Facts about bad mortgage loans and how significant a risk is mortgage lenders and mortgage loan servicers noncompliance with consumer protection laws?
If you are facing foreclosure or you are struggling with a fraudulent mortgage loan and you want to find evidence of mortgage fraud that you may be able to use to your advantage consider getting a FRAUD STOPPERS Bloomberg Securitization Audit because a Bloomberg Securitization Audit can give you and your attorney the evidence you need to sue for quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, or leverage to get a great loan modification or settlement agreement.
Both orders include FRAUD STOPPERS PMA membership ($295)
We Offer the Full Bloomberg Securitization Audit Identifying Trust vehicles used in the Securitization process that are claiming ownership of your mortgage through the SEC filings:
(1) Bloomberg Screenshots of the Trust (for used as evidence in court of Securitization)
(2) Copy of the Pooling & Servicing Agreement
(3) Full Chain of Title Analysis (showing where loan went from origination until now)
(4) Full ROBOSIGNER Analysis
(5) Full FRAUD Analysis
(6) Analysis of all the ASSIGNMENTS & TRANSFERS
(7) COURT READY EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVIT from Industry Expert Attorney
Once your Bloomberg Securitization Audit & Expert Witness Affidavit are finished the Next Step the Legal Forms Department will draft
Litigation Package comes with;
(1) Full Petition for Damages listing 12-15 Different Causes of Action all Based on the findings in the Audit Report, (40 page full turn-key lawsuit to sue your lender)
(2) Application for a Temporary Restraining Order- designed to STOP A FORECLOSURE SALE – if one is impending
(3) Lis Pendens to Cloud the Marketability of Title
All we need to Order the Report is (1) Borrowers Full name, (2) SSN, (3) Residential Address; than Auditor Pulls all Public Record Documents on your file and completes the Report within 5 to 7 Business Days. We can take any Major Credit Cards.
For more information please call 800-459-1215
Limited Scope of FRAUD STOPPERS Bloomberg Securitization Audit
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “RESPA”
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is a consumer protection statute, first passed in 1974. It requires lenders to give a good faith estimate (GFE) of all closing costs that borrowers must pay. It was designed to help borrowers from being forced to pay “hidden fees” at closing. Typical violations of RESPA include (1) Statutory Damages, (2) Attorneys fees, and in many cases (3) Treble Damages [i.e. 3 times the amount.]
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “TILA”
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) requires lenders to disclose the terms of a loan, including the total amount of the loan, the annual interest rate, and the number, amount and due dates of all payments necessary to repay the loan. The TILA also requires additional disclosures and places many restrictions on mortgages. The most often sought remedy under TILA is rescission of the loan.
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “FCRA”
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was designed to prevent inaccurate or obsolete information from entering or remaining on a credit report. The law requires credit bureaus to adopt reasonable procedures for gathering, maintaining and disseminating information. Commons remedies for violating FCRA are (1) statutory damages and (2) Attorney fees
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “ECOA”
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was designed to ensure that all qualified people have access to credit and prohibits discrimination based on sex, marital status, age, race, national origin, or public assistance benefits received.
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “HOEPA”
Home Ownership Equity Protection Act state and local high costs. Federal (HOEPA), state and local high cost thresholds. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA compares the loan data collected during a forensic loan audit to the calculated high cost thresholds as defined by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) and applicable state and local jurisdictions.
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Evaluation for Violations of “Underwriting Standards”
The purpose of an underwriter is to determine whether the borrowers can qualify for a loan and if the borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. This determination of the ability to repay a loan is based upon employment and income in large measure, which is proved by getting pay stubs, 1040’s, W-2’s and a Verification of Employment and Income on the borrowers.
If an underwriter has evaluated the loan properly, then there should be no question of the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Debt ratios will have been evaluated, credit reviewed and a proper determination of risk made in relation to the loan amount. Approvals and denials would be made based upon a realistic likelihood of repayment.
