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
Goldman's sale of Litton Loan to Ocwen is not going well according to insiders with knowledge, Ocwen has found "Numerous Contracts" with "Significant" problems.  The sale if it goes through, may not occur until later this fall, if then.
 
Insiders at Litton Loan are now coming forward with stories of massive fraud.  According to information, both Larry Sr, and Larry Jr. (AKA Blake Litton) are near powerless, and at odds with Goldman Management. 
 
RADAR, CBASS's top secret computer system, has nearly been dismantled by Goldman since the Goldman buy out of Litton Loan. 
 
No wonder here.  That system contained the smoking gun directly back to Goldman.   Prior to Litton's former owner CBASS's bankruptcy.  And was used to target mortgages for failure, and pools that were "Insured" in order for CBASS and Litton Loan to "Cash In".
 
Former insider CHRIS WYATT is now telling nearly all, he is angry at Goldman, and the Litton's  for not "Protecting" him after he was let go by Goldman.  Its now time for Mr. Wyatt to put up or shut up!  Current and former employee's are telling stories of Wyatt's misdeeds for the Litton's (Jr. and Sr.)  
 
Hey New York Fed!! Wake up and look to RADAR!!!!  A blind man can see what occurred with that, and why Goldman really bought Litton Loan.
 
And will the New York Fed, publish its investigaton of Litton Loan and Goldman?
 
 
Quote 0 0
Thanks for the update on the Ocwen/Litton deal.  I am so hoping this deal doesn't happen.  I don't want Goldman off the hook, and I don't want to go out of the Litton frying pan and into the Ocwen fire. Seriously, could there be worse news for those of us who have mortgages serviced by Litton?  At least Litton is the devil we know... 
And yes NY law enforcement, how about some details on prosecution?  
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
The SALE of Litton to OCWEN would be a dream come true for almost ANY borrower being now serviced by Litton and already in foreclosure.  A change in the servicing entity after foreclosure sets up an almost impossible evidentiary burden for a plaintiff litigating against a prepared and well represented borrower.  The new servicer will have a hell of a time authenticating the business records of the prior entity.

The new servicer's witness can probably be impeached and the suit defeated!
Quote 0 0
f247
"A change in the servicing entity after foreclosure sets up an almost impossible evidentiary burden for a plaintiff litigating against a prepared and well represented borrower.  The new servicer will have a hell of a time authenticating the business records of the prior entity."

Has this happened in Ocwen's previous MSR transactions? In other words, was Ocwen unable to complete foreclosures on many former HomEq or Saxon borrowers?
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
f247 said:
Has this happened in Ocwen's previous MSR transactions? In other words, was Ocwen unable to complete foreclosures on many former HomEq or Saxon borrowers?


It is essential to bear in mind that the vast majority of judicial foreclosures end with a default judgment for the plaintiff because the borrower fails to answer the complaint.  In most other cases, the borrower interposes a mostly ineffective answer, often a pro se answer, and then fails to effectively oppose summary judgment.  Only a handful of cases ever actually go to trial.

In the only case of which I have any personal knowledge where OCWEN went to trial on a foreclosure begun under Saxon, the OCWEN witness was not allowed to testify to prove up the business records.

Unfortunately, in that case, the borrowers voluntarily attended trial at the encouragement of their attorney (though they had no duty to do so under the law, as they hadn't been subpoenaed).  The borrowers were then put on the stand and they authenticated much of the plaintiff's evidence.  Had the borrower instead gone on vacation and left the litigation to the attorney, they would have almost certainly WON, since otherwise NONE of the plaintiff's evidence would have been admitted.

See the discussions about personal knowledge and hearsay in other threads and the increasing number of appellate court decisions on evidentiary issues since my original posts on this topic!
Quote 0 0
Angelo

Is it at all possible to "take the fifth" is a foreclosure or civil trial if you are put on the stand?

Quote 0 0
Moose
B wrote:
Thanks for the update on the Ocwen/Litton deal.  I am so hoping this deal doesn't happen.  I don't want Goldman off the hook, and I don't want to go out of the Litton frying pan and into the Ocwen fire. Seriously, could there be worse news for those of us who have mortgages serviced by Litton?  At least Litton is the devil we know...

IMHO, it could get worse for typical borrowers if they have any equity and don't have the means to defend themselves, but as Mr. Roper points out, the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle makes it more difficult to have viable evidence in a foreclosure.

My first recommendation is to not tell Ocwen anything that might reveal your present circumstances, especially if your property is worth more than your loan balance.  Stay off the phone, do everything in writing with USPS CRR mail and try to put some money away for an attorney if you really want to stay in the home.

They will prioritize and devote time and resources to foreclosing on the weakest (and un-represented) first.

B wrote:
And yes NY law enforcement, how about some details on prosecution?  

What would the NY Fed be prosecuting them for? The Fed has no criminal prosecutorial authority and they don't supervise GS or non-bank entities like Ocwen.

Moose

Quote 0 0
Moose
Angelo wrote:

Is it at all possible to "take the fifth" is a foreclosure or civil trial if you are put on the stand?



