The Resolution Law Group: New California Appellate case published on August 8, 2013, “Glaski v. Bank of America”, holds that a homeowner can challenge his lender’s right to foreclose by showing that the Deed of Trust never made it into the securitized trust until after the trust’s closing date.

A new California Appellate case published on August 8, 2013, “Glaski v. Bank of America”, holds that a homeowner can challenge his lender’s right to foreclose by showing that the Deed of Trust never made it into the securitized trust until after the trust’s closing date. This is the case in most loans made in the last 12 years. If the bank foreclosed we should be able to get the homeowner money damages and/or the house back. Or a lawsuit could be filed and a court ruling obtained preventing the court from foreclosing.Recently enacted Sections 2924(a)(6) and 2924.19 of California Civil Code provide the same relief to homeowners.

It is highly suggested that homeowners take this window of opportunity to get relief before the banks get Congress to close this door with national legislation.  If you feel you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, please do not hesitate to email or call the The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

 

Advertisements

The Resolution Law Group: Bank of America whistle-blower’s bombshell: “We were told to lie”

Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification – but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts.

“Bank of America’s practice is to string homeowners along with no apparent intention of providing the permanent loan modifications it promises,” said Erika Brown, one of the former employees. The damning evidence would spur a series of criminal investigations of BofA executives, if we still had a rule of law in this country for Wall Street banks.

The government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which gave banks cash incentives to modify loans under certain standards, was supposed to streamline the process and help up to 4 million struggling homeowners (to date, active permanent modifications number about 870,000). In reality, Bank of America used it as a tool, say these former employees, to squeeze as much money as possible out of struggling borrowers before eventually foreclosing on them. Borrowers were supposed to make three trial payments before the loan modification became permanent; in actuality, many borrowers would make payments for a year or more, only to find themselves rejected for a permanent modification, and then owing the difference between the trial modification and their original payment. Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner famously described HAMP as a means to “foam the runway” for the banks, spreading out foreclosures so banks could more readily absorb them.

These Bank of America employees offer the first glimpse into how they pulled it off. Employees, many of whom allege they were given no basic training on how to even use HAMP, were instructed to tell borrowers that documents were incomplete or missing when they were not, or that the file was “under review” when it hadn’t been accessed in months. Former loan-level representative Simone Gordon says flat-out in her affidavit that “we were told to lie to customers” about the receipt of documents and trial payments. She added that the bank would hold financial documents borrowers submitted for review for at least 30 days. “Once thirty days passed, Bank of America would consider many of these documents to be ‘stale’ and the homeowner would have to re-apply for a modification,” Gordon writes. Theresa Terrelonge, another ex-employee, said that the company would consistently tell homeowners to resubmit information, restarting the clock on the HAMP process.

Worse than this, Bank of America would simply throw out documents on a consistent basis. Former case management supervisor William Wilson alleged that, during bimonthly sessions called the “blitz,” case managers and underwriters would simply deny any file with financial documents that were more than 60 days old. “During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time,” Wilson wrote. “I personally reviewed hundreds of files in which the computer systems showed that the homeowner had fulfilled a Trial Period Plan and was entitled to a permanent loan modification, but was nevertheless declined for a permanent modification during a blitz.” Employees were then instructed to make up a reason for the denial to submit to the Treasury Department, which monitored the program. Others say that bank employees falsified records in the computer system and removed documents from homeowner files to make it look like the borrower did not qualify for a permanent modification.

Senior managers provided carrots and sticks for employees to lie to customers and push them into foreclosure. Simone Gordon described meetings where managers created quotas for lower-level employees, and a bonus system for reaching those quotas. Employees “who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus,” Gordon wrote. “Bank of America also gave employees gift cards to retail stores like Target or Bed Bath and Beyond as rewards for placing accounts into foreclosure.” Employees were closely monitored, and those who didn’t meet quotas, or who dared to give borrowers accurate information, were fired, as was anyone who “questioned the ethics … of declining loan modifications for false and fraudulent reasons,” according to William Wilson.

Bank of America characterized the affidavits as “rife with factual inaccuracies.” But they match complaints from borrowers having to resubmit documents multiple times, and getting denied for permanent modifications despite making all trial payments. And these statements come from all over the country from ex-employees without a relationship to one another. It did not result from one “rogue” bank branch.

