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
Ed Cage

 

(1) What is the one thing you would tell someone looking for a new mortgage loan?

Answer from Mr Ed:
I would tell them that the lowest rate often costs more than higher rates with
reputable lenders.  Seek *integrity* first.  I had slightly higher rate offers from
both Chase and Legacy Bank of Texas.  I had just paid off a 30 year note with
Chase that went extremely well.. Chase handled both the loan and the service..
No arguments, no hassles, good service, and no surprises.
      We also had a similar offer from our long time bank, Legacy Bank of Texas. 
Both we knew well and trusted; both were .25% higher. Instead I opted for Town
& Country and to date Mr Ed has been swindled out of an estimated $7-$8,000 by
AMC and EMC / Bear Stearns

                                            ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

(2) What is the one thing you would tell someone who just acquired a new mortgage loan?

Answer from Mr Ed:
I would tell them to very closely monitor your "suspense" and "escrow” and
"corporate advance" side accounts. After the loan is signed this is a prime area
for inflated charges, charges for undocumented and unjustified reasons, artificially generated bogus late charges, and a virtual dumping ground for all sorts of criminal mortgage fraud.

Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
Stephen

Don't!!

Quote 0 0
Moose
Ed Cage wrote:
(1) What is the one thing you would tell someone looking for a new mortgage loan?


Answer from Moose:  If there was only one thing, it would be don't accept subprime status. That kills you from the start. You're deliberately blackballed and carry a scarlett letter that says "deadbeat who won't pay," even if you can and do. When a dispute arrises, the opposition just points to your subprime credit status and wins every time.

If 90% of the people applying for loans told the prospective lender to stuff their credit score nonsense and walk away, the lenders would push back on the companies that peddle bogus data to make it more realistic.  Until then, bogus credit scores they buy (with your money) only help their bottom line by pushing people into subprime loans.

They simply paint a huge target on the backs of the borrowers that the servicers can see from miles away.

Moose









Quote 0 0
can't help them
That's awesome advice Moose.
It's the best of them on this thread.

When we purchased our home, our credit wasnt subprime.
However with out loan being bundeled packaged & sold with others in which were sub-prime we were grossly affected.

Our credit was ruined the second they sold the loan to the New Mortgage Servicing Company. They'd held our payments, until they were considered late, & thus reporting to credit bureaus, that we were "dead beats".

Like, you said. It doesn't matter, if you pay your bills, timely (on time) like your supposed to, when it comes to loans, people are given the "worst" rates they can be given, EVEN when their credit is high.

I will never again sit at another loan closing table, (that is, if we ever go with a mortgage again. After this nightmare I think we should pay CASH, for any home rather than ever financing again.) Anyway, We will never again sit at another loan closing table, if the parties involved cannot meet our demands.

IF we have good credit we have the barganing power, and the "closing" table is a matter of our Control.

They ruined our credit year & years ago, when they sold our loan the first time. It wasn't until years later we found out what they had done.


We, are not "CREDIT" people, and do not like to live our lives off of credit for the simple fact of all the problems that can arrise from such.

Usually if we cannot pay "cash" for something we don't pay for it at all.

To me the defination of cash means:
You can afford to pay "cash" for it, then it is affordable for you!

Financing:
If you have to finance it through a charge card, or loan, you usually cannot aford to have that item at that time.

A number 1 clue there would be.----Don't buy it!

We have been using charge cards, but that was to repair our credit and the damage the Mortgage Servicers had done to us. But the trick there is.
If I don't have the Cash to immediately pay the amount Charged on our cards off, then it is not bought.

Simple rules to live by. And noone else is making a profit off of our hard earned money. Sorry Bankers. Sorry loan sharks.

Simple rules to live by.
Great message Moose Thank you!

Quote 0 0
4 justice now
Moose:

I agree that's the best, totally truthful and least complicated advise I've seen in quite some time.

Thanks for providing a bit of common sense to this issue (often over looked). 

R,

4J
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage
Moose wrote:
"When a dispute arrises, the opposition just points to your
subprime credit status and wins every time."

 

Dear Moose:
Please give an example of a "dispute" you refer to, and who
the "opposition" is that "points to your subprime credit and
wins every time."  While we're at it, please describe who or
what determines who the winner is.

