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

We would like to hear arguments from both sides on this issue. 

If it is proven that fraud was used to take someone's home, then should a third party be allowed to remain in possession of the stolen property?

Should people get their homes back?

cnnmoney


On Monday October 18, 2010, 11:13 am EDT

Is this the break that millions of people have been hoping for?

Evidence continues to mount that major banks flouted their own foreclosure procedures -- and possibly the law -- when repossessing homes from owners who fell behind on payments.

And that begs the question: Can owners who were wrongfully evicted take their home back? What if a new owner has already bought the place and moved in?

That's the messy scenario that lawyers, banks and hordes of ex-homeowners are facing, after revelations that loan servicer employees might have signed off on documents without a proper review, a process dubbed "robo-signing."

Experts say that very few homeowners will ever get their houses back. The possible exception: The handful of people who were wrongfully swept up by the mortgage tsunami, despite the fact that they were current on their payments.

But getting a judge to unwind a foreclosure is tough.

"The law imposes a very heavy burden on those seeking to attack final court judgments," says Robert Lawless, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law.

If a court does rule a foreclosure invalid, either because the lender didn't have the paperwork in order or because the mortgage was not actually in default, a home's title will revert to the original owner, even if the property has since been purchased by a third party.

So where does that leave the original homeowners? It's difficult to say, because this is truly uncharted territory, and because foreclosures are subject to state laws, which vary widely.

But one thing is clear: If the original homeowner doesn't have the cash to catch up on the mortgage, the lender will restart the foreclosure process and, with the paperwork in order this time, repossess the house.

"The bottom line is that for the vast majority of these cases it's just going to delay the inevitable," said George Craft, a Texas based real estate attorney.

The new owner should be able to stay in the house while the second foreclosure works through the courts because by this point, the original homeowner has probably found a new place to live.

Even someone who was wrongly evicted has probably found a new home and would prefer to take a cash settlement rather than try to reclaim their house. Most of these homeowners will almost certainly sue their lender, which is of course exposed to a tremendous amount of liability.

"Monetary damages will be the way people are compensated, because it's much easier for courts to monitor and institute," according to Andrew Raines, a California lawyer who specializes in real estate.

In the rare case that a foreclosure victim does want a house back after a third party has moved in, the new buyers will be compensated by title insurance.

Almost all lenders require mortgage applicants to purchase title insurance, which is designed to guard against gaps in the title record due to human error. If a title reverts to the original homeowner, title insurance should cover any financial loss incurred if the new owner is ordered to vacate the house.

Of course, that might not be the end of it -- there will probably be a flood of lawsuits bouncing between victims, title insurers and lenders that will further jam up a system that's already backlogged.

"One of the best and worst parts of our judicial system," said Lawless, "is that anyone has access to the courts to assert their grievance against another."

Quote 0 0
arkygirl
I really don't buy into the "but the borrower signed a contract and no one gets a free house" blather. Normally I would, but these are far from normal times.

The borrower signed in good faith in most cases fully meaning to make those payments. (Who knew the banks were on the verge of putting us all on our knees? In fact, unlike an earthquake or hurricane that destroys indiscriminately, one could actually say that the banks brought about the very conditions that have made people unable to pay. Self-destruction without repentance is useless.)

The lenders knew the laws. The lenders (many of them) breached first and acted in bad faith right at the closing table. The lender introduced players into the contract that were never mentioned to the borrower, such as servicers, insurers and MERS.

The lender breached before the borrower was scheduled to make the first payment by digitizing the note and then destroying their contract! The lender breached in a way that puts title at issue....that is really bad. The borrower can never feel that he owns his home free and clear now even if it rained money tonight and everyone could pay his mortgage tomorrow. There would always be that sense of unease living with the homeowner.

So let the current pseudo-owner stay rent free until the mess is cleared up. If at some point title is found to have to revert to the previous owner at least the person living in the home will have had maybe years to save up to pay cash for a home. I figure it will take years to unwind this mess.

I am not allowed to profit from reckless and irresponsible behavior and lies and fraud. Why should the banks be allowed to do it with the full blessing and support of the government? That makes the government fully complicit in the fraud.

And then these idiot campaigning reprehensibles stare into the cameras on the stump and are mystified as to why the voters are so angry these days. They seriously cannot figure out why they are not universally loved by all of us and why we seem bent on tossing them out like garbage. Maybe it is because they treat us as such? Their arrogance is amazing.

Stop Urban Blight...Keep Butts in Houses!

Quote 0 0
Fraud is fraud no matter who does it.  I don't know of anywhere where this excludes banks and/or their thugs who CHOSE to sign fake documents and present them before the court or the fake and wrong assignments giving whoever the right to foreclose.   Simply put they did this knowing what they were doing was wrong and they kept on doing it without any conscience.