Simply put, Bank of America didn’t want to hire enough staff to handle the crush of loan modification requests, and used these delaying tactics as a shortcut. They also pushed people into foreclosure to collect additional fees from them. And after rejecting borrowers for HAMP modifications, they would offer an in-house modification with a higher interest rate. This was all about profit maximization. “We were regularly drilled that it was our job to maximize fees for the Bank by fostering and extending delay of the HAMP modification process by any means we could,” wrote Simone Gordon in her affidavit.

It is a testament to the corruption of the federal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that we’re only hearing evidence from inside Bank of America now, in a civil class-action lawsuit from wronged homeowners, when the behavior was so rampant for years. For example, the Treasury Department, charged with specific oversight for HAMP, didn’t sanction a single bank for failing to follow program guidelines for three years, and certainly did not uncover any of this criminal conduct. Steven Cupples, a former underwriter at Bank of America, explained in his statement how the bank falsified records to Treasury to make it look like they granted more modifications. But Treasury never investigated. Meanwhile, the Justice Department joined with state Attorneys General and other federal regulators to essentially bless this conduct in a series of weak settlements that incorporated other bank crimes as well, like “robo-signing” and submitting false documents to courts.

These affidavits, however, should return law enforcement to the case. William Wilson, the case management supervisor, alleges in his statement that this “ridiculous and immoral” conduct continued through August of 2012, when he was eventually fired for speaking up. That means Bank of America persisted with these activities for at least six months AFTER the main, $25 billion settlement to which they were a party. So state and federal regulators could sue Bank of America over this new criminal conduct, which post-dates the actions for which they released liability under the main settlement. Attorneys general in New York and Florida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of the settlement, but they could simply open new cases about these new deceptive practices.

They would have no shortage of evidence, in addition to the sworn affidavits. According to Theresa Terrelonge, most loan-level representatives conducted their business through email; in fact, various email communications have already been submitted under seal in the Massachusetts civil case. State Attorneys General or US Attorneys would have subpoena power to gather many more emails.

And they would have very specific targets: the ex-employees listed specific executives by name who authorized and directed the fraudulent process. “The delay and rejection programs were methodically carried out under the overall direction of Patrick Kerry, a Vice President who oversaw the entire eastern region’s loan modification process,” wrote William Wilson. Other executives mentioned by name include John Berens, Patricia Feltch and Rebecca Mairone (now at JPMorgan Chase, and already named in a separate financial fraud case). These are senior executives who, if this alleged conduct is true, should face criminal liability.

Bank accountability activists have already seized on the revelations. “This is not surprising, but absolutely sickening,” said Peggy Mears, organizer for the Home Defenders League. “Maybe finally our courts and elected officials will stand with communities over Wall Street and prosecute, and then lock up, these criminals.”

Sadly, it’s hard to raise hopes of that happening. Past experience shows that our top regulatory and law enforcement officials are primarily interested in covering for Wall Street’s crimes. These well-sourced allegations amount to an accusation of Bank of America stealing thousands of homes, and lying to the government about it. Homeowners who did everything asked of them were nevertheless pushed into foreclosure, all to fortify profits on Wall Street. There’s a clear path to punish Bank of America for this conduct. If it doesn’t result in prosecutions, it will once again confirm the sorry excuse for justice we have in America.

Please do not hesitate to email or call The Resolution Law Group (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group: Home sales and prices continued to climb in May, raising the prospect of a new housing bubble unless there is a significant increase in home building.

“The home price growth is too fast, and only additional supply from new homebuilding can moderate future price growth,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. He said there needs to be a 50% increase in home building.

The median home price jumped 8% from the previous month to $208,000, according to NAR. While month-to-month price swings are not unusual, the year-over-year rise is now 15%, and prices are at levels last seen in the summer of 2008, just before the bursting of the housing bubble.

May marked the 15th straight month of annual price increases, the first time that happened since May 2006.

Home prices have been driven higher partly by a drop in foreclosures. Only 18% of home sales in the month were so-called distressed sales, which typically sell at a discount to market prices. A year ago 25% of sales were distressed sales.

Overall sales rose 4% from April and 13% from a year earlier to an annual rate of 5.18 million homes in the month.

