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
stillinMyHome
I found this article on creditslips.org Thought it would be something interesting for discussion.
       

As challenges to whether a "bank" (usually actually a securitized trust) has the right to foreclose because it owns the note and mortgage become more common, rumors swirl about the ability to use such tactics to get a "free house." There are a few instances of consumer getting a free house, see here and here, for examples, but these are extreme situations not premised on ownership, but on a more fundamental flaw with the mortgage. In general, the idea that even a successful ownership challenge will create a free house to the borrower is an urban myth. I'll explain why below, but there is a policy point here. The myth of the free house drives policymakers to complain about the moral hazard risks of holding mortgage companies to the law and tries to set up homeowners who are paying their mortgages against those who are not. It serves the banks' political agenda to be able to point to the "free house" as an obviously unacceptable alternative of consumers winning legal challenges. It's key then to understand that the "free house" is largely a creature of consumers' and banks' over-active imaginations.

In sorting out why even a successful ownership challenge does not give homeowners a free house, it is helpful to parse some key concepts. The first one is standing, which is the right of a party to ask a court for the relief it seeks. This comes in different flavors, including constitutional standing, but in the foreclosure context, usually boils down to whether the moving party is the "real party in interest." In re Veal, the recent decision from the 9th Circuit BAP authored by Judge Bruce Markell, mentioned previously on Credit Slips , contains a discussion of standing in the foreclosure context. At least in part, the concern of the real party in interest doctrine is to make sure that the plaintiff is the right person to get legal relief in order to protect the defendant from a later action by the person truly entitled to relief. Note that standing is a concept that only applies in court; here that means in judicial foreclosures. In states that allow non-judicial foreclosure, the issue is slightly different. Does the party initiating the non-judicial foreclosure have the authority to do so under the state statute authorizing the sale? For example, cases such as In re Salazar discuss whether a recorded assignment of the mortgage is needed, as opposed to an unrecorded assignment, to initiate a foreclosure. Under either standing or statutory authority, a "win" by the homeowner leads to the same result. The foreclosure cannot proceed.

But this win is not the same as a free house. Just because a party lacked standing or statutory authority does not mean that there is not some party out there that does have the authority to foreclosure. Nor does a win on standing mean that there cannot be action taken to give the initial foreclosing party the authority that they need, which might occur by transferring possession of the note or by executing a series of assignments, to foreclose at a later date. Unless other problems exist, there is still a valid note that obligates the homeowner to pay money due and there is still a mortgage encumbering the house. The homeowner does not get a free house. Rather, the homeowner just doesn't lose her house today to foreclosure. These are pretty different outcomes!

This doesn't mean that I think the standing/ownership issue is inconsequential. For homeowners, a successful challenge that results in the dismissal of a foreclosure can lead to a loan modification or the delay itself can give the homeowner the time to find another solution. For investors in mortgage-backed securities, the problems with paperwork likely increase their loss severities in foreclosure, both because of increased litigation costs and because of delay in correcting problems. (And there may be even more serious problems for investors relating to whether the transfers even succeeded in putting the homes in the trust.) But we shouldn't confuse these issues with the idea that what is at stake in sorting out this mess is giving a "free house" to some Americans, despite the lamentations of this LaSalle Bank lawyer after a judge ruled that LaSalle as trustee lacked standing to foreclose. A fruitful discussion of these issues needs to begin with a clear understanding of the consequences of the problem, as well as empirical evidence on how widespread these problems are. The free house is political handwringing, not legal reality.



Quote 0 0
Moose
There have been any number of promoters of methods and schemes to engage in to somehow own your home free and clear, none of which have had any lasting success and some of which have found themselves behind bars.

But this isn't an easy black and white issue - there are numerous shades of grey I've seen over the years.

Some people have been deliberately taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders and predatory servicers. Some of them feel appropriately outraged and some of those believe it is perfectly okay to take advantage of any tactic that delays the reality that they cannot possibly afford the home they're living in.

Our problem in those situation boils down to fundamental equity and justice concepts. When a company takes advantage of someone, many people believe that there should be a process for restitution. There was, that is until the predators tweaked their system early in the last decade to distort justice.