This, of course, is not legal advice, but the fifth amendment protects you only under threat of criminal prosecution.

If your truthful answer to a question in a civil case would reveal possible criminal liability on your part, you can try to invoke the privilege but you'd better be prepared to explain your rationale to the Judge - keeping in mind that as an officer of the court, the Judge (or any other attorney other than your own) would be required to refer any admission you make to the local prosecutor.

Plaintiff's counsel:  "Mr. Angelo, how many months did you go without making a payment?"
Defendant Angelo: "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me."
Court: "Mr. Angelo, how would the answer to counsel's question incriminate you?"
Defendant Angelo: "Ah, well, ah, ah, ..."
Court: "Mr. Angelo, the court doesn't accept your theory - you are directed to answer the question."



Moose




Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
Angelo said:

Is it at all possible to "take the fifth" is a foreclosure or civil trial if you are put on the stand?


Angelo:

As Moose points out, when a witness is asked a question under oath, the witness must usually answer in a civil matter UNLESS invoking the 5th Amendment for legitimate purposes to avoid criminal liability.

But bear in mind that in most civil matters, a party's attendance at hearing or trial is usually optional.

There are several express exceptions to this general rule.  First, a person must attend, when properly served with a valid subpoena.  Second, a court can certainly order the attendance of the parties and sometimes does so as a part of a regular docket control order or other similar pre-trial order.  Third, there are sometimes statutory provisions or provisions within the Rules which require that a party attend a particular type of proceeding.

For example, in Florida, parties are required to attend pre-trial conferences!  But ironically, they are not required to attend civil trial unless ordered or subpoenaed.

Check the Rules!  Check the CASES on the Rules.  ASK YOUR ATTORNEY.  But do NOT simply accept a GUESS.  If your attorney TELLS YOU that you have to attend, ask him to show you the statutory requirement, provision of the rules, case law, order or subpoena that shows this to be the case.  Trust, but verify!

*

This is NOT to say that avoiding appearance at trial is uniformly a good idea.  This depends totally upon the facts of your case and your defensive answer and allegations.

If your testimony is important to your defense, then you need to assess whether your presence to give affirmative testimony is more important than the risk associated with what you could be asked under oath by the plaintiff to shore up their defective case.

But here is the KEY idea:  If the plaintiff is NOT permitted to pur only their sole witness or to introduce ANY of their exhibits at trial, because these cannot be authenticated, then WHY does the defendant need to be in the court room? 
 
It would be better to send a surrogate, possibly in addition to the attorney, who cannot be effectively called as a witness to any of the factual matters.

Of course, a Judge could elect to continue the hearing or trial and might do so if the defendant's failure to attend was seen as a source of mischief.  And there aren probably more than a few judges who might do so.

But then there is another group of judges who would probably reason that if the plaintiff wanted to call the defendant as a witness and wanted to assure the defendant's participation that the plaintiff ought to have served a valid a subpoena

Under no circumstances am I advocating non-attendance over the recommendation of the defendant's attorney.  But I AM encouraging borrowers to carefully assess and weigh the pros and cons of attending and participating.  If the defendant is in the courtroom and the plaintiff's sole witness has been disqualified, the plaintiff has NOTHING TO LOSE by putting the defendant on the stand.  If the plaintiff closes without any admissible evidence the defendant would surely be entitled to a directed verdict!

Continuing a case tried before a jury is particularly problematic, particularly if the defendant is not readily available.  That is, while it might be one thing if the defendant is hovering outside the courtroom in the hallway.  But if the defendant is out of state, and cannot appear the next day, the idea of retaining a jury to another day or week because the plaintiff neglected to issue a subpoena is going to be a little harder to justify!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Angelo:

Also bear in mind that many of the foreclosure mill attorneys do NOT actually KNOW how to TRY a case.  In many instances, they have NEVER had to do so.  They know how to obtain default judgments against borrowers who fail to answer and how to obtain summary judgments against unrepresented or poorly represented defendants.

These are not the careful attorneys you see on prime time television meticulously agonizing over their strategy.  Rather, they are overworked drones who are juggling enormous caseloads and who will often appear in court unprepared.

When caught with their shorts down, the honest judge may not be overly sympathetic.  Of course, if your case is being tried in front of a corrupt judge, he may very well find some pretext to save the plaintiff's case.

Absence from the courtroom ought not be the only available and viable strategy!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Angelo:

Also, I would hope that it goes without saying that this strategy is not available to the pro se litigant!  If the pro se litigant fails to appear, then all defensive arguments are likely to be waived and the plaintiff will usually get its judgment no matter how ineligible the witness or inadmissible the evidence.  All of the evidence will come in without objection, if any is sought at all, and the plaintiff WINS.

So you need not only a lawyer, but a reliable lawyer!

For that matter, it would be essential that your lawyer appear ON TIME.  If your case is called and your lawyer isn't there yet, most judges would probably hold the matter over at least for a little while until your lawyer arrived rather than proceeding with the defendant unrepresented.  The impatient, demanding or corrupt judge might not do so if neither the defendant nor the attorney answered present when the case is called.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...