Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Drops Homeowner's Morgage; Feeds $460k FU Sandwich to Lying Lender

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 07:53 PM
Original message
Judge Drops Homeowner's Morgage; Feeds $460k FU Sandwich to Lying Lender
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 08:09 PM by kpete
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/economy/25gret.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

Judge Drops Homeowner's Morgage; Feeds $460k FU Sandwich to Lying Lender
by JerichoJ8
Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 05:15:36 PM PDT

.....................

One surprising smackdown occurred on Oct. 9 in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York. Ruling that a lender, PHH Mortgage, hadn’t proved its claim to a delinquent borrower’s home in White Plains, Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That’s right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order.


You see, people have been begging to renegotiate their mortgages and the banks have refused. Hell, the banks can't even keep track of payments, and they've been gouging borrowers with outrageous fees and interest charges.

Mr. Shaev’s questions about ownership also led to an admission by PHH that, along the way, it had levied an improper $450 foreclosure fee on the borrower and had overcharged interest by an unstated amount.


This bank decided to manufacture the paperwork after they realized they didn't have it. Joke.

Another problem was that the document showed the note was assigned on March 26, 2009, well after the bankruptcy had been filed.


And for those of you who say it's wrong for people to get away with not paying their mortgage, I agree and disagree. I agree the banks have failed to protect us and their investors from themselves. I disagree that someone should shovel their morgage payments into a company that has no authority to give them a clear title once the mortgage is paid. Homeowners could end up paying off a 30 year loan to the wrong entity and end up homeless. The banks are trying to hide behind a precedent of a previously accepted "standard operating procedure" of piss poor paperwork.

Judge Drain rejected that argument, concluding that what had been presented to the court just did not add up. "I think that I have a more than 50 percent doubt that if the debtor paid this claim, it would be paying the wrong person," he said. "That’s the problem. And that’s because the claimant has not shown an assignment of a mortgage."


Produce the Note. Show me the Note. Not another dime to someone who can't clear my title if I pay them.

more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/24/796793/-Judge-Drops-Homeowners-Morgage;-Feeds-$460k-FU-Sandwich-to-Lying-Lender
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Congratulations To Judge Drain, Ma'am!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. PHH is a mortgage servicer, not a lender
It's unclear whether PHH would eat the loss. Most likely they would not. They are not a bank. They are just gophers for the actual lenders.

http://www.phhmortgagesolutions.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And more and more courts are finding that the servicer has no standing to file the foreclosure.
Oh, how very very . . . sad.

It was pointed out in a a Daily Kos Diary a while back that virtually every state in the foreclosure process has as part of the process an affidavit whereby the entity filing the foreclosure avers that it is the noteholder and has the authority to file the claim. This guy pointed out that all the servicers filing for foreclosure were actually filing a false claim before the court and that they could be sued for doing so as well as for defiling the credit of the person they were filing against. He was going to sue the entity that filed against him under a breach of the Fair Debt Collection Act and was pretty sure he could collect some significant damages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, but I actually wrote an email to the author of the last article
about the Ohio, Kansas, and ?? cases where the judges decided the banks had no standing. I asked her if she would do a follow up piece and tell us what was going on now, were the houses free and clear, more courts battles????

She came back and informed me that none of those cases had (yet) ended in free and clear home ownership, they were all escalating through the courts.

I think this is a first for giving the whole free and clear part.

BTW, we all need to realize one of the important aspects of foreclosure by these big banks. . . they should be in federal court because they are not usually in the same state as the property or the mortgagee. If I understand correctly, transactions such as this are cross state line transactions and should be in federal court. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). The banks have been getting around it by hiring temporary reps at local banking branches friendly to them, but in the ones previously reported on, the MERS group that does this for CitiBank and the like, is being considered an entity with no standing as are the reps. Just another thing people should push for if they are foreclosed upon. Get it inot fed courts, particularly if you live in a red, podunk state, (like mine).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm not a lawyer, but
if the bank is authorized to do business in the state through corp comish, maybe attorney is pro hac vice? No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Me neither, but I am confused why PHH or Citi are in federal courts in some of these cases.
And in the last article in Counterpunch http://counterpunch.com/martens10212009.html
it appears to me that the idea (not with the specific terms you used) that you suggest is also being questioned by judges as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. What could be interesting
Is a test case with someone paying their mortgage payments into an escrow account while demanding evidence of ownership of the debt. Escrow should protect you from default while you're demanding proof and will allow you to make yourself current when they prove ownership. Sure, they'll find most of them, I'd wager, but if your mortgage has been securitized, you might stand a decent chance of having a court rule that it's uncollectable. Does this make any legal sense? (I'm not a lawyer, Nor a homeowner. But k have fought landlords in court over various violations (which is where the escrow idea came from, in DC at least, you can pay your rent to the court directly, and are considered current, your landlord has to go to court to get it and prove any violations have been fixed.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. Mine has been sold so many fucking times, I'm sure it's lost. Guess I better check on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I did check mine and found them NOT to be assigned a lien. BE CAREFUL.,,
I've spent the better part of last week reading and visiting with County Recorder, Title companies, and local Banks (the one's who have initiated my loans). It appears that anything along the lines of preemptive refusal to pay a loan not properly registered would be more of a problem.