Justice has not kept up with predatory servicing. Only in the last few years have courts started to even admit there was a problem.

In the mean time, victims (at least some) felt justified in attempting to find some way to punish the perpetrators by somehow winding up with their home without having to pay for it.  That involves a spectrum of personal motives that can include everything from greed to a need for vengeance.

From a societal viewpoint, most Americans don't believe you should own things without paying for them. For the majority who haven't been affected by predatory servicing, they find it hard to believe people have been taken advantage of and tend to view victims as just people who have money problems and can't afford the house they signed up for.

And if you believe a financial entity with an interest in a property will just go away, they won't. They will spend anything they need to no matter what the property is or isn't worth. They can be patient, too. The industry has a well-coordinated strategic legal plan and methodology. Eventually the laws will be further adjusted to ensure the industry can function without having to worry about the nuisance of civil litigation. Americans, by and large, don't believe in their neighbors getting something for nothing and will be convinced this is a good thing, to prevent another housing collapse that was supposedly brought on by people getting loans they couldn't pay for.

The more people make claims and tout ways to get a house "free and clear" the worse it will become for the actual victims.

Moose





Quote 0 0
bwssr
I agree Moose. Most people are hard working and think that you should pay your bills. But looking at this from my end. I see the banks getting a bailout because of the trouble they made for themselves but when it comes to the consumer who lost income there's not much hope if any of negotiation for a loan mod. This seem pretty unfair and uncaring on the mortgage industries part. So I am guessing if a few a people can find a loophole or 2 and get a so called free house then more power to them. These banks  have gotten way to big and to powerful and I think most people would enjoy to see them loose once on a while.
They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Ethan

Quote:
I agree Moose. Most people are hard working and think that you should pay your bills. But looking at this from my end. I see the banks getting a bailout because of the trouble they made for themselves but when it comes to the consumer who lost income there's not much hope if any of negotiation for a loan mod. This seem pretty unfair and uncaring on the mortgage industries part. So I am guessing if a few a people can find a loophole or 2 and get a so called free house then more power to them. These banks have gotten way to big and to powerful and I think most people would enjoy to see them loose once on a while.
 

 

The number of people nationally who have ended up with a "free house" in the past five years is probably less than two dozen.  Almost all of these are in judicial foreclosure states. 

 

As far as I know, NO ONE who has followed the suggestions and counsel of Charlatans such as Neil Garfield, George Tran/Vince Khan, Dave Krieger, Maher Soliman, or countless others have ever actually prevailed and obtained a "free house".  As far as I know, NO ONE who has used the services of marginal and/or incompetent Florida defense lawyers championed by spam artist Anh has ever obtained a "free house". 

 

To the contrary, the former have been routinely swindled out of thousands of dollars for useless and specious products or services.  The latter have overpaid for marginal legal work by attorneys whose only real skill is self-promotion.  These are disreputable attorneys who recruit shills such as Anh to SPAM message boards with links to their blogs and foreclosure defense posts.

 

But real attorneys with actual competence realize that the nonsense being posted by these incompetent attorneys is mostly legally erroneous hype designed only to recruit new clients.

 

Mr. Roper's posts here at the Forum was the very best information available.  He gave the unvarnished truth.  However, when Mr. Roper's posts interfered with the profits of the Charlatans, he was attacked and the site proprietor betrayed distressed borrowers by taking down Mr. Roper's informative posts.

 

CreditSlips has the advantage of being an honest site hosted by reputable attorneys who know and understand the law.  It is a good source of information.  It is a pity that the site administrator has allowed the degradation of this site by spam artists like Anh.  Pity is an understatement.  It is disgraceful!