The Court is certainly going to demand more than pointing to
a "subprime" status in and of itself. If I were on a jury and
heard that one single argument sans clear and convincing
supporting evidence, it would discredit whoever tried to sell
that narrow minded rush to judgment. 

In my mind I would think, "Where's the beef?"

Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
Moose
It's human nature, Ed.  And don't take this the wrong way, but because of what you know, you aren't typical and wouldn't survive the voir dire process to be on a jury in these kinds of cases. No one who's been abused by a lender or servicer or even knows someone who has will get on a jury.

The reason is, and attorneys know all too well, that people who don't have "credit problems" look down on people who do and believe the people who have such problems probably aren't telling the truth. They harbor feelings that the victim isn't a victim and probably just can't or won't live up to their financial obligations.

It will come up in court and in settlement conferences. Responses to complaints (and if it gets that far, opening and closing statements) will paint the victim as someone who signed and promised to pay but has lived in a house for some number of months without making payments. 

This, in case anyone is wondering, is why some attorneys stay away from these cases like the plague. They'd rather say they can't take the case (and even your money if you're lucky enough to have any left) than try to fight the prejudices against people with allegedly low credit scores.

Moose

Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Moose,

Wow, you said it well.

Stealing your line again 4J

"totally truthful and least complicated advise I've seen in quite some time.

Thanks for providing a bit of common sense to this issue (often over looked)."

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Moose wrote:
"When a dispute arrises, the opposition just points to your
subprime credit status and wins every time."

 

 

Again Moose, who is the opposition who simply "points to

your subprime credit status and wins every time?"  The

lender?  The servicer?  If your subprime credit rating is the

only thing the opposition has to offer as evidence it will not

be enough by itself for the opposition to win at all much less

every time

 

In a Court of law it takes more than a credit rating to lose a

mortgage case. That goes for a verdict by a jury or a judge.

 

Indeed it takes *documented* examples by the opposition

demonstrating how and where the borrower failed to hold

up their end of the contract, i.e. a material breach(s) of the

contract as in default.

 

                *****************************************

                    The burden is on whoever the

    "opposition" is, to first establish that the borrower

                materially defaulted on the contract.

                *****************************************

 

If the “opposition” does not have documented examples to

back up their position they are not likely to “win every time.” 

Same goes for the borrower btw..

 

Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363

 


Quote 0 0
Moose
Ed Cage wrote:
 

If the “opposition” does not have documented examples to

back up their position they are not likely to “win every time.” 

Same goes for the borrower btw..

 

Sadly, Ed, that is simply naive.  It really doesn't require documented examples. The smear of allegedly having financial troubles is all but overwhelming.

You have to grasp the concept of trying to un-ring a bell. Once the court finds out the victim has financial troubles in his or her past he or she is pretty much doomed. The evidence of a car being repo'd, unpaid medical bills, liens for taxes, even something as trivial as a homeowner's dues being behind will be something they try to introduce. Sometimes an appropriate objection will prevent it from becoming evidence but if it's heard, the stigma is permanently applied. Overcoming that prejudice is the art of very skilled and very expensive trial counsel. 

In a "court of law" the victim's financial history becomes an important part of the opposition's case. That's why it is so important for the servicer to trash the victim's credit rating and if that is challenged in court, they rely on pointing out that sub-prime loans are only for people with troubled financial histories, and that mythology is constantly reinforced in the media.

To far too many people, sub-prime borrowers are the rough equivalent of people on welfare.

It's a useful ruse for the industry. It works.

Moose

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Moose wrote:
"When a dispute arrises, the opposition just points to your
subprime credit status and wins every time."

 

 

Moose this is not complicated.

 

(1) If the “opposition” does not have documented examples

to back up their position they are not likely to “win every time.”

(Same goes for the borrower btw..)

 

(2) It is not enough to for the "opposition" to simply point their

finger at a borrower and say "He's a subprime" and therefore

"win every time."

 

                          He who shows up in Court

                     with no documentation is likely to

                                    get clobbered.

 

                                          Mr Ed

 
Quote 0 0
Ed & Moose:

Peace, brothers!  You both have contributed much to our discussions!

Ed, I think that Moose's analysis is an important reality check for those litigating with mortgage investors and servicers.  The homeowner on a jury who does NOT have a problem with their mortgage servicer and with prime credit is inherently going to wonder HOW the alleged defaulted borrower has found his or her way into the circumstances giving rise to the litigation.