If you can prove in the court that there was fraud in your case, then you should get your home back free and clear if you want it back.  That should be the sanction that the court gives out.  Or the homeowner should get compensation.   Fraud changes everything and if the banks and their accomplices keep getting away with this then why even have rules.  Lets make it a free for all

As far as the new owner, if the homeowner wants his house back, then the banks and their thugs should compensate the new owner for whatever they put into the house.   They are victims of the banks also.

My parents brought me up to believe that stealing is wrong and there are consequences for it.  So why not hold the banks and their accomplices responsible for the harm that they have done.  They have no one to blame but themselves for this.   
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Hell, there are plenty of people who did not fall behind on their payments who would love to get their houses back.

Look, this is America.  Consumers never win.
Quote 0 0
anon
yes! and compensation for lots and lots of damages.

Quote 0 0
spectre
Everyone of these lame stream media vidios I have seen NONE NOT ONE Of these so called "EXPERTS" has touched the real issue.
They keep saying the paper work isnt in order.Well i have a few questions for these so called "EXPERTS" But before i ask them i want to throw out a few ruleings such as “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S
426.“ Hmm how bout this “Fraud vitiates everything,” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 Lets see one more “Fraud vitiates the most solemn
contracts, documents and even judgments,” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. A wise friend thought me not to think about what they are saying or what they have in their pleidings but look for what is NOT THERE and i found out in my own battle when you know the issues its really easy to see how these scumbags and their lapdog lairs err lawyers steal from people.Yea their "EXPERTS" alright "EXPERTS" in saying what their told to say.
I have yet to hear one say anything about the FRAUD that the bankers committed and in not doing so they are also committing fraud dont beleave me?
then you decide Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.  A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594.Yea I know its hard to prove my point is the bankers know and now they know that we know.And now BOA and GMAC Say theyve put humpty dumpty togther again HA!!!!
I guess they think you can fix stupid WRONG!!! THEY KNOW THEIR SCREWED!! How can i say this because they deal with contracts EVERYDAY! Something else Ive heard from the lamestream media is how they spilt the note from the mortage so the debt is still there its just not secured OH BOY a UNSECURED DEBT!! Hmmm I have a little problem with that. Sure the "DEBT" note is unsecured BUT doies it even still exist? or was it destroyed because if it was i really dont think there is a "UNSERCURE DEBT" anymore and as far as the mortage goies well i guess the bankers have a lot of tolet paper.OH! YOU HAVE THE NOTE GREAT! HOW YOU GET IT? you bought it huh? well wheres the accounting? see what ever they bring in as evadence you get to tear up. HSBC filed foreclosure on 22 sept 09 i havent payed anything since feb 09 on the 24 of sept 2010 the judge denied their motion for summery judgement i havent even been to court yet im still in "MY HOME" you might be thinking how can i call it "MY HOME" Well in case you missed it in my rant above ill write it again  “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments,” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61." I had a good headstart on the REAL ISSUES before this started so when i couldnt pay anymore my thoughts was NO! they are not getting this without a fight so i dugin like a tick on a dogs butt and im still here and they cant even get in the door. Yes I won a battle but the war is still on and i can still lose. One thing i can say is no matter what they say you stay on point and dont join their issues. Sorry about my long and boring rant folks my answer is YES! people who have lost their homes due to this Fraud should get their homes back FREE AND CHEAR!!!


HERES FOR ALL YOU SCUMSUCKING LAWYERS
Fraus est celare fraudem

DE.OPPRESSO.LIBER


Quote 0 0
anon
I was trying to put together a motion in the wee hours last night. This stuff is hard to get around.

A note is a written promise from me to the bank. Its a negotiable instrument like a check except much bigger but it is the same thing. The mortgage is the means by which to do it. So how on earth could a bank possibly ever make a claim on the basis of something it claims it does not have.If the bank loses the promise they can't collect. A mortgage secures the note so if they assign the mortgage to someone other than the note holder it is meaningless.

That would be like me showing up at the a bank to cash a check without the check.  Whoa. How did these people ever get out of the starting gate. I know stupid question.
Quote 0 0
I  believe in Florida, the Sale and Judgment can be voided if there is Fraud upon the Court i.e fraudulent Affidavitts or Assignments. If the Judgment and Sale is voided, I think people can get their house back. They should go see a good foreclosure defense lawyer.

Also if there is a default in Service Process ie. not properly served, no time and date on Summons, wrong address etc; the whole case could be voided as the Court has no Jurisdiction on the Homeowner if he is not properly served.

I have a friend whose case was voided because the server says he served the Defendant's mother at the defendant's house . The house was sold on auction. The Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Service with proof that his mother was not at the house at the time they alleged .  The Judge granted the Motion, vacate the Judgment and cancel the Sale.

Here is a sample of Motion to Quash Service from another case
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/DECINTI-Mt-to-Vacate1.pdf
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...