However, as I read this OPs article, I note that the foreclosure being registered BEFORE the assignment of the deed (the lien per se) is what the judge found intractable. So I've decided to keep my mouth shut until and unless I am basically facing foreclosure, then make sure that is filed before I let them in on the fact that they have no lien on the property. Just my two cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Agree.
No time to stir a turd that isn't stinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. I've read the comments above, and got a few of my own...
The standing problem is real, probably $6 trillion real. MERS is at the heart
of the problem, but that is not all that is going on.

These are the 'toxic assets' the banks wanted to sell us. Basically they wanted the
US government to fix the mess by wrecking the US credit and currency.

DUer SEAFAN started the threads on this in DU.

The supreme courts of several states have addressed some of the problems, many questions
unanswered but some things are pretty plain...

many lenders sold off the notes and the notes have disappeared. ooops. the folks who
are trying to foreclose may not have standing to foreclose! oooooooopppps. in a bankruptcy
or foreclosure proceeding such things need to be proved... and if they aren't? (sound of knife cutting banks
throat). even if these problems are overcome in some cases/states the connection between
deed and note may have been legally severed, creating an UNSECURED NOTE AND NO RIGHT TO FORECLOSE.
YIKES!
SO,

1) IF YOU ARE IN TROUBLE (underwater on a mortgage) do NOT WALK AWAY. SEE A LAWYER!

2) IF YOU ARE PAYING OFF A MORTGAGE (or refi) ... CHECK WITH A LAWYER. JUST A SHORT CONSULT.
WHAT'S THE GDMN PROB?

3) IF you are in bankruptcy... have your lawyer check it out.


As for whether anyone has gotten their house "free" yet? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOEs IT MAKE who "ownes it"
if you are the one living in the house rent free... duh. If you want to sell it... that may be a longer
term problem. One problem at a time. cheech. everybody wants MIRACLES and they want 'em NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Today Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Not all are toxic. As I've said mine is plain Jane 30y fixed, I have a AAA credit rating
so though mine may be part of a group of toxic assets, mine in and of itself isn't. I worry that all this focus on sub-prime, ARM, and "toxic" loans will keep people with regular "good" loans from checking out the realities of their own loans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Paperwork nightmares


Observations from my own personal experience:

when I purchased my home in 2006, the price negotiations involved a small ($22k, 18 mos.) mortgage to the seller. No bank or mortgage company was involved. Instead, a title company (then Lawyers Title, became LandAmerica, now is in bankruptcy or something) handled the paperwork, received the payments from me, skimmed off their fees, and sent the balance on to the seller.

They made mistakes in the paperwork, several of them. Some of them I caught and got corrected prior to signing; others I had no way to know were errors. I just mailed my checks every month and assumed they were being credited to the correct account.

I had no idea where or how to contact the sellers -- and I had no desire or reason to do so.

At the end of the 18 months I attempted to make the final balloon payment but discovered the various errors in the original paperwork essentially prevented me from doing so. After approximately 15 days of frantic and often very angry phone calls in Oct '07, I finally received the pay-off amount and instructions on how (cashier's check) and where (LandAmerica's office, in person) to make the payment.

The payment was made 48 hours prior to the beginning of foreclosure proceedings, which would have commenced on 11/01/07. ALL previous payments had been made; there was no arrears. NOTHING was late, except the final balloon payment, and even with all the problems, that had been made prior to the default date of 10/31/07. I was given a receipt and was told that any necessary paperwork -- deed, cancelled lien papers, etc. -- would be mailed to me.