Even if Moose's core analysis were to be INCORRECT, I think sounding the alarm of "How will the case play to the jury?" is a rather important dimension that has gotten short shrift on this message board.

As to the requisite evidence to WIN -- the "documented examples" -- so much depends upon precisely WHAT is being litigated!  Obviously, burdens of proof are very different for various aspects of both defensive claims and affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

It appears to me that there ARE some instances where the plaintiff has a burden of proof -- for example as to standing (or real party at interest) and capacity -- that have been so often poorly pled or proven that the defendant can WIN with minimal evidence.

Frankly, it appears to me that ANYONE litigating against MERS in a judicial foreclosure OUGHT TO WIN ON STANDING virtually EVERY TIME in ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING FLORIDA.  FNMA already realizes this and has PROHIBITED foreclosures in MERS' name nationally.  Freddie Mac continues to live life dangerously.  I could HELP any capable attorney consistently BEAT MERS and develop quite a practice.  Again, it appears to me that htis requires MINIMAL evidence.  But I am digressing here.

Defendant's in many jurisdictions appear to me to have an unprecedented opportunity to defeat foreclosure actions based upon the unclean hands doctrine showing evidence fabrication IF they develop their cases properly through discovery.  Here evidence is much more important.

If defendants hope to win by interposing various other affirmative defenses where they carry a burden of proof, the requisite proof to win makes winning a very real uphill struggle.  And in these instances, I believe that what Moose is telling us is particularly important!

To any extent that the plaintiff succeeds in painting the defendant as unreliable and dishonest, the evidence put on by the defendant is suspect.  And in weighing evidence in a close case or in a case where the defendant has the burden of proof, demonizing the defendant sounds like an effective strategy!

In a straightforward judicial foreclosure, the plaintiff IS going to win most of the time.  The mortgage investor need only prove ownership -- that it is the owner and holder of the promissory note with a right to enforce -- and that payments haven't been made.  Who would have imagined that lenders would get themselves tied into such knots on the mortgage ownership issue?  OR who would have imagined that mortgage servicers would recklessly POISON their own cases by introduction of fabricated evidence?

I think that other vicitims of MS Fraud or simply those facing a foreclosure colored by fabricated evidence ought to heed Moose' admonissions about refraining from inadvertently giving the plaintiff evidence by unguarded communications. 

And I also AGREE with Moose's original suggestion "don't accept subprime status".  When I first started reading about the subprime crisis, I was under the misapprehension that most subprime borrowers were actually, well, subprime

But as I have studied the problem further, what I seem to be seeing is a pattern of steering poorly informed and deceptively informed borrowers into subprime products, even where that person might very well have qualified for a prime loan with better counseling or alternative structuring of the transaction.

After actually looking at some of these instruments, these appear to me to be loans that were essential designed to generate large profits, but also designed to fail!  The bargains were never in the consumer's interest at all. 

When the plaintiff's experienced and articulate lawyer goes up against an inexperienced legal aid lawyer and has in hand a folio of evidence as to the borrower's distress, the defendant has quite a burden to overcome.  Who is to be believed?

I would hope that we could all agree with Ed's original point about NOT accepting subprime status.  I would hope that we could also agree with Ed's points in other threads regarding the undesirability of unguarded communications with the servicer.  I certainly agree with Moose's implicit point that one needs to consider how things will play with the jury.

But each of you also KNOWS that I have been a persistent champion of using discovery to get to the true facts of the case.  I think that there are so many winable mortgage foreclosure cases out there that there will be another even larger secondary meltdown in the financial services market when the marketplace fully discounts the fact that there is going to be a problem not only with loss frequency, but also with loss severity.

I still have quite a bit of HOPE that our courts are going to be finding for the defendants when the defendants actually start SHOWING UP, making the requisite arguments and following through with good discovery!
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

WAR wrote:

"But as I have studied the problem further, what I seem to be seeing is a pattern of steering poorly informed and deceptively informed borrowers into subprime products, even where that person might very well have qualified for a prime loan with better counseling or alternative structuring of the transaction."

