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
bwssr
I have watched this forum for the last year. It seems like the bank always has the upper hand. There are no simple solutions to this for a home owner. Sure you can hire an experienced lawyer to try to save your home. Once the bank marks your home for foreclosure it seems as if you are doomed. I see allot of post with court cases but no clear cut evidence of a win for the home owner. Maybe a battle here and a battle there but not the war. We have allot of what you guys call wing nut theories that get shot down as soon as they hit the forum. Perhaps some of these guys are scammers and some are misinformed just throwing the crap against the wall and seeing what sticks. In my case the bank is not interested in a loan mod because it's in a trust. There is no one person to negotiate with. If it is not in this trust I'll never know because the OCC and the SEC will only let the banks know if it is or not no matter how many request I make in writing.  I asked in this forum if anyone ever heard of the bank vacating a foreclosure and if so how did it turn out. No answer. I like most of us do not understand allot the legal discussions that go on here. I am learning. So what I would like to know. Is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Do we truly live by the golden rule (He who has the Gold rules)?  Is this the no win scenario?
They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
HungarianProse

bwssr wrote:
I have watched this forum for the last year. It seems like the bank always has the upper hand. There are no simple solutions to this for a home owner. Sure you can hire an experienced lawyer to try to save your home. Once the bank marks your home for foreclosure it seems as if you are doomed. I see allot of post with court cases but no clear cut evidence of a win for the home owner. Maybe a battle here and a battle there but not the war. We have allot of what you guys call wing nut theories that get shot down as soon as they hit the forum. Perhaps some of these guys are scammers and some are misinformed just throwing the crap against the wall and seeing what sticks. In my case the bank is not interested in a loan mod because it's in a trust. There is no one person to negotiate with. If it is not in this trust I'll never know because the OCC and the SEC will only let the banks know if it is or not no matter how many request I make in writing.  I asked in this forum if anyone ever heard of the bank vacating a foreclosure and if so how did it turn out. No answer. I like most of us do not understand allot the legal discussions that go on here. I am learning. So what I would like to know. Is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Do we truly live by the golden rule (He who has the Gold rules)?  Is this the no win scenario?

Look, best case scenario if you fight the Bank:

1. delay the foreclosure by 2 years..

2. you may get some kind of settlement ( cash for key)

3.Loan mod...

 

Quote 0 0
Bill
HungarianProse wrote:

bwssr wrote:
I have watched this forum for the last year. It seems like the bank always has the upper hand. There are no simple solutions to this for a home owner. Sure you can hire an experienced lawyer to try to save your home. Once the bank marks your home for foreclosure it seems as if you are doomed. I see allot of post with court cases but no clear cut evidence of a win for the home owner. Maybe a battle here and a battle there but not the war. We have allot of what you guys call wing nut theories that get shot down as soon as they hit the forum. Perhaps some of these guys are scammers and some are misinformed just throwing the crap against the wall and seeing what sticks. In my case the bank is not interested in a loan mod because it's in a trust. There is no one person to negotiate with. If it is not in this trust I'll never know because the OCC and the SEC will only let the banks know if it is or not no matter how many request I make in writing.  I asked in this forum if anyone ever heard of the bank vacating a foreclosure and if so how did it turn out. No answer. I like most of us do not understand allot the legal discussions that go on here. I am learning. So what I would like to know. Is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Do we truly live by the golden rule (He who has the Gold rules)?  Is this the no win scenario?

Look, best case scenario if you fight the Bank:

1. delay the foreclosure by 2 years..

2. you may get some kind of settlement ( cash for key)

3.Loan mod...

 


I don't agree that the best case scenario is a delay of 2 years.  If you answer and file some kind of discovery you could stumble your way to two years.  If you do the research and make good well written arguments you could delay a foreclosure for quite a bit longer than 2 years.  Many of us already have.

The problem with a foreclosure is:

You signed a note and mortgage.  You received money for the note and purchased a home secured by the mortgage.  You didn't pay on the note as required.

These are the merits/facts of the case.  The law and equity are against you.  

HOW are you planning on prevailing on these facts??  If you lent someone someone 150k, I'm sure you would want your money back.  Why would you feel that the bank is not entitled to recover the money they lent you?

There is no free house or free ride.

There are defenses.  You have the right to make sure you have the correct party in court and can make them prove they are the correct party.  Years ago when people did business with only small local banks this wasn't really a problem.  You signed a note with Billy's Savings and Loans.  They are the party foreclosing.  Now  a days we all know that this just isn't the case.  

You aren't going to be successful arguing the merits.  You owe the originator the money they lent you.  You can make them PROVE their case and follow correct procedures.  This is where the problems start.  They have a PROOF PROBLEM. 

The bank that purchased the note is NOT the party foreclosing.  The Servicer is foreclosing.  While this is legal, they DON'T have the PROOF they need to foreclose.  The bank does.  The bank is often not involved.  Instead of taking an extended period of time to get the documents required to prove their case, it is much easier to just make some up.  Most foreclosures are NOT contested.  No one ever questions their documents.  When you do start making them follow the rules and question their evidence the process comes to a halt.  

In order to do this successfully you really need to know the rules, read the cases, and make well thought out, well researched, motions/pleadings.  There is no shortcut.




Quote 0 0
HungarianProse
Bill wrote:
HungarianProse wrote:

[

Look, best case scenario if you fight the Bank:

1. delay the foreclosure by 2 years..

2. you may get some kind of settlement ( cash for key)

3.Loan mod...

 


" I don't agree that the best case scenario is a delay of 2 years.  If you answer and file some kind of discovery you could stumble your way to two years.  If you do the research and make good well written arguments you could delay a foreclosure for quite a bit longer than 2 years.  Many of us already have."

Bill, you are right. What i wanted to say is "extra 2 years" It would take 6-12 months in Florida if you don't answer. By fighting it you can delay it for  two more years. Agree with everything else you said.
Quote 0 0
bwssr
I am approaching 2 years here in Wisconsin. I tried to do the loan mod jumped thru all the hoops. They say they can't because of investor guidelines. My house was scheduled for a sheriff's sale twice. It was postponed for the 1st one and canceled for the 2nd one. Now the bank has vacated to go back to the beginning and reopen the case after I complained to the OCC. I have not received and answer as to why. My lawyer tells me the same thing. You signed a note. But I also signed to pay my taxes and insurance on my own. Well guess what? The bank started paying those anyway and put me on the path to foreclosure the next year.  I got out of that one because I had a relative who came into allot of money help us out. The banks are not interested in loan mods. If they do a loan mod they can still foreclose anyway and do. I have seen it 1st hand.  So I am hearing and many others on this site too is no matter how long it takes the banks always win. Thus the no win scenario. Why don't you guy just say it. Why all the long discussions?  No so called free house and no loan mod. You can take the HAMP program and stick it as far as banks are concerned.
 Another thing here too. Is the so called scammers that are identified on this site. How about people who are on this site that are misleading and discouraging people on this site. They can be just as sneaky as the scammers. Perhaps they are pro bank or even work in the business. The last thing they want is someone encouraging allot of people to fight back. If one is on here then why not the other?

They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Bill
bwssr wrote:
I am approaching 2 years here in Wisconsin. I tried to do the loan mod jumped thru all the hoops. They say they can't because of investor guidelines. My house was scheduled for a sheriff's sale twice. It was postponed for the 1st one and canceled for the 2nd one. Now the bank has vacated to go back to the beginning and reopen the case after I complained to the OCC. I have not received and answer as to why. My lawyer tells me the same thing. You signed a note. But I also signed to pay my taxes and insurance on my own. Well guess what? The bank started paying those anyway and put me on the path to foreclosure the next year.  I got out of that one because I had a relative who came into allot of money help us out. The banks are not interested in loan mods. If they do a loan mod they can still foreclose anyway and do. I have seen it 1st hand.  So I am hearing and many others on this site too is no matter how long it takes the banks always win. Thus the no win scenario. Why don't you guy just say it. Why all the long discussions?  No so called free house and no loan mod. You can take the HAMP program and stick it as far as banks are concerned.
 Another thing here too. Is the so called scammers that are identified on this site. How about people who are on this site that are misleading and discouraging people on this site. They can be just as sneaky as the scammers. Perhaps they are pro bank or even work in the business. The last thing they want is someone encouraging allot of people to fight back. If one is on here then why not the other?



