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

Couple of updates at that anyone dealing with Fairbanks/SPS should make note of not the least of which being Ellington Credit Fund LTD v. SPS et al.

Quote 0 0
Joe B

     You are a good man!!

     I think you uncovered the first of many suits against Fairbanks/SPS from their investors.

     We all know they have been harming the homeowners, and it looks like now they are being scrutinized by the opposite end of the transaction.

     Hey, do you all think we should be working together to squeeze from both ends?

     At the very least, it will shed some more light on their illegal practices. Keep up the good work!!

Quote 0 0
O -
Your web site is looking Great Mike, Keep up the Great work
Quote 0 0

We shouldn't be surprised that only one end of the business was crooked. Don't forget who designed and operated the scheme, Basmajian.  Are they suing him too?

Quote 0 0

Working on that, Ed...

Thx O

Joe - I'm meeting with someone from your neck of the woods, I believe, in the near future.

Oh, FYI - some of the links to individual Secretaries of State simply may not link up due to expiration. In order to save bandwidth, it was just easier to do it that way. That said, it is safe to assume that if there is state hyperlink associated with any given corp. that corp is registered to do business in that state. All you need to do to find it is hit the SoS site for that state and plug in the appropriate corp name. Happy hunting!

God I hope coffee kicks in soon....

Quote 0 0
Joe B

     When you come down my way, I am happy to share my story too, if you think it would help! If they need a local flavor to help round out the story, I can lend a hand...

     Just let me know.

     Listen, I want you to know how much we appreciate your work! Each of us by ourselves can do some good, but working together we can do really good things.

     Keep driving hard, and help us beat these (fill in your own expletive here)!

     My personal thanks to you and yours!

Quote 0 0
It seems to me that the literally lays out specific actions SPS/Fairbanks
has to take for operating their business.

They must have had trouble following up with action to "Best Practices".

I have to say, I love it.

Not that I want to be excessively picky but I really want sanctions when they violate this agreement.  My bet is that they will.

They have never understood that borrowers have rights.  Well, now you do.
I would not let them get away with one little thing. 
They'll be under this supervision up to 10 years on some issues. 

The borrowers have been really BURDENED by Fairbanks behavior and they
deserve to be sanctioned if they cannot follow this agreement. 

This is pretty much what REGULATION would look like for the rest of the servicers pulling the ponzi.

It should hurt them to make a mistake that devastates your life.

This tells you that the court retains jurisdiction.  That means that the fat
lady has not yet sung.  SPS/Fairbanks can be hauled right back into court for more "regulations" or sanctions.

Pretty nice result for those of you that stayed on the FTC.

i'd like to see them move on to the next servicer or better yet servicers.


Quote 0 0

Ummmm Dee, the MA Court retained jurisdiction over the FTC case from the beginning. Look at any private lawsuit brought since the class actions and you will see that SPS's #1 defense is, "this court does not have jurisdiction, Judge Woodlock retained that in his court up in MA".

The original agreement had already laid out the specific actions Fairbanks/SPS was supposed to be taking in operating their business. This new amended agreement is NOT a victory for those of us stuck with SPS. This is a SECOND CHANCE for them to keep scr*wing people. They should have been sanctioned for failing to abide by the original "Best Practices" they agreed to back in 03 at least a thousand times over by now. This amended agreement in NO WAY SANCTIONS SPS FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR. All they have to do is refund certain amounts which THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ANYWAY BACK IN 04.

The FTC is WELL AWARE that SPS has continued business as usual since the original agreement and the FTC hasn't done a darn thing to stop them. This amended agreement, aside from the bit about them not being able to sell extra products, is nothing more than "oh, we see you aren't following the rules but that's ok, we'll give you another chance". THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED ALREADY not given this 2nd chance to continue to scr*w borrowers.

It doesn't matter what rules are written if the FTC isn't going to enforce them. The FTC has made it clear, they do not help individual borrowers so even when one of us catches them in a violation, the FTC will do nothing about it. Unless you count revising their agreement with SPS and slapping them on the wrist something which I personally do not.

As far as being under supervision ... where in the amended agreement did you get that from? They aren't under supervision, they have to report to a third party and then it gives HUD the option to review those reports for 8 years, not 10. Being under supervision implies that someone will be up their a$$ each and every single day monitoring how they are doing business ... not ever gonna happen.

This is the original agreement all over again, people don't read the fine print and then come on here and tell this community that the agreement is good. Too many people got fooled like that back then, please don't let it happen again, read the agreement for yourselves or have your lawyer read it. I've already seen a few posts in another thread where people seem to be misinterpreting the amended agreement and what it means for borrowers.

Sorry, I don't see this as a win for anyone and I am sick and tired of the rest of the world calling it a victory for SPS victims.
Quote 0 0
Joe B
Dee and Shaking...

I think you are both right. The FTC action doesn't help anyone individually. I wish they had provided for sanctions and a p.o.c. to file you case with who had the authority to award sanctions.

