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

Those of you who have experienced and continue to experience violations of RESPA, FCRA, FDCPA, TILA, etc. at the hands of SPS/Fairbanks, should contact Mike Dillon via his website ( and the FTC (note my previous posts).  It is essential that people continue to communicate violations of best practices standards spelled out by the settlement with the FTC. 


The bigger picture involved here is that many of us continue to fight SPS/Fairbanks in State and Federal courts post-Curry.  As people settle their cases, they are coaxed into silence.  Don't shut up until you absolutely have no choice (and to be honest, we always have a choice).  Based on conversations that I have personally had with other SPS/Fairbanks victims (and given my ongoing nightmare involving SPS/Fairbanks), it is clear that CSFB has taken on PMI's problem with window dressing.


Do a little refresher research.  Check out terms like Brian Barr, W. Craig Kenney, mortgage servicing fraud,, securitization, RMBS, tranches, servicer ratings, pooling and servicing agreements, secondary mortgage market, BASEL II,, Thomas Basmajian, PMI Group, etc.


Lastly, everyone of us adversely affected by poor servicing practices should be responding to proposed rule changes to BASEL II.  Some very influential financial institutions would like nothing more than to turn consensus rulemaking into joke.  Let's not let them!

Quote 0 0
O -

So are the attorneys still up to their old tricks?


I read the class settlement agreement, doesn't sound like they have changed.


Your doing a great job getting the word out  Great job on your web site!!!

Quote 0 0

Some of you guys still battling Fairbanks should see what is up with this information before dismissing it as something you don't want to be a party to.


Those that can prove what we would now call misconduct since there is

an agreement in place OK'd by a Judge that Fairbanks will not harm borrowers with certain conduct.


See what Mike is thinking about doing and if you are nervous, I understand

that.  If he can't tell you what he intends to do with your information,

I'm guessing he won't get any takers.


I like to saber rattle myself and play some hardball, so I wouldnt keep it secret, but that is  me. 


"Best Practices" has no teeth because nobody has forced the issue.


Best Practices are the borrower's protection from Fairbanks past conduct

and in exchange, you gave them certain things as well.  Like a teeny

weeny itsy bitty low ball settlement cost in view of the vast amount of

information that would prove your claims if pursued individually.


Make it count for something if you can. 


Can't hurt to talk about it privately.









Quote 0 0

Let me be clear.  I am not Mike Dillon (although he seems to be a nice enough guy).  I am the mother of three great kids, the wife of a hardworking guy and I am angry that these people tried (unsuccessfully) to steal my home.  I am Fairbanks/SPS worst nightmare -- a mom with a bad attitude about corrupt mortgage servicers!


Every morning that I woke up at 4:30am showered, cooked breakfast, got my children ready, took my kids to daycare and headed to my job is the reason that I plan to recoup the equity (and costs) that these people stole from me.  If I had known that I were going to give away over $150,000.00 to some marginally intelligent, morally compromised losers that happened to select structured finance as a career choice, I would have stayed in bed all those mornings until 8:00am, played a few more games with my kids and watched a little more Oprah. 


I am yet another person that has taken Fairbanks/SPS on and cost them some money in the process.  (HOW SWEET IT IS TO DIP INTO SOME OF THOSE ILL GOTTEN GAINS - THEIR ATTORNEYS WILL PROBABLY SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO COLLEGE WITH WHAT THEY WILL MAKE ON MY CASE - THEY CAN THANK ME LATER) By the way - it cost me some as well .  Trust me, it was money well spent!  If I do not win my case in civil court, there is always the court of public opinion.  That win might be even more rewarding and it comes without a non-disclosure agreement.


How did some of Fairbank's earlier victims get what they needed to feel vindicated ($$$CASH$$$)?  They became big enough nuisances to PMI Group that it prompted them to do what they needed to shut them up.  PMI hired "supplemental" professionals to improve their image after the Fairbanks debacle and finally sold them to CSFB to save what was left of their reputation and stock price.  Say what you will about some of the earlier victims' efforts and personalities, they got the job done.  I should say -- they got the job started.  It's up to us to finish it.


If you have been victimized by these people and are feeling depressed and beaten, I strongly recommend that you join the fight again.  It's cathardic and therapeutic to see those who wronged you held accountable or at least made uncomfortable (and hesitant about trying it again).  You don't even have to disclose your name to anyone now if you are leary.  White out names, social security numbers and account numbers and get the proof to Mike Dillon via his website and let the games begin.  Anything demonstrating violations of Best Practices / consent decree after November 2003 are the most important items to forward.  We're closer than you know to getting some real enforcement of the order signed by the FTC/HUD and Fairbanks.  If this doesn't work, there are other rabbits in the hat on my end as well.  I just feel that Mike's been reasonably successful at beating Fairbanks/SPS, he's presented some compelling information and he's disclosed who he is and I'm joining his team along with others. 


I've been told that my case is a nuisance case to Fairbanks/SPS/PMI.  That may well be, but I fully intend to recoup what was stolen from my family and be the best nuisance I can be.  