Maybe you should read the last few posts on this thread.  A "win" means different things to different people.  Only you can decide what a win means to you.  If you think that you will get to keep your home and never pay anything, you will find very few ways to "win".  

You have found out what many homeowners have found.  The banks ARE NOT OBLIGATED to do any kind of modification.  Usually any modification is in THEIR best interest not yours.  Most of the terms are pro-bank, many times the homeowner is in a WORSE position than before the modification.  Usually the only way a homeowner gets a favorable modification is when the bank has their back up against the wall in a contested foreclosure and just want the problems to go away.  Put them in a position that they may LOSE the case and see how magically they can give you a modification.  

Bruce, you keep complaining about not receiving a response from the OCC and that maybe this is what caused the decision to be vacated.  Maybe your complaints initiated some kind of investigation.  I think this is interesting and always is a possibility, but unfortunately we will never know.  It's not the OCC or SEC's job to tell you what trust your loan is in.  I personally don't see how it matters what trust your loan is in.  If the bank is the note holder, they can enforce the note.  Make sure you stay focused on facts that have a direct impact on your case.  

Quote 0 0
bwssr
That's why I have lawyer now. What I mean by a win is you stay in your home whether it's a free house or a decent loan mod.
 I have an idea why the bank would rather foreclose than to do a loan mod but I would like to hear it from other members.
 Being in this position as some of you are. If you all of a sudden got the money to pay off your home and get out of foreclosure would you? Why or why not?

They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Bill
bwssr wrote:
That's why I have lawyer now. What I mean by a win is you stay in your home whether it's a free house or a decent loan mod.
 I have an idea why the bank would rather foreclose than to do a loan mod but I would like to hear it from other members.
 Being in this position as some of you are. If you all of a sudden got the money to pay off your home and get out of foreclosure would you? Why or why not?


Foreclosures and modifications are handled by the Servicers.  The Servicers make very little money by servicing a loan.  The servicing value of a loan also decreases over time.  The Servicers make quite a bit of money in a foreclosure.  They usually add junk fees prior to and during the foreclosure which they can recover with the sale of the home.  
Quote 0 0
OWH
If you came into some money to pay off the mortgage it would be prudent to know your paying the money to the correct entity.

So whether your paying off the mortgage or defaulting on the mortgage make the other party prove STANDING.

The peace of mind that comes with knowing whether the correct entity either collected or foreclosed is a WIN in itself.

STANDING is the REAL ISSUE.

OWH
Quote 0 0
bwssr
That is a very good point. How do you know where the money goes to if you pay off your loan? The foreclosure could still continue any way. Another thing is. Could there be a cloud on the title? If so is it worth keeping?
They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Jesse

Quote:
If you all of a sudden got the money to pay off your home and get out of foreclosure would you? Why or why not?
 

 

The answer to this question is sufficiently complex that it defies a ready answer in a single post.  Mr. Roper has discussed this before in other threads.  Scroll back and maybe you will find the discussion.  Someone good at searching might find these posts more easily.

 

Mr. Roper makes a good argument that the analysis should begin with an economic assessment of the borrower's financial situation, with a primary focus on the borrower's net equity in the property.  The borrower's other financial circumstances are important, too.

 

Where there is equity to protect, finding a way to get current is usually a good idea.  Where there is substantial net negative equity, walking away from the property may be preferable.  This might involve a strategic default.  After default, the question is presented as to whether to fight the foreclosure or to settle, as with a short sale or deed in lieu.  This is also an economic decision.

 

Defaulting has other consequences, including negative impact on the borrower's credit.  There is a value to having good credit, which ought not be discounted or taken lightly.

 

But if a borrower is facing a variety of other debt related issues that might require a bankruptcy anyway, then staying current or paying down the mortgage really isn't going to resolve the negative credit problems.

 

Sometimes when assessing possible alternatives or understanding principles, it helps to construct extreme examples.  Permit me to furnish two.