They never were. I began calling LandAmerica, which now had another arm called NoteWorld, to get the paperwork. I was told my account did not exist, had never existed. I had account numbers, I had names of people I had talked to, I had the receipt from my bank for the cashier's check I had purchased AND I had the receipt from LandAmerica for the cashier's check. Over the next several weeks I dealt on an almost daily basis with these people, and as angry as I got I never once lost my temper or even used foul language! (That is a first for Tansy Gold.) I eventually received written confirmation of all my claims AND a refund of various fees that LandAmerican agreed I should not have been assessed.

In very late February of '08, four months after I had paid the loan off and four months after NoteWorld said they had no record of me, my loan, or my property, I received a "statement" from NoteWorld showing my account number and that my "next" payment was due 4/1/08. It took another five or six days of screaming phone calls - and at this point I *did* use foul language -- before I found someone high enough up at Lawyer's Title/LandAmerica/NoteWorld to resolve the problems. I was finally able, in May of '08, to get the original documents and "clear title" to my property.

What needs to be remembered, however, is that the mortgage itself is not the only legal contract involved. There are matters of insurance and taxes, too. If monies have been put into escrow with a mortgage servicing company for the payment of property taxes and/or homeowners' insurance, those monies must be appropriately released or the "owner" could be held liable. A bankruptcy court may wipe out a mortgage, but that doesn't mean the "owner" is relieved of all responsiblities. If your mortgage servicer is supposed to be responsible for collecting, escrowing, and then paying property taxes and/or insurance, it behooves you to make sure they really did. (The original holder of an earlier mortgage I had sold that loan several times over the first couple of years, back in the late 80s. The last purchaser never adjusted tax and insurance escrow amounts to reflect actual liabilities, and ended up the subject of a class action suit for withholding more money from thousands of borrowers than was ever paid out. IIRC, a law was passed limiting the amount of the balance a mortgagor could hold in such an escrow account, in part because of this particular lender and their practices.

So it's not just a matter of only needing a clear title if and when you want to sell the house. Living in it rent free as a result of a bankrupcy that erases the mortgage may still leave property taxes in limbo. Depending on how the paperwork is handled, the "owner" may not even be able to pay the taxes, only to have the property go up for tax sale and be purchased by someone else. Inability to prove "ownership" may result in cancellation of insurance, and leave the "owner" uninsured and liable for any losses. I do freelance work for a number of auto and casualty insurers, and it's pretty heart-rending to listen to someone recount losing everything they owned in a fire and then discovering that their insurance had been cancelled a month before because their mortgage company didn't pay the premium. Some (not all) insurers will require proof of "ownership" before issuing a policy; if ownership is in question but you're the one living there, you could be at severe risk. (Many lenders require insurance to protect their own interest, but sometimes that insurance ONLY covers their exposure and affords the "owner" nothing. So it pays off the balance of the mortgage, which may be only 50% of the replacement cost of the house and NOTHING for personal property, temporary living expenses, etc.)

I agree with holding the mortgage companies and their various lackeys accountable for their actions. But there's a lot more to the homeownership game than just that one dotted line.




Tansy Gold, free and clear

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Excellent comments above. Lots of complexity, not a gravy train. Still..
Lots of folks have decent mortgages and sufficient credit score that their loan
was kept or the paper was carefully handled. In such cases there may be no difficulty
with standing or production of the note and records of repayment, thus a foreclosure
will proceed without incident in case of default. Many such loans.

Also, if you are wealthy anyway, or good job, even if the noteholder (by previously discussed
mishaps) might not be able to foreclose, "that don't mean you don't owe the money"
(as me pappy used to say.) they can still sue on the unsecured debt
and collect whatever they can. 'Course if they can't FIND the note....

However, much paper was apparently mishandled, leaving gaps in records needed to enforce
the note by foreclosure. As mentioned by others and here, not all of those are "toxic".
Still, what is interesting here is that some people who really need it
the most, might actually catch a break for once. (IN NJ the Deutch Bank was thrown out
of court on 300 foreclosures and ordered not to file any more foreclosures in the state. whoa!)

Insurance-wise, Normally there will be no doubt who owns the property, the property
owner registered at the county registrar, and issuance of house insurance should not be
affected. I'm guessing, on that but.... anyway, there may be some difficulty with transfer
of title to a new owner.. which might give an insurance underwriter heartburn.
Many possible complications.

(if insurance is not available, usually a new loan is not made and an existing note is
called... that's the real panic, but in this case not the problem)

So in certain circumstances where you are underwater anyway... you might catch a break
and be able to sit tight in your homesteaded house... at least for awhile. It might make
a difference. Check it out with a lawyer first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-25-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. RAWK ON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC