have bought the loan at a 20% DISCOUNT and EMC's 20% interest may be in realizing the FULL OUTSTANDING BALANCE through repayment or foreclosure.  But to the extent that this is the case EMC would really OWN 100% having paid 80% and the 20% would represent the additional profit through foreclosure.

But Moose has hit it on the head.  DISCOVERY is the route to the SPECIFICS.  This takes a good lawyer, patience, and money.  Moreover, absent some very strong issues to prevail at trial, it may prove UNECONOMIC to pursue discovery even where some misrepresntations have been made. 
Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Ed Cage wrote:

Thanks Moose.  That makes perfect sense to me in that particular context if EMC was to buy the entire note.

But keep in mind Josefina says, "EMC carries 20% of my loan."  Which still  does not make sense.. Plus like everybody else, I don't trust much of anything EMC/Bear Stearns says. I can't construct a scenario in my mind whereby servicer EMC would carry only a fraction of her note.  Can you?  

Sincere thanks,
Ed Cage
ecagetx@tx.rr.com
972-596-4363

 

I could be wrong and probably am wrong, but it sounds like a Second Mortgage to me.


 

Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Sorry, the post messed up again. Don't know why it's not letting me do "quotes" properly.
 
 
 
I could be wrong and probably am wrong, but it sounds like a Second Mortgage to me.
~beenawhile
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

 

William A. Roper ON: - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

“Unless something has significantly CHANGED in the secondary mortgage market of which I am UNAWARE, the idea of fractional ownership of whole loans seems particularly UNUSUAL, though perhaps this is happening within the context of some of these distress sales of defaulted mortgages described by Moose.  Though I am unfamiliar with the transactions described by Moose, this arrangement MAKES SENSE TO ME and Moose speaks with the authority of someone who has specific information backing up these assertions.  I am inclined to believe that this is happening.

Usually fractional ownership of mortgages is only within the context of mortgage backed securities where the trustee is the owner in a representative capacity for the MBS trust and holders of trust securities are the beneficial owners of fractional undivided interests in the mortgage pools owned by these trusts.

The servicer IS usually interested in the mortgage loan through the mortgage servicing spread, the difference between the gross note rate and the net note rate, usually about 1/2% but sometimes richer.

My GUESS is that something has either been lost in translation OR misrepresented.  EMC might have bought the loan at a 20% DISCOUNT and EMC's 20% interest may be in realizing the FULL OUTSTANDING BALANCE through repayment or foreclosure.  But to the extent that this is the case EMC would really OWN 100% having paid 80% and the 20% would represent the additional profit through foreclosure.

But Moose has hit it on the head.  DISCOVERY is the route to the SPECIFICS.  This takes a good lawyer, patience, and money.  Moreover, absent some very strong issues to prevail at trial, it may prove UNECONOMIC to pursue discovery even where some misrepresntations have been made. “

William A. Roper OFF - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

As always William, another A+ post.

Another thing we need to factor in however is that EMC's claim is possibly bogus.

 

It sez here, stranger things have happened.

 

Ed Cage

ecagetx@tx.rr.com

972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage
Keala Jacobs wrote:
"I am having the same problems described here. I can't refinance with another company because I have a great fixed rate! This sucks. Is there any information on a class action suit against them? (EMC) What recourse do we have?"

 

Dear Keala Jacobs:
Indeed there are reportedly about 5 class actions forming against EMC. The one that seems to be predominant is the James Hoyer law firm out of Tampa Florida. I have their toll free number but I think you can easily Google it up. 

I'll try to connect you but it's really quite easy. You can do it without me but don't hesitate to contact me at my email address below or call me if you wish..

If you want the pros and cons of individual lawsuits vs. class action I'll post it so that others can benefit as well.