Quote 0 0
texas
Ethan
If the scams posts did not remained posted, how would one know what to look for? When a scam is detected there are those who post warnings that a scam has been posted.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2012/04/18/bank-of-am-v-lucido-nysc-judge-arlen-spinner-slams-boa-et-al-are-forever-barred-foreclosed-and-prohibited-from-demanding-collecting-or-attempting-to-collect/

Defendant is awarded $200,000 damages etc.
Quote 0 0
texas
The use of the upper case "U" in unregistered as noted is in the process of being addressed which locks out those who wish not to be identified.
Quote 0 0
Robert

 

Once again, the abusive SPAM troll Anh attempts to direct traffic to another site by yet another of her many abusive SPAM posts.

 

Since her purpose is not to inform, but rather to re-direct site traffic to other competing sites, including those operated by disreputable attorneys, she says nothing other than posting her abusive SPAM links.

 

Anh needs to be BANNED from the Forum site permanently!

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Read Court Opinions to know which winning arguments are accepted by Court.

Quote 0 0
...
Unregistered wrote:

Read Court Opinions to know which winning arguments are accepted by Court.


It's funny how easy it is to tell what posts are made by Ann under a different name.  

Your missing a few words there Ann but that's okay, you can just delete all the posts.
Quote 0 0
I've been trying to do some heavy reading on the subject and it seems to me, and I'm probably making a general sweeping statement, but most if not all these "free" houses come from BK proceedings.  Some pi$$ed off  BK judge getting disgusted with the plaintiff for continuously lying......

Has anyone else noticed this?

Quote 0 0
texas
Maybe the BK courts are tired of seeing claims as Secured when by law they should be Unsecured. Nothing to do with a free house.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Another foreclosure case dismissed.

Lawyer Defeats Nationstar Mortgage in Vero Beach Foreclosure Case and Recovers Attorney’s Fees.

http://floridaforeclosuredefense.blogspot.com/2012/03/shuster-saben-defeats-nationstar.html#more
 
Things did not look good for a Vero Beach resident when he drove to Melbourne to hire Shuster & Saben to defend his home. Before Shuster & Saben was hired Nationstar had already obtained summary judgment against the homeowner. All that was left in the case was for the Indian River Circuit Court to conduct a  foreclosure sale  which was scheduled to take a place about a month after the firm was hired. When Shuster & Saben was first hired Nationstar was so confident in their position that they rejected a request made by attorney Shuster for a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure settlement.

After the firm was hired, Shuster & Saben moved to set the summary judgment aside based on promises made to the homeowner that his loan would be modified. Before the hearing on the motion to cancel sale and vacate summary judgment took place, Nationstar’s original counsel Ben-Ezra Katz, P.A., withdrew the affidavit that had previously been filed in support of Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter Nationstar, Fannie Mae and numerous other lenders discharged the Ben-Ezra firmunder suspicious circumstances.

Firm attorney Richard Shuster argued that if the affidavit used in support of summary judgment was withdrawn and was possibly fraudulent the Court should vacate the summary judgment previously entered against our client. The Court agreed, canceled the foreclosure sale and vacated the summary judgment against our client.


Shuster was not content just to stop the banks forward movement. Once the summary judgment was vacated, it was time for the firm to go on the offensive. Days later the firm sent discovery to Nationstar, the Ben Ezra Katz firm and Nationstar’s new counsel to find out what Nationstar knew about alleged misconduct by the Ben Ezra Katz firm and when and how they learned such information. When Nationstar did not produce the documents requested or answer the firm’s interrogatories concerning the allegations of fraud, the firm obtained a Court order compelling Nationstar to provide the discovery within thirty days. A few days before the thirty day deadline expired Nationstar dismissed their case to avoid answering the questions under oath. Shuster & Saben then filed a motion to make the Nationstar pay our client’s attorney’s fees.


The firm ultimately recovered $8,500.00 of attorney’s fees from Nationstar. In the eight months since the case was dismissed Nationstar has not refilled. Our client, on his way from Vero Beach to our Melbourne office passed many lawyers that change less for foreclosure defense than our firm. He realized the high cost of a bad result necessitated hiring the best lawyer willing to take his case. Now a significant portion of the fees our client paid will be reimbursed from attorney’s fees recovered from Nationstar.


Quote 0 0
t

I see that Anh continues her abusive SPAM posts at the Forum.  This seems unlikely to end well for her.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...