For example, if FB has violated any of these conditions, forward your information to Harry Lazybones at the FTC, and sanctions will be awarded at the following rate: $1,000.00 per violation of section 1, $2,500.00 per violation of section 2, etc. All cases will be reviewed within 60 days, and sanctions awarded within 90... Now that would be a strong consumer friendly message!

However, the FTC doesn't think like that. They are not interested in helping the individual no matter how egregious the company's actions. They want to look tough with the least amount of work.

So, it is up to us to use the FTC information to our benefit. For example, we don't have to prove that FB is doing bad things. The FTC has done that for us; I think that is a good thing. I wish it were better, but at least we don't have to show that FB is pond scum, the FTC has already gone on record showing that they are; and since they haven't stopped being pond scum, we are going to watch them even longer. Not much, but something...

Also, the judge in MA retaining jurisdiction is a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that we all don't have to convince a local judge that this is really happening each and every time, because judge Woolfolk already knows these guys are pond scum. The bad news is we have to go to MA to enforce the sanctions; sort-of.

The injunctive relief provides the prescribed relief no matter where we live, and where we bring our case. Yes, if we want to hold FB in contempt of the FTC order, we will need to go to MA. However, if we want to show our local judges what they are supposed to be doing, and they are not, it does not preclude them from ruling against FB in their court!

In my opinion, we are likely to have a local MA lawyer who will be representing us against all of the violations of the injunctive relief in front of judge Woolfolk in the not to distant future. I think that will help streamline some if this.

So, the fact that they are required to do the right thing for more than the original 5 years is a good thing. It's still a pain in the neck because we all have to slug it out on our own. However, since the extension has been applied, it gives each of us some more time to gather our relevant facts, find the right lawyer in or around MA to represent us in our individual cases.

So, like Dee, I am pleased that the FTC at least recognizes the need to keep FB on a leash, and like Shaking, I wish the agreement had some teeth with a fast-track provision to punish these clowns.

However, I do think the world is closing in on FB. Like Mike's post that started this thread, the investors see that FB's actions are hurting their returns. Moreover, as we all know, the homeowners are being hosed. That leaves the trustees to explain why they aren't minding the store. I think it is likely to get very interesting as more investor suits come forward, and more homeowner suits come forward. If there is enough pressure, something has to break; could it be FB? Will the trustees have to step forward to show they are acting in both parties interest? Somebody must be watching the servicers, right? So, at both ends of the transaction, people are being hosed. That leaves the people in the middle to slug it out over who's fault it is, and provide relief to the parties...

This is going to get interesting!
Quote 0 0
I hope I didn't give the impression this settlement agreement is like a goldmine for borrowers.

There are some points that are good.

I have no problem doing a pro vs con position on this agreement.

I said I was disappointed that no sanctions were sought payable to borrowers.

If I were still fighting Fairbanks on a daily basis, I'd already be compiling
my list of round 3 complaints.

At the top, sanctions payable to borrowers for any violation of the agreement.  All you should have to do is outline the infraction and
provide proof.  No need to litigate.

I also want a fund established for borrowers that lost their house to the ponzi scam to receive a generous amount for downpayment on another house.

Follow that with cleaning up the borrower's credit bureau records.  To do that the FTC or the judge would draft language to be used for the credit bureaus to post on the borrowers record.  I saw this language and order to do this on the settlement agreement with Chevy Chase Bank (a credit card company) recently.

It is inherently unfair and injurious to the borrower to have their credit
scores ruined because they are the victim of a Ponzi Scam.

Another sanctionable activity.

Quick resolution of borrower complaints.

They've been given a second chance to clean up their unfair and deceptive
practices.  Still a benefit to the borrower that has tighter definition of an infraction.

What should be the focus of round three?  Make a list, share it here.
Allow for additions or deletions.

Mike's site and his thread here Looking for Fairbanks Borrowers near the top here might be good since it is pinned to the top page.

I'd like to see Fairbanks have to send out queries to borrowers with
the point being, are you satisfied with Fairbanks servicing performance?

Have you had an issue in the last 12 months that was not resolved

I only mentioned the "court retains jurisdiction" because some borrowers miight not realize eventhough this case appears settled and is settled
unless Fairbanks violates the terms again.

I am not certain of the rules and practice and procedure in Class Actions
combined with the FTC-HUD plantiff's authority to request sanctions.

I would at least let the FTC know, Fairbanks is a predator.  The foundation of the abuses lies in the computer platform being utilized.  It is programmed
to assess penalties and fees whether or not the borrower has acted in such
a manner to earn that fee or penalty.

Fairbanks is the only company I've encountered that believes their computer thinks for itself.  We all know computers don't think, they are programmed
to make these mistakes, errors or whatever you want to call the predatory
fee assessment process.  The piggybacked fees absolutely buries the
borrower and quickly puts them on the fast track to foreclosure.
Most every servicer brags about how quickly they can foreclose on their web sites for investors.

Fairbanks has spent a decade assessing and collecting unearned fees.
What is fair? Borrowers to spend a decade collecting fees based assessments on their bad behavior and violations of the settlement agreement.