Regards,
Ed Cage
1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas 75023
972-596-4363
ecagetx@tx.rr.com
Quote 0 0
Ed:

If any of the class action litigants versus EMC need PROOF of document fabrication by EMC, have them CONTACT ME.  My recent experience is that evidence of fabrication is so eggregious, readily apparent and readily proven WITHOUT RESORTING to discovery or records under the control of EMC that I continue to be DISMAYED that class action attorneys cannot seem to understand or get traction on the matter.

However, be forewarned that I am NOT going to TEACH class action lawyers CHARGING for their services where to find their best evidence FOR FREE.  If they want my help as an expert witness, I will charge them my usual consulting rates.  Otherwise, time spent helping them develop their class action cases represents an opportunity cost of lost income to myself.

But I would think that evidence of pervasive document fabrication would be helpful in almost any litigation, if only to destroy the credibility of other evidence they seek to admit in their defense against the law suit.  Moreover, the document fabrication itself probably ought to be certified as a cause of action for a subclass affected.

I will continue to assist those of you who have already contacted me pro bono.
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Keala Jacobs wrote:
“Thanks Ed. I will be contacting you. I have all of my paperwork. I was on the phone crying with EMC supervisors last night, but to no avail yet.  Nobody can beat 5.875% fixed rate today.
EMC inflated my escrow analysis and when I asked for a corrected one, I was ignored. I know this behavior is unlawful and I am going to do something about it.”

 

 

Keala I am certainly at your service.
ecagetx@tx.rr.com



BTW what does this quote from you mean?
"EMC inflated my escrow analysis and when I asked for a corrected one, I was ignored."

I know EMC *hates* for their customers to check their escrow balances because they almost always contain incriminating evidence. But I'm not sure what "EMC inflated my escrow analysis" means..

Regards,
Ed Cage
Plano Texas

972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
compelled
it means they sent her a notice in the mail with all of the Escrow charges to be charged on her account.

And it is exactly that, an analysis telling her that there are Escrow shortages, that she will have to pay on a monthly basis, ONTOP of the ACTUAL Escrow they are a charging her on a monthly basis.

So effectively, she is being charged for a shortgage they say she owes, on Escrow.

& charging her the normal Cost of yearly Escrow

combine the two totals together, by addition.

then divide by 12.
the resulting figure is how much they are charging her over and above her fixed monty P & I rate.


Quote 0 0
Moose
Note that in most cases, the servicer can recalculate the escrow using the following formula:

Prior year's taxes and insurance
+ 1/6 of Prior year's taxes and insurance

Divide that by 12 and you get the new monthly escrow amount.

In other words, they can add up to about 16.667% to the prior year's numbers to recalculate your escrow payment.

In some states, they may have other limitations, including paying you interest on escrow account balances and refunding overages over a certain amount.

Moose




Quote 0 0
Haven't we read that EMC forecloses and then auctions/sells the house
back to themselves for very little creating a flipping situation and more debt for the borrower?  Debt forgiveness amounts are taxed by the IRS.

Dee




Quote 0 0
Ed Cage
Dee can you please explain what you mean by this and exactly how this works?
"Debt forgiveness amounts are taxed by the IRS."
Also who does this help/hurt?

Thanks,
MR ;^D
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Ed-

     All this means is that if a debtor, a mortgage servicer for example, forgives a debt of any amount, that they will then issue you a 1099, and treat this amount as income to you. So, you get slammed for income tax on this amount; a rather nasty surprise. Credit card companies that "settle" a debt do this, as do some hospitals on their medical bills, and of course germane to our subject, mortgage servicers.

     So, in practice, your fictitious $225,000 home, with a $185,000 outstanding mortgage balance gets foreclosed on by (insert servicer here). They in turn buy it at the foreclosure sale for $125,000. They then also tack on $25,000 in various fees, (real or made-up) to the amount "owed" to the servicer. So, the amount the servicer "loses" on your loan is now $85,000; the $185,000 loan amount less the amount they acquire it for ($125,000) plus the additional fees, for a net (-$85,000). The servicer writes this amount down as a loss, and maybe gets an insurance payout, maybe not. However, they will then issue you a 1099 for the $85,000. Surprise, and Merry Christmas! You see, since they have "forgiven" this amount, this is considered as income for you. However, they also can come after you for that amount, because that is an amount that you have an obligation to pay. Either option is a kick in the unpleasant areas!

