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
Mortgage Meltdown
Not sure what to make of this cause quite frankly, not experienced.

Home sold in foreclosure auction and one of the loan officer's at the local bank was the winning bidder.

Home last appraised at $350,000. At time of auction, neighborhood was at about $380,000.


Trustee's Deed Upon Sale says:



Emcumberances remainig at time of sale: $0.00

Amount of consideration: $311,937.04

Amount of Unpaid debt: @329,272.51


1. What are encumbrances?

2. Why would the lender sell for less than what is owed when their was plenty of equity on the home?

3.  Does the fact that the loan officer was the winning bidder?


I'm putting together a wrongful foreclosure and TILA violation case.


Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Be prepared for them to come after you in another suit for the deficiencies in re the debt they claim you owe.

That the loan officer was the winning bidder should provide you lots of fodder for conspiracy related charges.

Quote 0 0
Mortgage Meltdown
Well that's what I wondered.

Can they get away with saying, "Hey our attorney fees made it this amount but we're putting up for sale for 15K less than what is owed."

How can they make a case that I owe that difference when they didn't even try to sell it for the amount owed.

And, this happened two years ago.  So you think once I file my lawsuit they will file one against me?  Won't the judge see that as a SLAPP act?

And yea, I thought the loan officer being the new homeowner real suspicious espeically when he's the one that did the note and didn't comply with TILA.



The Equitable One wrote:
Be prepared for them to come after you in another suit for the deficiencies in re the debt they claim you owe.

That the loan officer was the winning bidder should provide you lots of fodder for conspiracy related charges.

Quote 0 0
Stephen

Obviously the bank bought it back.  Motive:  Profit.

Quote 0 0
Is the "loan officer at the local bank" one in the same as your lender or was he/she a third party purchaser?

When was the $350,000.00 appraisal made?

"Emcumberances remainig at time of sale" should be property taxes due at the time of the sale, second liens, or other liens.

Some states do not allow deficency judgments.  
Quote 0 0
Mortgage Meltdown
Can you explain to me how that works?   How does a lender buy what is owed to him.

I noticed that on the Deed Upon Trustee's Sale it says that loan officer was the highest bidder. 

He was also the one that authorized the foreclosure the sale and so on.

I went to the state incorporators office and looked at who the officers were cause I was going to write them about what's going on and there is the loan office as a corporate officer and shareholder.

So yea, I think I got a good care for fraud and conspiracy, but didn't know if him being the the highest bidder on a low-ball amount.

Seems strange to me that they wouldn't want to get every stinkin' penny they could suck out their scam.








Stephen wrote:

Obviously the bank bought it back.  Motive:  Profit.

Quote 0 0
Sara
Yes, the bank bought it back using it's own loan officer to do the bidding.  Read your foreclosure papers carefully.

S
Quote 0 0
    Lately, banks are letting houses go on the Court House steps for much less than is owed. The reason is simple, the borrower was required to take
out mortgage insurance so the lender will get paid off by the insurance company (AIG?) for the difference between what it sold for and what was owed. This is what happens during a down market and that's why mortgage
insurance is required when a borrower puts down less than 20%.
    This is also the reason why many investors don't want to modify a delinquant loan. If the investor simply lets it go through foreclosure, he or she will get the full amount originally owed, partly from the sale and the rest
from the mortgage insurer. Mortgage insurers are taking a beating right now
and many are on the verge of bankruptcy. Many never saw the crash in real
estate coming so they got caught off guard.
    The foregoing fact is leading to many people intentionally defaulting on
a property loan so they can liquidate the debt, and buy back the property
or one like it at a much cheaper price. It's simple economics and that's why
Mr. Obama's loan mod plan probably won't work for most mortgages.
Quote 0 0
Mortgage Meltdown
You know,  this is puzzling.   I've tried several forums incuding one with people that work within the foreclosure industry and no has an answer.

I'm not a rocket sciencist but I sure know that no one with more than one brain cell is going to "buy" what is owed to them.

Think about it.   Your neighbor borrows $10 and promises to pay it back plus $1 for you lending to him.  Signs a napkin that he owes you.  Puts his bike up as collateral.

Time passes.  He can't pay.  You get to take the bike.

The way everyone is explainiting this to me is that You would go to the neighbor and bid on the bike to purchase it to cure the unpaid debt.


I think you all ought to look at the DUTS and read the fine print.  I had one guy that works in the foreclosure industry tell me its cut throat.  Alot of mistakes made.
Quote 0 0
Mortgage Meltdown
Wow!  That would explain why they listed it for sale at so much less than what was owed and the market value.

I wonder how many homeowners have gotten shafted and now that I think about it, is that insurance payment a tax right off for the homeowner?