Quote 0 0

Dee wrote:
I would at least let the FTC know, Fairbanks is a predator.  The foundation of the abuses lies in the computer platform being utilized.  It is programmed to assess penalties and fees whether or not the borrower has acted in such a manner to earn that fee or penalty.

Dee, the thing I'll rough you, and anyone else who suggests it, up about is the implication that the FTC did not/does not realize what Fairbanks/SPS was or is doing. There is absolutely zero room for the FTC to claim that they "did not know" what was happening with Fairbanks/SPS. How can I make this claim? If you've read USA/Curry and this latest stipulated modified order you will note FTC Special Counsel Allison Brown's signature. I've had multiple telephone conversations with Ms. Brown over the years both before and after USA/Curry settled. Ms. Brown was also well aware of the $13.5 million RICO action that we have filed against Fairbanks/SPS, PMI, Merrill, LaSalle Harmon Law Offices and future defendants long before this stipulated modification was floated. I believe that Ms. Brown's dulcet tones can be heard in the 2004 NHPR interview that Amy Quinton did with us. Oh, due to issues attempted to be brought up at either or (I honestly don't remember at the moment), I should mention here that back in 2004 we DID draw correlations between predatory lending and mortgage servicing fraud during that interview. The explanation for that was we simply were not far enough along in our education back then. We obviously now know differently...

In my opinion, for whatever reason, neither the FTC nor HUD nor anyone else with any kind of actual authority want to actually enforce USA/Curry or provide any language that will actually either financially or legally penalize Fairbanks/SPS or anyone else involved with mortgage servicing fraud. And, as a direct result of this failure to take appropriate regulatory action against the servicers I submit to you the current national, potentially global, meltdown that we are currently witnessing. You think the lenders and hedge funds have it rough right now? Someone should start an Insurance Implod-O-Meter to keep track of how many insurance underwriters float to the top after all of the claims are put in to cover the housing losses. THAT is where the big hit is going land.

As we've already witnessed with BofA and Countrywide, the mortgage industry will bouy itself if by no other means than merger/consolidation. D&O and E&O underwrters, I can only imagine, are also beginning to get that Harvey Fierstein "Independence Day" rearview mirror "oh crap" look about them because they can see the train coming at them and all they can hope for is a derailment before they hold up the Wylie Coyote "Mother" sign and end up as axle lube on a train that isn't going to stop running for at least another year or two.

Of course, I could be wrong about all that....

Quote 0 0
So, you don't think Bush and Republicans have anything to do with this?
Quote 0 0
Of course the FTC and HUD know they are predators.

The original settlement was in fact way tooooo small to do borrowers any good.

They did something to help borrowers but was too little and way too late for many borrowers.

I could rant a long time about what was wrong.  I could rant a long time
about leaving Fairbanks to decide about the reversals for bogus late fees.

This agreement tightens up language that will make it easier for borrowers
to get action.

Rico?  Yes, of course it should be prosecuted.  We've all got evidence.  Enough altogether to bury them.

It's been available for a long time.  No inquiries?  Nope.

I'm very happy to hear that you are pursuing a RICO case.

If investors hear about a RICO suit. They'll be scurrying around trying to get their  money out of there before there is no money.

Re:  Bush and the Republicans involved.  Republicans yes Demcrats yes
Bush:  No, he is not smart enough to begin to fathom the depth of this fraud.
Carl Rove maybe.

Do you have some information that links Bush and Republicans?

If you've got it, I'll read it.


Quote 0 0

You are so right.  I know for a fact that HUD knows and probably has known for a long time what is happening.  I e-mailed our state banking commissioner about licenses and Ameriquest doesn`t have banking licenses in the state of Al but they are licensed under HUD. He also sent me an e-mail stating that anyone doing business as a band needed licenses. I don`t think HUD would have given them a licenses unless they knew how they were operating their business.

Quote 0 0

Indy wrote:
So, you don't think Bush and Republicans have anything to do with this?

A very, very, very long time ago, it was common knowledge that Fairbanks could easily be traced back to Silverado and the Bush family could be tied to Basmajian and his wife via campaign donations. Interesting as that may be, it's not exacly information that is going to help a homeowner stop an illegal foreclosure. 

For me the politics is an aside, although an important aside, to what my family and I have been through. It;s more important to me that Fairbanks/SPS not be allowed to continually scr*w around with my mortgage, mortgage payments or be allowed to hang the constant threat of foreclosure over our heads.

Quote 0 0
It;s more important to me that Fairbanks/SPS not be allowed to continually scr*w around with my mortgage, mortgage payments or be allowed to hang the constant threat of foreclosure over our heads.

It is impossible to live with this fact without suffering greatly.

One thing Fairbanks does understand is the deleterious effect of the bogus
fee assessments on borrowers especially after the piggyback takes place.
The borrower will become desperate and throw  money at the servicer
to try to get off the foreclosure track.

I think most people would not believe this happens but would rather believe
it is because a borrower took out a loan they cannot pay back.  It's all blame on the borrower and none on the servicer that gently nudges collection and can't get anywhere with the borrower.

If people with a mortgage were to grasp the facts and not the talking heads explanations they would become frightened.  Frightened and now unwilling to get a mortgage.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...