Thanks for the insult ka,
ka has once again given some very sound advice! Ignore it at your own peril!!
If you doubt the advice ka has given, then I would agree that you are delusional!
I will respond to the balance of your post for the benefit of others. Your hostility and ingratitude towards those who are seeking to help you really makes you unworthy of further energy.
You seem not to have come to the Forum to learn, but rather further confuse others with your own misinformation.
I believe a homeowner recently sued Quicken loans for
orgination fraud and won 3 million dollars? But I suppose you would say that
their council along with the judge was "delusional" as well?
Why don't you give us the case that you are referring to? I am NOT going to bother to look for it, because this is almost certainly a WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY.
I will add that it is certainly true that juries sometimes award large damage awards in tort cases. These are usually reduced by the trial judge to some reasonable amount and often such awards are overturned on appeal.
I seriously doubt that a borrower ever actually received such an award. But even if the borrower did, citing such a case as a basis for hope in bring fraud charges is sort of like pointing out a single lottery winner as a justification for the proposition that lottery tickets are good investments!
You show NO REASON to believe that the facts of your situation or your evidence is comparable to such another case, nor can we compare the law as to jurisdiction.
If you believe that this statement proves anything other than you are possibly an ungrateful IDIOT, then you are really a fool!
This is not to say I do not entirely agree with your assessment, though you misunderstood a few things I said. I believe I do have a limitations problem, but aside from that I have stopping asking questions pertaining to issues I can not materially prove.
"Other than that (her husband being assassinated), Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"
If you have a limitations problem with the fraud charges, it is likely to be GAME OVER. Proof isn't going to matter.
See Mr. Roper's prior posts regarding the difficulty of proving fraud and the difficulty in getting limitations tolled under the so-called discovery rule.
The former lender sent out a quarterly loan statement that shows the loan balance. The loan was only two years old. In the final statements around the time of refinancing, these statements revealed that the loan balance had been slightly reduced. This was an 80/20 arm, and with that there was expectation of any reduction to the loan balance, which is one of the driving reseasons for refinancing into a more affordable loan. (For future security).
This statement makes no sense at all and seems only to show that you do not understand either 80/20 loans or loan amortization basics. If you think you are going to base a fraud charge on this, you have no idea what you are doing.
Your case will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
To ad insult to injury, the prospective refi lender "Quicken," compared their estimated loan payment to the existing payment in the GFE. What they did was show their estimated monthly payment (- escrow) side-by-side with the existing payment that included escrow. The way they accomplished this was by breaking down the escrow of the existing payment within the designated boxes on the GFE, but for their estimated new payment, they stated as one total sum. This had the effect of allowing us to believe we were viewing an accurate comparison of the total monthly payment on both loans because the GFE clearly states "payment & escrow amt."
This allegation seems to have a bit more substance. However, even if you PROVED this and showed that limitations do not apply, you seem to totally misunderstand that you would need to also prove a measure of damages.
If you were fraudulently induced into a loan with a higher rate of interest or higher and unnecessary fees, these might be recovered from the originator.
In most instances, the mortgage investor and/or mortgage servicer will invoke holder in due course protection and will be immune to ANY origination fraud claims. Most of the originators are out of business. Many of these have been in bankruptcy and have had all prior liability discharged!
By failing to present and make out the fraud as a valid claim against the bankrupt estate of the defunct lender, the liability is usually discharged even if limitations did NOT apply.
So even if you COULD PROVE your claims, you get NOTHING. Whoops!
There are too many other issues regarding origination to point out at this time, which include doubling of origination fee with no reduction in interest, changing the interest recast dates after closing, insuring loan program and amount before it was even agreed upon, undisclosed county stamp fee charges, inflated-untruthful appraisal, over 60% DTI ratio, failure to include all revolving debts reported, failure to disclose the real reason only sub-prime mortgage products offered despite perfect credit, and failure to provide a net benefit in the refinance over the existing loan.
Doubling the origination fee at closing is part of the classic subprime bait and switch. It probably WAS fraud at the time. You had two valid forms of recourse. You could have REFUSED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE LOAN ON THESE TERMS or you could have gone forward and then rescinded within the three day statutory period. When you did NEITHER, you probably WAIVED the origination fraud and simply ACCEPTED the alternative business terms.
This will almost NEVER support a holding of fraud, but even if it did, limitations and/or the bankruptcy of the originator will pretty much BAR any recovery!
Good luck with that!
Your assertion of a "changing the interest recast dates after closing" wouldn't typically support a fraud charge. Rather, if the servicer made an error in the application of the interest rate, you could simply REQUIRE that the servicer apply the interest as provided for in the contract.
I am unsure what it is that you think you mean by "insuring loan program and amount before it was even agreed upon", but this looks like some mindless nonsense you copied from either someone else's incoherent pleadings or something you picked up from one of the operators of various debt elimination scams. There is no valid defensive basis in this incoherent statement. It simply makes you out to be an ignorant fool.
Your mention of "undisclosed county stamp fee charges" reflects a real disconnect with reality. This might have presented a valid basis for you to WALK AWAY from the closing OR for a rescission. When you went forward with the loan, you probably waived this issue.
IF you succeeded in making out some fraud, the measure of damages would be the amount of the undisclosed fees.
This would NOT cover either your filing fees of one hour of an attorney's time in preparing the pleadings. Including this does nothing but make you out to be a total fool.
And IF you could get this to hold up past a basic motion to dismiss, both limitations and the originator's bankruptcy leaves you without a penny of recovery.
Your mention of "inflated-untruthful appraisal, over 60% DTI ratio, failure to include all revolving debts reported" further shows that you have no idea the elements necessary to prove fraud.
These might support a fraud charge in respect of the originator's sale of the loan to the mortgage investor. It was the mortgage investor which was injured by the originator's origination of a loan with an inflated appraisal, a DTI ratio in excess of that provided in the lending guidelines, a failure to report all debts, etc.
This is the kind of nonsense that debt elimination scam swindlers use to deceive distressed borrowers.
When swindling people, it is usually helpful to begin with some germ of truth which makes the other assertions of the swindler seem plausible. So the scam artists begin with a few various allegations which, IF TRUE and PROVEN, might form the basis for a valid fraud complaint by a mortgage investor against the originator. Then, these are twisted to assert that these might also form the basis for the borrower to avoid responsibility for the loan.
The reason that an inflated appraisal, an excessive DTI ratio and/or omitted monthly obligations would form the basis of a fraud complaint by the investor is that the originator falsely represented to the investor that the invesotr's lending and underwriting guidelines were adhered to, when they were not.
It was NOT YOU who were a victim of these misrepresentations. To the contrary, in OMITTING obligations and YOUR SIGNING the conformed loan application at closing, it is LIKELY THAT YOU COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME IN MAKING A FALSE MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICATION. Even if you can argue that you were fraudulently induced to make these false representations, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME.
Good luck with that!
Our previous servicer as of late, has been sending a monthly mortgage statement that does not accurately reflect our original loan documentation. The balance, monthly interest amount, and monthly payment do not match. This is not due to escrow charges or interest changes because neither have changed. We have never missed a payment. The mortgage balance is currently higher than the contract allows, and higher than the PMI insured ceiling.
If there are errors in billing, you need to document these and perhaps you can seek correction in small claims court.
Given your misunderstanding of all of the other issues you discuss, I have serious doubts that the mortgage or deed of trust shows an upper limit on the balance. To the contrary, there is probably an adjustable rate rider to the mortgage which expressly discloses the possibility of negative amortization. The mortgage also probably expressly contemplates the possibility that unpaid amounts will be added to the balance.
The PMI insurance policy is for the benefit of the lender, NOT for your benefit. Whether the principal balance exceeds some limits on the policy is a matter between the lender and the insurer. Despite the fact that you PAY FOR this coverage, there is no privity of contract, you are NOT injured and have no right to complain.
A while back we asked the servicer for proof of the debt, they sent unindorsed, unassigned copies of the mortgage and note that were obviously printed out from computer records, as they are not the same as those on file with the county. The mortgage has changed hands 5 times now, and still no update to the county record since 2006.
IF you actually default, you can only HOPE that they are still making this mistake when they file suit. Making the mistake in response to a QWR does not present you with ANY valid cause of action.
The satisfaction of mortgage issued by the former lender as evidence of the loan being settled by the refinance, is a DOCx robo-signed fabrication, as is the line of credit satisfaction notice. The mortgage satisfaction from 2005 for the original homeowner from their own bank is also Alphretta, GA robo-signed. That is two forged documents clouding the title to our home within the space of 18 months.
This is simply an ABSURD assertion of harm. You seem to be claiming that the robo-signing of a release or satisfaction of the prior mortgage has injured you in some way.
But absent some assertion by the prior lender that they are still seeking to assert and enforce the prior lien, this is simply an imagined injury.
A title insurer insured the title through two prior refinances. You have not identified any reason to believe that your title is clouded. This is an imagined injury.
It is the type of injury invented by swindlers to persuade you to PAY THEM MONEY to help you out!
And yes, I can not prove that the refi lender "Quicken" promised to refinance into a 30yr fixed 2-3 years and wave the closing costs. But I do have an offer from Wachovia one year after that shows they could have refinanced at less %, lower monthly payment, closing costs, and origination fee. Quicken declined. And we did not refi with Wachovia in 08 in order to avoid increasing the balance by another 10k in closing costs. Especially, not after Quicken defrauded us in the first place.
So, you have NOTHING AT ALL!
I have little doubt that you were defrauded.
But you probably have NO VALID CAUSE OF ACTION. IF you had a valid cause of action, you have a proof problem. You also have a limitations problem. And you have a problem collecting from a defunct entity.
You seem to be an easy mark for swindlers! You were initially defrauded by the subprime lenders, seemingly more than once. Now, instead of learning something, you appear at the Forum and despite your ignorance want to teach others based upon the false representations given to you by the swindlers who have once again identified you as a FOOL who can be repeatedly subject to scams and swindles because you are so easily deceived.
One of the things you seem to be missing here is that the swindlers who are feeding you this nonsense are some of the very same bad actors who were engaged as loan brokers and mortgage loan consultants during the bubble.
By borrowing in subprime loan programs not once, but more than once, you are already identified as a SUCKER. You are on LISTS of people who are easy to deceive, who believe almost anything and can be easily swindled.
You owe ka and others at this Forum an apolgy for (a) ingratitude, (b) wasting everyone's time, (c) further disseminating false information making it more likely that others will be victimized by these swindles!
You need to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and DECIDE not to be a victim any more. Then you need to REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMNT whomever sold you on these false premises to help others to avert being ripped off by these same scams!