BTW.  When I went to a couple public auctions to find people in the know and see how things work,  I head alot of people telling each other how they handed their bank the keys and walked away and were at the auction to buy a less expensive house including the one they walked away from.




Mike H wrote:
    Lately, banks are letting houses go on the Court House steps for much less than is owed. The reason is simple, the borrower was required to take
out mortgage insurance so the lender will get paid off by the insurance company (AIG?) for the difference between what it sold for and what was owed. This is what happens during a down market and that's why mortgage
insurance is required when a borrower puts down less than 20%.
    This is also the reason why many investors don't want to modify a delinquant loan. If the investor simply lets it go through foreclosure, he or she will get the full amount originally owed, partly from the sale and the rest
from the mortgage insurer. Mortgage insurers are taking a beating right now
and many are on the verge of bankruptcy. Many never saw the crash in real
estate coming so they got caught off guard.
    The foregoing fact is leading to many people intentionally defaulting on
a property loan so they can liquidate the debt, and buy back the property
or one like it at a much cheaper price. It's simple economics and that's why
Mr. Obama's loan mod plan probably won't work for most mortgages.
Quote 0 0
Barbie
Here's another side of the coin to consider:

1.  Listing the selling price low with intent to buy gets you a lower tax rate for property tax bills.


2.  If you are a professional property flipper, the lower price gives you more profit margins when you do quick sprucing and then resale.


Based on numbers you're showing, if that lender put small amount into the home to make sellable, he could potentially make $50,000.00 profit.

Then if you add the tax write he gets for selling home for less than what is owed, you increased his profit margin another 11K.









Mortgage Meltdown wrote:
Not sure what to make of this cause quite frankly, not experienced.

Home sold in foreclosure auction and one of the loan officer's at the local bank was the winning bidder.

Home last appraised at $350,000. At time of auction, neighborhood was at about $380,000.


Trustee's Deed Upon Sale says:



Emcumberances remainig at time of sale: $0.00

Amount of consideration: $311,937.04

Amount of Unpaid debt: @329,272.51


1. What are encumbrances?

2. Why would the lender sell for less than what is owed when their was plenty of equity on the home?

3.  Does the fact that the loan officer was the winning bidder?


I'm putting together a wrongful foreclosure and TILA violation case.


Quote 0 0
Was back in the mid 90's I lost 9 properties in foreclosure. The "Bank" that foreclosed against me at that time and they received deficiency judgments and then some. Using hypothetical numbers it went like this; I'd borrowed $50,000.  I'd paid the loan down to $30,000. They sold the house for $20,000. For the sake of brevity I'll leave out the Court Fee's and THEIR Atty's fee's (which I had to pay). So, using the figures above, I ended up owing and they received a judgment against me for $10,000. The difference between the debt still owed ($30,000) and the sale price at the auction ($20,000). But wait! There's more! They also were given a judgment for the entire $50,000 of the original loan amount. So, I ended up with judgments against me of $60,000!  Now this really did happen and it really is true. Altogether I lost around $500,000 in Bank appraised equity + another $104,000. I filed Bankruptcy. For the next 11 years the "Bank" that had put me in this mess in the first place continued to represent, on my credit report, that I still owed them on all of those loans. Over 100 letters sent to the Credit Agencies and the "Bank" resulted in nothing. I'd write the Credit Agencies, they'd contact the "Bank" saying I had contested their submissions and the "Bank" would agree with me saying, "he's right, he doesn't owe us $60,000, he owes us $85,000! I would take 3 months to have my Credit rating "rectified" with this new WRONG information. I'd write again, next time it might be $98,000. This went on and on for years. They once had me owing $6 Million on 5 houses in a low rent district of Dayton Ohio where $6 Million would have bought the entire inner City neighborhood. They did this for 11 years AFTER I filed bankruptcy. For me, foreclosure wasn't the end of a problem, it was merely the beginning of a long haul of cruelty and deception and I have paid mightily for it.
Quote 0 0
   It never ceases to amaze me, the extent to which banks use fraud to
pad the bottom line and to inflict misery on anyone who tries to beat their
system.
   One of their biggest scams is overstating the payoff when a person refinances and old mortgage with a new mortgage. I knew this is often
done in the "auto business" when one trades in an old car with a balance
owed and finances a new car, but I was astounded to discover that these
paragons of virtue do the same thing with real estate loans.
   I'll bet they'll go for deficiency judgements even after they collect what
they are owed from mortgage insurance companies. The mortgage insurance
companies probably have the right to recover their payouts from the original
borrower whose loan they paid off. Perhaps this is what happened to JR.
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Paragons of virtue.

Thanks for the laugh this morning.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...