Get the information that you can from all posts related to Fairbank/SPS/PMI, parse it and manage your fight well. 



Quote 0 0
Dee wrote:

See what Mike is thinking about doing and if you are nervous, I understand

that.  If he can't tell you what he intends to do with your information,

I'm guessing he won't get any takers.


Just so people won't wonder.  I'm not sure what we plan to do with regard to "Best Practices" just yet. Not being an attorney I'm not 100% sure what can be done until we get an idea of how many victims are willing/able to participate but I know that the firm has some ideas. Now, what I plan on doing with the limited info that I'd like to get (i.e. contact info, possibly a brief summary of your experiences with Fairbanks/SPS if anyone is comfortable in giving one) is simply to turn it over to a firm that has told me that they would like to take a close look at "Best Practices" violations. Your info will go from you to me to them and you should be contacted by the firm just to confirm that they have received your info.


What I WANT is to hopefully help out as many of the 280,000+ that have been further damaged as a result of Fairbanks/SPS' refusal to adhere to the "Best Practices" clause and as many of the NEW victims Fairbanks has created as possible.


Who I am hoping to hear from: ANYONE who has had problems with Fairbanks/SPS from December 11th, 2003 to today. Your opt status with regard to USA/Curry v. Fairbanks does not matter at this time. There ARE some legal criteria that must be met but that is why I need to hear from people and pass their info on to the firm so the info can be properly evaluated and it can be determined whether you are eligible to further participate in this project. The reason that opt status does not matter is that "Best Practices" was part of the injunctive relief and, as Allison Brown of the FTC has so eloquently pointed out, "you can't opt out of injunctive relief."  


Hopefully, that will help alleviate any understandable nerves that may exist within Fairbanks/SPS victims. And if you've got questions before you make a decision please feel free to e-mail me directly either through my highlighted name at the beginning of this post or through my website.  

Quote 0 0
O -

This is Great Mike



On Thursday, August 24, 2006 all parties attended a hearing based upon the Motion For Contempt filed on my behalf by my attorney. I am happy to report that on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 I received notification via Court Order that the Hillsboro County Superior Court has found Select Portfolio Servicing f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Court in contempt and issued a PERMANENT INJUNCTION preventing them from foreclosing on my home.
Almost as important is that the
Judge has ordered the CEO of Fairbanks/SPS to sign an affidavit under the pains and penalties of perjury accouting for each and every action Fairbanks/SPS has taken with regards to my loan. lol//...

Link Welcome To!


Who is the CEO? $$$ paying that fine...

Quote 0 0
O -

 Oooop's, I added the lol at the end of that posting.

Quote 0 0

I just wanted to keep this thread current.  My case had taken a bit of a turn; however, I think it is back on track.  SPS/Fairbanks has offered to settle with my family and are actually trying to get the court to enforce the settlement offer that I refuse to sign because it does not do what was promised.  My former attorney made a major miscalculation with respect to my ability to keep things honest. 


Always shine light on darkness.  If someone is trying to commit a crime against you and you are powerless to stop them, let them do it with people watching from behind the two-way mirror.  There are still a lot of people in the judiciary with integrity in my view.  Enough said.



Quote 0 0

Thursday, March 20, 2008
How West Haven sisters fell victim to a national mortgage scam, and how it could happen again.
By Betsy Yagla
Kathleen Cei Photo
JoAnne DeGoursey: "We had to pack up a house of 54 years."

JoAnne DeGoursey had a "bad feeling" when the mortgage on her West Haven family home was sold to Fairbanks Capital Corp.

Eighteen months and two missed payments later, her home was in foreclosure and DeGoursey and her sister were out, victims of a national mortgage servicing company that had swindled thousands of people and snatched their homes through foreclosure. A class action lawsuit felled Fairbanks Capital, but it has since re-emerged with a new name and some of the same old questionable practices, state regulators say.

DeGourseys' story begins in 2000 the day she and her sister, Linda Audette, inherited the two-story Cape built by their father. DeGoursey is legally blind—she can read large print with a magnifying glass—and Audette is totally blind. The sisters took out a mortgage to buy the house fully from two other siblings and planned to use the remainder ($117,000) to fix up the home. In 2001, the mortgage was sold to Bank of New York. Fairbanks Capital Corp. was the mortgage servicer.

"Unfortunately under the current system, if the lender wants to sell the mortgage, the borrower simply can't prevent it and often doesn't know about it," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says in an interview.

DeGoursey was told to begin paying Fairbanks in April 2001. All went well until Sept. 2002, when Audette was married and the sisters and their husbands went on a honeymoon together. The September mortgage "got away from me," admits DeGoursey.

"When I sat down to pay for October, I realized I hadn't paid September," she says. She called Fairbanks to work out a payment plan—exactly what the state Department of Banking suggests people do when they miss a payment—but she was told she was already in foreclosure.

Fairbanks claimed they'd missed the March 2001 payment, even though the first payment to Fairbanks wasn't due until the following month. Fairbanks said they'd missed two payments and now the full amount of the loan was due, or else.

