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
Does QWR have any teeth in asking for proof of title insurance, and private mortgage insurance?

It's still being paid, but I wonder what the complete accounting would look like given all the imperfections, cloud, and tranfers to date.

I contacted Radian a while ago, but they could not give me information, claiming I am not entitled to that information? LOL

Interesting though, the PMI amount was set at exactly the amount needed to cover the negative-arm ceiling, prior to accepting any negative arm product. They already knew "what" product they were going to sell.

The title/underwriter (lender) also fabricated an affidavit, or signing-statement in the closing docs, that claims an addition 3k of home insurance was verified over the phone with the home insurance provider, but that is not true, the home insurance policy does not have 3k of anything.

Radian also allowed Quicken access to their system for underwriting policies. So Quicken did not need Radian's approval, which is why Quicken violated Radian's DTI limit. I believe they said it was 55%, but Quicken went to 62% on this.

They also did some fancy comparison of the old loan v. new loan monthly payment where they left out principle and escrow but clearly presented it under "principle and interest" for comparison. If they had not shown a (fake) net benifit how would that have affected insuring the loan?

Quote 0 0
Focus on title insurance or primary mortgage insurance in a default and foreclosure setting is almost always a total waste of time and energy.  Those who urge you to try to make out a defense based upon pmi are almost all wingnuts.

I am unaware of any case nationally where a borrower has ever prevailed presenting such a defense.  Making an issue of the mortgage insurance is most likely to simply destroy your credibility with the court and is most likely going to result in a discounting of your other more potent and persuasive arguments.

If someone is telling you otherwise, ask for a case that would support the assertion.
Quote 0 0

Sue them in small claims court for Breach of Contract, with intentional wrongful acts.   That will get there attention, and your answers.

Quote 0 0
Gary Wait wrote:

Sue them in small claims court for Breach of Contract, with intentional wrongful acts.   That will get there attention, and your answers.

We focus a lot on foreclosure DEFENSE in this forum.  Everyone needs to really read the cases in their jurisdiction and understand the difference between being the PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT.  The burden of proof is completely different.  It changes AGAIN when you move from state court to federal court.  Usually it is a far more difficult task to sue someone than to defend  an action.  You carry the burden to prove your case.  If you fail to prevail in an action there IS A COST.  You won't be able to just say sorry, I made a mistake.  You will be responsible for the costs of the opposing party.  These can be substantial.  Cases against the banks are often moved to federal court.  This very often, will increase your costs again if you do not prevail. 

If anybody is considering filing ANY lawsuit against a Bank/Servicer with what could be described as almost unlimited legal resources should first consult an attorney, then retain an attorney. 
Quote 0 0
If there is an issue of fact, that is being ignored and relates to your mortgage, you may bring a suit against the party and have that issue resolved by the courts, anywhere in the this country.  The use of small claims courts is a simple fast why to resolve issues before they become to large to handle or turn into a foreclosure issues. 
We have often times found these minor issues were used to prevent you from refinancing away, and used to keep the party in a status of default by design.   Use the small claims courts to your advantage, don't be afraid of them. 
Quote 0 0
Thanks for the replies folks.

The reason for my questions is the fact that the "satisfaction of mortgage" is robo-fraud, and I'm aware that legal issues such as those that do not only beg the question of whether the mortgage was "legally" satisfied (bought/sold), but also the title insurer and private mortgage insurer policies have strict guidelines and guarantees that were obviously not met, and could potentially void those policies if somehow it can be brought to their attention perhaps with a QWR then small claims?

Additionally, the previous servicer has still not provided proof of ownership of the servicing rights, and the originating lender did not verify or deny that they own the mortgage. Now, the servicer does not have the correct accounting of the debt, and their information conflicts with the original loan documents. The servicer has sent this misinformation on to a new servicer, whom I notified of these issues to no avail.

If the lender is not denying their ownership of the loan, would they be the appropriate party to challenge for breaking the terms of their contract? My documents say, "finanal payment will be made to lender", the terms of the contract will not change regardless of service transfer", etc.

If they claim that they do not own the mortgage, should they provide me with evidence of that claim? If the servicer is not collecting for the lender, how do I persue them for breach of contract terms when they already argue that their computer infomation is accurate, which when compared to my own, they do not?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...