     Now this gets even more fun... They take your house, now that they own it, and sell it on the open market for full market value; let's say $250,000. Well, this whole amount does not get passed onto the investors. You see, they have had to take possession, pay a real estate agent (an affiliated company who provides a kick-back), they have had to "inspect" it, repair it, and all of these critical functions have added tens of thousands to the amount the servicer is "owed." Maybe the investors gets back the loan balance of $185,000, and maybe a bit more or less. However, lets look at all the potential profit made by the servicer... Now Ed, this is the real crime. All the rest of the stuff we talk about is just setting the table for this action here! I know you can do the math, and can see just how amazing this business model can be...

     There's certainly more to it, but you get the basic outline. I know I provided some tangential information than you originally asked, but there truly is more to the story, and I thought it a worthwhile exercise to at least get you started on this aspect. I promise you that the business model is extraordinary, and the profits mind boggling.

     However, your original question stands, and I hope I have addressed it sufficiently. I know there are some other posts on the site that probably do a better job than I. Let me know if I have not been clear.

JB
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage
Thanks a million JB!
Indeed you have addressed my question well.. Also most of what you outlined
were issues in which I was unaware of exactly how they worked.. Although many
of the actions and maneuvers I was aware of, I just didn't know how the fraudsters
executed and exploited them.

Your help is appreciated Joe B.. You are what I term an elite "MSF heavyweight"
in that your information and advice are consistently *solid*

Regards,
Ed Cage
1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas 75023
972-596-4363, ecagetx@tx.rr.com


 


Quote 0 0
KISSINGUPSTILLIC

  
Quote 0 0
Moose
Beware - under current IRS guidance, the decision whether to file or not file a 1099 for forgiven debt on loans that are securitized is up to the servicer because there is no penalty for not filing one.
 
More info:

http://www.quatloos.com/qforum/viewtopic.php?t=1303

As always, this isn't legal advice and is certainly not tax advice.

Be careful out there.

Moose


Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T7SD7L4F9H534BHNV/p52

Micheline Denison wrote:

"I had a mortgage with EMC and had many issues. Who do I seek for or higher for this class action suit? Is there one attorney handling this suit? Can anyone help me? My email is MichJ41@yahoo.com
Any help would be great. Thank you Micheline"

 

Dear Micheline:
Although I have been told by a reliable source there are as many as 5 more law firms putting together class actions against EMC based on what I have seen you are not likely to find a better source than the James Hoyer law firm.
http://www.jameshoyer.com/

One Urban Centre, Suite 550
4830 West Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33609-2589

 

Phone:  (813) 286-4100 
Fax:  (813) 286-4174 
Toll Free:  (800) 651-2502  /  (800) 634-0877 


The James Hoyer law firm did contact me about 3 months ago when I began posting in Topix. I did not qualify as a "lead plaintiff" but I was told I may qualify as a plaintiff. They appear to be extremely competent in this particular area with vast resources and experience. Additionally it will cost you nothing but you will likely only get a fraction of what you feel is just. A class action will also take more time but in all likelihood you will have much more competent legal representation.

On the other hand if you have substantial financial resources you could consider an individual lawsuit. If successful it will likely recover more money and take less time. The downside to an individual lawsuit is that it is expensive, and if you don't prevail, you will lose all the extra time, legal fees, attorney's fees..

The whole enchilada.

Ed Cage / 1804 Cross Bend, Plano Texas / 972-596-4363 / ecagetx@tx.rr.com

 

Reference: http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T7SD7L4F9H534BHNV/p52

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...