 

First, suppose that a borrower has a $300,000 mortgage note on a property now worth only $100,000.  Further suppose that the borrower has an additional $100,000 in unsecured debt.  And suppose that this same borrower has $150,000 in an IRA or other similar tax preferred retirement plan.

 

Finally, let us suppose that the borrower has lost his job, has little near term prospect to get another job to restore income and cash flow and is already seriously delinquent on both the mortgage and the unsecured debt.

 

One choice would be for the borrower to use the money from the IRA to bring the mortgage current.  This could even be done within the context of a loan modification agreement, etc.

 

But the end state is going to be drawing down both a tax preferred investment (possibly incurring a substantial tax liability) to fund a mortgage that is underwater by $200,000.  This borrower still faces severe credit impairment due to the default on the other unsecured debt.

 

By contrast, if the borrower files for bankruptcy, the $100,000 in unsecured debt can probably be wiped out.  The $150,000 in the IRA is likely to be exempt in the bankruptcy.  If the borrower can arrange a deed in lieu or short sale with a waiver of any deficiency by the lender, the borrower extinguishes $300,000 in debt.

 

The borrower might lose the property, but wipes out a total of $400,000 and still keeps the $150,000 in retirement savings.

 

Alternatively, the borrower could first contest the foreclosure, live in the property possibly payment free for two to five years and then later declare bankruptcy after ultimately losing the house in foreclosure.  In this instance, the borrower probably obtains an additional $20,000 or more in fair rental value of the property during the interim, though at the cost of dragging the matter out and deferring and extending the credit damage. 

 

If, instead, the borrower draws down on the retirement funds, a more likely outcome is probably going to be the bleeding dry of savings, but the ultimate loss of the property to foreclosure.  Bear in mind that this property is still underwater by $200,000 and is unlikely to recover this value within the next two decades.

 

*

 

Compare a second situation where a borrower has a $100,000 mortgage on a $300,000 property, no unsecured debt, good credit and a job with some income.  Further suppose that this latter borrower has reasonably liquid investments which are not in tax advantaged retirement accounts.

 

Right off the bat, it is easy to see that in falling behind in his mortgage, this latter borrower places $200,000 in equity at risk.  There is no other debt to extinguish in bankruptcy, but even if there was, the $50,000 in liquid investments would ordinarily be at the trustee's disposal to use to pay down debts.

 

This person could suffer very severe losses in equity by defaulting and remaining in default.  This borrower would not be a very good candidate for bankruptcy.

 

These are stark examples.  Most borrowers will fall somewhere between these extremes.

 

Instead of having substantial negative equity, a borrower may have thin or only slightly negative equity.  Instead of having really substantial unsecured debt, a borrower may have modest levels of such debt.  A borrower might have some limited credit impairment.  A borrower may have various assets some of which are going to prove exempt in a bankruptcy and other assets that are non-exempt.  What is exempt varies from state to state.

 

The bottom line is whether it is better for a borrower to default or cure depends upon a wide range of borrower situational inputs.  Every borrower ought to identify several alternatives and then try to assess the various relative cash flows and costs of each alternative.  These should then be compared.  Because foreclosure timeliness vary from place to place and the prospects of forestalling a foreclosure are highly dependent on the legal framework and environment, especially whether a state is a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure state, an otherwise similarly situated borrower might face vastly different outcomes and incentives in different places.

 

In non-judicial foreclosure states, very often bankruptcy is the only venue where a borrower is likely to forestall a foreclosure for very long.  So borrowers in such places need to assess whether they can benefit from a bankruptcy and whether they are better off filing sooner or later.

Quote 0 0
bwssr

Nice post Jesse but I mean if you had the money all of it. Whether you won it or it was given to you or you got it by some other means to pay it off would you?  I guess for me I would want a clear title and I would have to really like where I was at. I would also want to make sure the bank would not be able to foreclose on me ever.  I think allot of the forum members have thought about this. There probably is a very very slim chance that most of us would come up with it but it something to think about. You are fighting a foreclosure and somehow you get the money to pay it off. What then should you do? If you do pay it if can the bank still cause probelms? Will there be a cloud on yout title?

They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...