The terms “abusive lending” or “predatory lending” are most frequently defined by reference to a variety of lending practices. Although it is generally necessary to consider the totality of the circumstances to assess whether a loan is predatory, a fundamental characteristic of predatory lending is the aggressive marketing of credit to prospective borrowers who simply cannot afford the credit on the terms being offered.
While such disregard of basic principles of loan underwriting lies at the heart of predatory lending, a variety of other practices may also accompany the marketing of such credit.
Targeting inappropriate or excessively expensive credit products to older borrowers, or to persons who are not financially sophisticated or who may be otherwise vulnerable to abusive practices, and to persons who could qualify for mainstream credit products and terms
Loan Flipping & Equity Stripping
Repeated refinancing of borrowers into loans that have no tangible benefit to the borrower. Can be the same lender or different ones. Loans and refinances whereby equity is removed from the home through repeated refinances, consolidation of short term debt into long term debt, negative amortization or interest only loans whereby payments are not reducing principle, high fees and interest rates. Eventually, borrower cannot refinance due to lack of equity.
High Debt Ratios
This is the practice of approving loans with high debt ratios, usually 50% or more, without determining the true ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Can often be seen with Prime borrowers approved through the Automated Underwriting Systems.
High Loan to Value (LTV) mortgage loans
Mortgage loans offered to a borrower having little or no equity in the home. Usually, adjustable rate mortgages that the borrower will not be able to refinance out of when the rate adjusts due to lack of equity.
Fraudulently Caused to Execute Loan Documents
Adjustable rate mortgage loan was an inter-temporal transaction on which Plaintiffs had only qualified at the initial teaser fixed rate and could not qualify for the loan once the interest rate terms change.
Deception, Fraud, Unconscionable
Is marketed in a way that fails to fully disclose all material terms. Includes any terms or provisions which are unfair, fraudulent or unconscionable. Is marketed in whole or in part on the basis of fraud, exaggeration, misrepresentation or the concealment of a material fact. Includes interest only loans, adjustable rate loans, negative amortization and HOEPA loans.
Stated or No Income/No Assets
Is based on a loan application that is inappropriate for the borrower. For instance, the use of a stated-income loan application from an employed individual who has or can obtain pay stubs, W-2 forms and tax returns.
Lack of Due Diligence in Underwriting
Is underwritten without due diligence by the party originating the loan. No realistic means test for determining the ability to repay the loan. Lack of documentation of income or assets, job verification. Usually with Stated Income or No documentation loans, but can apply to full documentation loans.
Reid v. Key Bank, 821 F.2d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 1987)., Duty to Maximize Net Present Value – CA Civil Code § 2923.6
FRAUD STOPPERS is the Nation’s Premier Experts in Forensic Loan Auditing
Inappropriate Loan Programs are materially more expensive in terms of fees, charges and/or interest rates than alternative financing for which the borrower qualifies. Can include prime borrowers who are placed into subprime loans, negative or interest only loans. Loan terms whereby the borrower can never realistically repay the loan.
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA evaluates each file for violations of “Common Law Principles”
Material facts include the terms of the loan, whether there is a prepayment penalty, or any other information which a reasonable borrower would want to know before accepting the loan. Did the broker or loan officer or anyone working for the broker or loan officer fail to disclose any material facts to the borrower?
FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT and MISREPRESENTATION
Were any representations, statements, or comments, written or oral made by the loan officer, broker, notary or anyone else who contradicted the terms of the documents?
When a mortgage professional makes errors which a reasonably diligent mortgage professional would not have made, he or she may have made a negligent misrepresentation.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
The note and its attachments are a contract. The broker must follow all the terms of the contract such as the way the interest is calculated, and the penalties it assesses. Were there any terms in the contract which the lender failed to follow?
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
And many, many, more…….
Facts about bad mortgage loans and how significant a risk is mortgage lenders and mortgage loan servicers noncompliance with consumer protection laws?
What consumer protection laws does FRAUD STOPPERS PMA cover and how are these compliance requirements applied to a mortgage loan?