 

 

Clearly this is a primary problem Bill.. But in my particular case my wife and I had already qualified for loans with two separate entities that knew us well.. Chase our original lender and servicer for 26 years and Legacy Bank with whom we have had checking, savings, and IRA accounts for many years. Both had rates roughly 1/2 point higher which I don't have to tell you is quite significant.

 

Consequently we went with the lower rate Town & Country offered because I knew and still know I can sniff out bad numbers from a mile away.. Been doing it for decades.. But what I didn't know in March 2005 was how corrupt the mortgage industry had become.

  

Mr Ed is considerably wiser now and as of 12/17/07 EMC/Bear has dropped my total escrow, corporate advances, and suspense balances to a grand total of $337.  I'd like to think part of it is because of my tenaciousness and numbers savvy.

 

However I'm still $5-6,000 short of my recovery goal brought on entirely because I didn't know things like unjustified and unnecessary corporate advances, subsequent deductions from regular payments to pay illicit charges, nonexistent drive by “inspections,” and illegally holding payments etc., even existed..

 

But I am learning Bill. As we previously discussed I'd like to send you my contract and payment history to seek advice from your vast wealth of experience. 

 

MC&HNY!

Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363

Quote 0 0
srsd

Mr. Ed,  We were "sold" to a subprime company and it seemed very good at the time only to become a nightmare.  It looks like the people that signed contracts with a compnay would have the choice of whom they want to hold their mortgae instead of just being kicked to whoever buys the mortgage. We had great credit---in the upper 800`suntil this mess started so we qualified for prime status.  A friend of mine that works at a local bank pulled our credit for me and it started a downhill drop 8 months after we were sold. He even called the mortgage company to see what was happening and they refused to talk to him. Now our credit is ruined.

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Srsd wrote:

"Mr. Ed,  We were "sold" to a subprime company and it seemed very good at the time only to become a nightmare.  It looks like the people that signed contracts with a compnay would have the choice of whom they want to hold their mortgae instead of just being kicked to whoever buys the mortgage. We had great credit---in the upper 800`suntil this mess started so we qualified for prime status.  A friend of mine that works at a local bank pulled our credit for me and it started a downhill drop 8 months after we were sold. He even called the mortgage company to see what was happening and they refused to talk to him. Now our credit is ruined."

 

 

Dear srsd:

There's a possibility you were transferred or reassigned rather than sold.  My guess is the new company is a servicing company. But this is not the issue you are concerned with; what you want to know is how/why on the credit.

 

I don't know your particular situation but I do know how scamsters like Citi Residential, AMC (defunct) and EMC (defunct) operate.  Their goal is money generated from fees and they do not hesitate to use illegal and blatantly criminal methods to reach their monetary goals.

 

(1) As a buffer to discourage you from refinancing with another firm a primary goal is to damage your credit to the point that it will be both difficult and extremely expensive to escape their unlawful scheme. They send in multiple bad credit reports on you whether they are legit or not to attain this objective.

 

(2) Illegitimate charges to your account are surprisingly easy to generate if staying within the law is not a premise. Incredibly your payments can be held or “lost” in order to generate a fraudulent late fee. “Drive-by inspections” are frequently never even done, unnecessary, premature or grossly inflated in cost. Fraudulent charges to you by the scamster company to cover “insurance” which protects the scamster that you never agreed or ever even heard about are common. And so forth ..( Let’s say these side charges total $290 that you never knew about.)

      Once these dubious charges are on the books they are put in the dreaded semi secret “suspense,” “escrow,” or “corporate advance” accounts.  Then for example, when you make a loan payment for $800 a deduction of say $110 of is taken off the top to cover an artificially generated late fee and a nonexistent or unnecessary drive by “inspection.” Presto!  You are “late” again with an incomplete payment and yet another artificially generated late fee is piled into your top secret “suspense” or “escrow account.”

 

So now the deck is stacked (illegally) and your credit is screwed up so a refi is often not practical.  You are trapped.  As a bonus you will not get much help from the AG or the DOJ which is actually semi-understandable.

 

                                               That’s how it is done. 

             Welcome to the James Brantley*criminal types of the world.  

 

* James Brantley of Citi Residential and AMC notoriety is the second biggest mortgage fraud perpetrator in America.. ..Outranked only by the infamous Greg Fedler of Bear Stearns who never met a lie he wouldn’t tell.

 

Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363

 
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...