Fairbanks and the DeGourseys worked out a payment plan, but Fairbanks filed for foreclosure on their home anyway. The sisters managed to keep the family home, for the time being, because they had signed a forbearance agreement that said Fairbanks couldn't take their home if they made their monthly payments.

Meanwhile, in 2003 the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Housing and Urban Development sued Fairbanks for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FTC said Fairbanks was unfairly adding $50 late fees to payments made on time (the DeGourseys paid several unnecessary late fees), was forcing clients to buy insurance through them (the DeGourseys were paying an extra $84 a month for Fairbanks' insurance), and was loaning clients money for the insurance and then collecting interest on that loan. They miscalculated bills and refused to break down and explain costs to customers, regulators said. In 2003, the class action lawsuit was settled, with Fairbanks agreeing to a $40 million payout to customers. The DeGourseys got $800.

But Fairbanks and the sisters continued fighting over a $2,000 rebate DeGoursey was owed for overpayment. The sisters stopped paying Fairbanks in protest and the loan went into default. Fairbanks again pressed foreclosure and forced the sisters out. The house was sold to Bank of America for $177,115 and is still on the market.

"We had to pack up a house of 54 years, being blind and sick," says DeGoursey, who's now living in an apartment in New Haven. "You don't know what that's like."

After the FTC lawsuit Fairbanks changed their name to Select Portfolio Servicing with the same phone number, address and a lot of the same executive staff. Connecticut's Department of Banking has already received six complaints about Select Portfolio since the start of 2007, says consumer affairs manager Carmine Costa, including payoff disputes, collection practices and billing errors—all problems cited in the FTC lawsuit against Fairbanks.

Blumenthal's office has heard the same, and is already investigating Select Portfolio—part of a larger investigation into the mortgage industry—for improper fees, inflated home appraisals and other "deceptive practices."

Utah-based Select Portfolio did not return a call seeking comment for this story.

On a positive note, however, both Blumenthal and the Banking Department say they've been able to get reimbursements for consumers from Select Portfolio without having to file lawsuits.

Too late for JoAnn DeGoursey and Linda Audette.


Quote 0 0
Smurf wrote:

But Fairbanks and the sisters continued fighting over a $2,000 rebate DeGoursey was owed for overpayment. The sisters stopped paying Fairbanks in protest and the loan went into default. 
Over a $2,000 dispute they stopped paying to "protest" it?
Folks, the last thing you want to do is tie bleeding fish to your wet suit before you swim with the sharks.
If you have a dispute, don't stop making the payments.
Quote 0 0

Now I've had SPS in Court for years, what I have learned is that the Federal Court Third Circuit is PROTECTING SPS. Also Fannie Mae has retained a multiple page list of attorneys to protect SPS.

Now here is what the Third Circuit Federal Court did to Protect SPS.

The first count was ( SPS filed a Fraudulent Foreclosure Action), this detailed that they used a fraudulent Mortgage Contract that was UNSIGNED and held NO true Barrowed Amount and failed to comply with ALL STATE LAWS. Now the Third Circuit claimed Rooker- Feldman by dividing the count in to two parts Title and Content. Then claimed the content was barred by the doctrine. This was done with no legal support. Now the Second Circuit Federal Court ruled that this act is a deceptive act.

Now the Second count was( Contract Fraud) which consisted pointing out that there was NO true Barrowed Amount. Since each amount was illegaly inflated by thousands, the Contract documents where altered violating state and federal laws on certification, a fraudulent right to cancel documents where used since the claimed pay-off check was sent out prior to the claimed settlement date, and that the contract was signed by only one party under duress. Now these violations where supported by using the HornBook Law and Truth in Lending Act as refference laws. So the Third Circuit alter the Title from Contract Fraud to a Truth in Lending Act violation to claim the statutes of limitations disregarding the HornBook Law violations. Now a Federal lawyer in the civil Div. of the Department of Justice stated this is unheard of.

The third count was ( Unlawful Enrichment) which consisted of fraudulent acts, was also altered to (Unjust Enrichment). Which the Third Circuit claimed was not a legal charge. this was done to conceal fraud committed.

Now in accordance with Federal Rule 9c fraud has to be denied in detail which the Third Circuit disregarded.

Now the Third Circuit also permitted SPS and Credit Suisse to file documents late. They also permitted SPS's Attorneys to represent Credit Suisse without a notice of appearance which was required.

Now presently the the case is being refiled with a change of venue.

Now other steps have been taken also which i will keep quite at this time.

But I will say this the Federal goverment is financing SPS by using funds under the bail out program, I'm doing a lot of digging and finding out alot.

Oh and SPS's protection goes higher then anybody thinks.


Quote 0 0

Credit Suisse bought SPS few years ago.

Quote 0 0

Interesting,  We have SPS as our loan servicer right now, we went into forclosure some years ago got served papers then out of nowhere they slashed half our pricipal.(and of course we accepted)  Forclosure suit was withdrawn.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...