FRAUD STOPPERS PMA provides a comprehensive analyzes of electronic loan data to determine whether a mortgage transaction complies with over 300 federal and state consumer protection laws related to mortgage lending. Specifically, FRAUD STOPPERS PMA automated mortgage compliance audits reviews mortgage loans for compliance with the following consumer credit issues: truth-in-lending disclosures, usury, predatory lending, impermissible fees, interest rate accrual restrictions (such as negative amortization and balloons payments) and prepayment penalty enforceability.
It is important to understand that any number of laws may apply to a particular mortgage transaction. Knowing which laws apply is not a simple task, since It this depends on how the lender is licensed or chartered. Licensed lenders operate under the licensing authorities of the various states with which they do business. Most states have multiple licenses granting lenders the authority to make loans. Each such license imposes different substantive requirements governing loan terms. For instance, certain licenses allow subordinate lien loans while others govern loans with higher interest rates.
In some states, more than one license may authorize lenders to make the same loan, although subtle differences in the consumer protection requirements apply to the loan terms. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA determines if lenders and brokers are properly licensed (and in good standing) or exempt, and then applies the correct laws based on that licensing status. It does this by leveraging its proprietary nationwide licensing database, described in the License Verification and Monitoring section of this site.
Chartered financial institutions—such as state and national banks and federal savings banks—are subject to different regulatory requirements. For instance, most chartered institutions “export” interest rates from their home state to the target state in which the loan is made. This results in a complex synthesis of both the home state’s and target state’s consumer protection laws —an analysis that is difficult to perform efficiently without automation. Likewise, chartered institutions may in certain cases preempt states laws and in other instances must observe them. Again, FRAUD STOPPERS PMA bases its reviews on how an institution is chartered and what permissible regulatory elections it is making. This is explained in more detail in the Lender Profile section of this site.
Once the lender’s license or charter authority is known, as well as its elections, the review must consider the specific transaction terms—such as the APR, interest rate, loan balance, lien position, occupancy type, etc.—to determine which out of the several laws that might apply to the lender govern a particular mortgage loan. No other automated compliance solution provides this degree of detail and precision to its analysis, and this is the reason no other provider equals FRAUD STOPPERS PMA in quality.
FRAUD STOPPERS Bloomberg Securitization Audit
Our Bloomberg Securitization and Mortgage Forensic Loan Audits cover all of the following:
Code of Federal Regulations, California Business And Professions Codes, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Consumer Protection, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 United States Code 1601 et seq, California Business & Professions Code10241(C) – Good Faith Estimate, California Business And Professions Codes 10240-10248; 10241, 24 Code of Federal Regulations 3500.6(a), REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENTPROCEDURES ACT (24 Code of Federal Regulations 3500.6),California Civil Code CIV Section 1916.7 10 (c), Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003, CALIFORNIA CIVILCODE SECTION 1918.5-1921– Adjustable Rate Mortgages1920, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Guidance Letter AL 2003-2, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Guidance Letter AL 2003-3, California Unfair Competition Law, CA Business & Professions Code 17200, California Unconscionability Law (CC 1670.5(a), 1770(s)), California Rescission Law for Fraud, Mistake, Undue Influence, Breach, Illegality, (CC 1689(b)), Federal Trade Commission Sec 5 -Unfair Business Practices – Deceptive Business Acts, Predatory Lending – Unfair Business Practices – Deceptive Business Acts, Rescission for Fraud, Mistake, Undue Influence, Breach, Illegality, Predatory Lending, HOEPA Loans-High Cost loans that violate the Homeowners Equity Preservation Act, Bait and Switch, Elder Abuse, Targeting, Spurious Open End Mortgages, Excessive Fees and Rates, Loan Flipping, Fraudulently Caused to Execute Loan Documents, Yield Spread Premium, Inappropriate Loan Programs, High Loan to Value loans, Shifting Unsecured Debt Into Mortgage, Equity Stripping, Negative Amortization, Korean and other Foreign Languages, California Civil Code 1632. (f), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC Policy Letter AL 2003-2, Violations of the FTC Act, FTC Sec 5 § 45 Unfair methods of competition unlawful: prevention by Commission, California Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, CA Business & Professions Code 17200, California Unconscionability Law, California Rescission Law for Fraud, Mistake, Undue Influence, Breach, Illegality, Right To Cancel, (A) 6500 – FDIC Consumer Protection, § 226.17 § 226.23 Right of rescission, A2) Code Of Civil Procedure Section 337.3, Attachment of Other Violations-Insurance Disclosures, California Civil Code Section 2955.5, 15U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (A) 7 NOTICE TO CONSUMER REQUIRED-(i) IN GENERAL, Appraisal-CA Professional & Business Codes10241.3, Credit – Equal Opportunity Credit Act- Regulation B, Equal Opportunity Credit Act, Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003, Foreclosure Statutes and Foreclosure Notices, Civil Code 2923 (2)(b), Civil Code 2924.3 (a)(1), Civil Code 2923.5. (a) (1), California Civil Code 2924f (b), Foreclosure- Finance Charge [226.18(d)]—, MERS, SECURIZATION, Assignment, Assignment of Beneficiary, Possession of the Note &Holder of Due Course, UCC 3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLENINSTRUMENT.9. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED,OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT, UCC CODE § 3-301, § 3-305.DEFENSES AND CLAIMS OF RECOUPMENT, § 3-305.TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT: RIGHTS ACQUIRED BYTRANSFER, SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE- California Civil Code Section 2934a – Procedure for Substitution of Trustee, Securitization Process, Other Pertinent Facts of Securitization, Assignee Liability, Contractual Causes of Action- Breach of Contract, Breach of Oral Agreement – Campbell v. Machias, 865F. Supp. 26 (D. Me. 1994), Tort Claims-Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – FDIC v. S. Prawer & Co., 829 F. Supp. 439,449 (D.Me.1993), Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – Prawer, 829 F. Supp. 451, Fraud/Misrepresentation, Estoppels, Incompetence, Unconscionability, Invalid Security Instruments, Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Reid v. Key Bank, 821 F.2d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 1987)., Duty to Maximize….
How one woman beat the big banks: The amazing, true story about how Wall Street’s mortgage fraud unraveled
None of Lisa Epstein’s options for dealing with her foreclosure seemed very attractive. She could try the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, which President Obama announced from Mesa, Arizona, on February 18, 2009, the day after Lisa was served. She pulled the speech up at the White House website. The idea was that the Treasury Department would give mortgage servicers incentive payments to modify delinquent loans.
Investor Syndicate At Hundreds of Billions And Growing
Heard on this Street this week: the super-secret Syndicate of MBS Investors discussed previously is gaining momentum. A confidential source has informed me that some of the largest institutional investors in mortgage-backed securities have now joined the group, bringing the amount under management to ”hundreds of billions of dollars in MBS investments.” The source further informed me that this number is expected to swell to a “jaw-dropping dollar figure.”
How to Use Forensic Auditors During Discovery
Discovery is a process that can be used in litigation. That means you have to be in court. Discovery is the process of asking for information that don’t already have or information that will corroborate information that you do already have. Almost by definition it is a fishing expedition. But the days in which you can throw out a wide net are over. Neither federal nor state judges will permit discovery unless it is specific, and relates directly to the functional narratives of the case proffered by both sides of the lawsuit.
Keep the Envelopes! Attention Forensic Auditors! How to Show They Are Lying About Everything
livinglies.me | August 14, 2019
I have long described the practice of sending out correspondence and notices from, say for example PennyMac, from an address that has never been PennyMac. Summer Chic discovered with some snooping that the letter she received from “PennyMac” was sent from a Bank of America location. Bank of America claims no connection with PennyMac. In many such scenarios Bank of America claims no connection with the loan.
2018 DOJ Lawsuit Reveals Securitization Equivalent to “Leprosy” According to Wall Street Insiders
Although the US Department of Justice has never filed criminal charges against anyone, they clearly wanted to do so. Having been limited by some sort of executive direction, they have been filing civil complaints. Such cases often bear the name of an entity not publicly known as a player in securitization scheme that started 20 years ago.
Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. UBS Sec. LLC
This Opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest applicable to the National Credit Union Administration Board’s (“NCUA”) claims in the above-captioned actions against defendant UBS Securities LLC (“UBS”), and defendants Credit Suisse Securities (USA) and Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. (collectively “Credit Suisse”).
How to argue the “allonge”
An Allonge is defined as follows: Allonge. Additional paper firmly attached to Commercial Paper, such as a promissory note, to provide room to write endorsements. An allonge is necessary when there is insufficient space on the document itself for the endorsements.
If you think foreclosures are a thing of the past, think again
In order to maintain the illusion of legality and an orderly marketplace the banks and their servicers must continue to push foreclosures even if it means going after people who are not actually withholding payments. The legacy of the mortgage meltdown and the brainless government policies that let the banks get away with what they had done, is that the crime not only continues but is being repeated with each new claimed securitization or “resecuritization” of residential loans.
The Discovery Rule: Tolling the Statute of Limitations
There is an excellent post by Michael B. Schwegler in Tennessee on the whole issue of whether the statute of limitations can be extended to the date that the breach of duty was discovered. Schwegler’s post clearly enunciates the position of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. In my opinion it also articulates the way that most courts look at tolling when it comes to mortgage litigation and the torts arising from mortgage litigation.
The simple fact is that the REMIC trusts do not exist in the real world. The parties named as trustees — e.g. US Bank, Deutsch, BONY/Mellon — are trust names that are used by permission through what is essentially a royalty agreement. If you are dealing with a trust then you are dealing with a ghost.
Do Expert Declarations Help?
The bottom line is that facts — or absence of required facts — is what persuades the judge. The value of good investigation and case analysis lies not in the opinion of the writer of the report but in the usefulness of the facts that are revealed or, more importantly in foreclosure cases, the usefulness of revealing facts that should be present but are not.
Is that Mortgage or Deed of Trust Void or Just Unenforceable?
Proving that an instrument is unenforceable does not void the instrument unless it is unenforceable by anyone. Better to prove that it should never have been written. The DOT could only be void if it was not facially or actually valid. That, in my opinion, means that the the DOT should never have been written, should never have been executed and should never have been recorded. It must the equivalent of uttering a false instrument and have the qualities of being a wild deed.
Mortgage Integrity Act
For ten years, Gary Dubin in Hawaii has been practicing law defending homeowners from foreclosure. He has preached his own version of how to combat foreclosure fraud. And he has practiced what he preached. I find his work enlightening and refreshing. So when I read his Proposed Mortgage Integrity Act (MIA) I decided to republish it in its entirety. Some of what he proposes is new but most of it, in my opinion, is a much needed tune-up of the wording of existing law.
Transcript of Neil Garfield Show on Foreclosure Settlement
In the marketplace of mortgage loans and foreclosures and declarations of default, we have a fake world in which investment banks hide their existence and connection to real estate loans. Virtually nobody on whose behalf declaration of default is issued, nobody has suffered a default, because they don’t own the debt, because they suffered no loss. And yet they do, and they start foreclosure proceedings and they take houses by default unless some homeowner says wait minute, who the heck are you?
Enforcement of Note vs. Enforcement of Mortgage
Watch out for the discrepancy between enforcement of a note and enforcement of an encumbrance. Enforcement of the note requires proof that the claimant is the owner of the debt, or has been authorized by the owner of the debt to enforce the note. Enforcement of the mortgage requires that the claimant be the owner of the debt.
TILA Rescission and Bankruptcy: What Happens When the Bankruptcy Court Gets it Wrong
When TILA rescission has occurred the encumbrance is eliminated and the debt converts from one arising from a promissory note to one arising from a statute — 15 USC §1635. The debt then becomes subject to the statute of limitations for claims under TILA because the debt now arises under TILA. If the statute has run the debt is barred. Thus when the court gets it wrong and ignores the TILA Rescission it is warping the value of the bankruptcy estate as well as allowing secured status to unsecured creditors.