There are differences between this run-up in prices and the housing bubble that preceded the financial crisis, said Gary Thomas, the Realtors’ president.

“The boom period was marked by easy credit and overbuilding, but today we have tight mortgage credit and widespread shortages of homes for sale,” he said. The improved housing market and mortgage rates still near record lows, despite a recent rise in rates, is pulling buyers back in the market faster than it’s prompting sellers to put homes on the market. Buyer traffic 29% above a year ago, but the supply of homes for sale is actually down 10%.

That’s caused homes to sell much more quickly — only 41 days on the market on average in May, about a month faster than a year ago, with nearly half the homes being sold in less than a month.

The warnings about prices rising too fast were a stark change from the Realtors’ position during the heyday of the housing bubble, when the statement from officials generally cheered the steady rise in prices.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group

The Resolution Law Group: A Closer Look At The Foreclosure Situation

Missing Paperwork

Jim and his wife, both retired, signed some papers.  “The guy said he’d finish them at the office and send copies,” Jim says.  “We kept waiting for copies and never got them, and I kept calling him.”   The federal Truth in Lending Act requires that you walk out the door with a “rescission notice” that allows you to back out of your refinance within 3 days.

Proof of Security

When Wall Street banks securitized, package, sold and resold our mortgages, they created a system where it is often impossible to figure out who actually own the mortgage notes and therefore has no authority to foreclose on properties.  But the banks and servicers are getting tangles up in their own web.  Recent events have exposed a handful of banks that are throwing families out of their homes even though they don’t have the mortgage note that proves they have the legal right to do so.  There have been instances of two banks trying to foreclose on the same home, and in at least one case, a bank trying to foreclose on a house where the homeowner had never taken out a mortgage on a home.

Loan Modifications Don’t Work

The current statistics are that approximately 94% of the people who apply for a HAMP loan modification with their lenders do not receive it.  First of all, you should know that many people who are considered for a HAMP loan are put into 3 month trial programs where their loan payments are reduced.  What most people don’t know is that the money they are paying to prove they can’t afford the new payment for during the trial plan does NOT go toward their mortgage.  Where does it go and what happened in those months? Well, that is a hard question to answer but here is what we do know.  Your credit gets ruined because technically you are not paying your mortgage, and since you are not paying your mortgage you are falling behind every month you are in the trial period.  Let’s go a step further into the depth of fraud–the banks use multiple strategies to deny your modification.  First of all they lose these documents, all of the ones you sent in go into a black hole and they are sent in to an e-fax type fax machine (a fax that turns your paperwork into a .PDF image on a computer).  You can send the same document 10 times and they will almost always tell you that you never sent in all the items they asked for.  You can send them certified mail–same issue.  Someone signed for them but they don’t have them.  So the three month trial period is now extended indefinitely until you can come up with proof you fit into the program or they decide that you defaulted because of your delinquent payments and put you in foreclosure!  Here is another bank strategy–asking for documents that do not exist.  For example if you are self employed and don’t have them, they don’t care they want them.  Another strategy–if your documents are even a month old they want current documents.  So between losing the documents and insisting on new ones the trial period has gone as long as a year or more. Another thing banks frequently do is tell you that you cannot enter the HAMP trial program unless you are a month behind.  This is not a requirement for the HAMP program.  The law is you must have a hardship.  The banks want you to be behind because it puts the bank in a position of leverage over you and in a position to possibly foreclose.

What about the 6% who get the modification?  Well let’s think about it–if you are in a trial period that means you are behind, so what the bank will do is put that money back into your mortgage and give you the modification.  Basically they increase your mortgage to the point where the modification is practically of no actual benefit, meaning that we have seen modified loan programs that have higher payments than when they fell into hardship.  Because many lenders add unpaid interest and fees to the loan balance, homeowners often walk away with successful modification, most American homeowners are still underwater.  Borrowers who owe more on their homes than they are worth have little incentive to stay, even if their payments are lower.  The problem is that most homeowners know very little about what their available options are in terms of saving their homes.  Desperate to keep their homes, many homeowners accept modification offers they can’t afford.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud

The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group The Resolution Law Group

The Resolution Law Group: Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say

Bank of America employees regularly lied to homeowners seeking loan modifications, denied their applications for made-up reasons, and were rewarded for sending homeowners to foreclosure, according to sworn statements by former bank employees.

The employee statements were filed late last week in federal court in Boston as part of a multi-state class action suit brought on behalf of homeowners who sought to avoid foreclosure through the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) but say they had their cases botched by Bank of America.

In a statement, a Bank of America spokesman said that each of the former employees’ statements is “rife with factual inaccuracies” and that the bank will respond more fully in court next month. He said that Bank of America had modified more loans than any other bank and continues to “demonstrate our commitment to assisting customers who are at risk of foreclosure.”

Six of the former employees worked for the bank, while one worked for a contractor. They range from former managers to front-line employees, and all dealt with homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure through the government’s program.

When the Obama administration launched HAMP in 2009, Bank of America was by far the largest mortgage servicer in the program. It had twice as many loans eligible as the next largest bank. The former employees say that, in response to this crush of struggling homeowners, the bank often misled them and denied applications for bogus reasons.

Sometimes, homeowners were simply denied en masse in a procedure called a “blitz,” said William Wilson, Jr., who worked as an underwriter and manager from 2010 until 2012. As part of the modification applications, homeowners were required to send in documents with their financial information. About twice a month, Wilson said, the bank ordered that all files with documentation 60 or more days old simply be denied. “During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time,” he said in the sworn declaration. To justify the denials, employees produced fictitious reasons, for instance saying the homeowner had not sent in the required documents, when in actuality, they had.

Such mass denials may have occurred at other mortgage servicers. Chris Wyatt, a former employee of Goldman Sachs subsidiary Litton Loan Servicing, told ProPublica in 2012 that the company periodically conducted “denial sweeps” to reduce the backlog of homeowners. A spokesman for Goldman Sachs said at the time that the company disagreed with Wyatt’s account but offered no specifics.

Five of the former Bank of America employees stated that they were encouraged to mislead customers. “We were told to lie to customers and claim that Bank of America had not received documents it had requested,” said Simone Gordon, who worked at the bank from 2007 until early 2012 as a senior collector. “We were told that admitting that the Bank received documents ‘would open a can of worms,’” she said, since the bank was required to underwrite applications within 30 days of receiving documents and didn’t have adequate staff. Wilson said each underwriter commonly had 400 outstanding applications awaiting review.

Anxious homeowners calling in for an update on their application were frequently told that their applications were “under review” when, in fact, nothing had been done in months, or the application had already been denied, four former employees said.

Employees were rewarded for denying applications and referring customers to foreclosure, according to the statements. Gordon said collectors “who placed ten or more accounts into foreclosure in a given month received a $500 bonus.” Other rewards included gift cards to retail stores or restaurants, said Gordon and Theresa Terrelonge, who worked as a collector from 2009 until 2010.

This is certainly not the first time the bank has faced such allegations. In 2010, Arizona and Nevada sued Bank of America for mishandling modification applications. Last year, Bank of America settled a lawsuit brought by a former employee of a bank contractor who accused the bank of mishandling HAMP applications.

The bank has also settled two major actions by the federal government related to its foreclosure practices. In early 2012, 49 state attorneys general and the federal government crafted a settlement that, among other things, provided cash payments to Bank of America borrowers who had lost their home to foreclosure. Authorities recently began mailing out those checks of about $1,480 for each homeowner. Earlier this year, federal bank regulators arrived at a settlement that also resulted in payments to affected borrowers, though most received $500 or less.

The law suit with the explosive new declarations from former employees is a consolidation of 29 separate suits against the bank from across the country and is seeking class action certification. It covers homeowners who received a trial modification, made all of their required payments, but who did not get a timely answer from the bank on whether they’d receive a permanent modification. Under HAMP, the trial period was supposed to last three months, but frequently dragged on for much longer, particularly during the height of the foreclosure crisis in 2009 and 2010.

ProPublica began detailing the failures of HAMP from the start of the program in 2009. HAMP turned out to be a perfect storm created by banks that refused to adequately fund their mortgage servicing operations and lax government oversight.

Bank of America was far slower to modify loans than other servicers, as other analyses we’ve cited have shown. A study last year found that about 800,000 homeowners would have qualified for HAMP if Bank of America and the other largest servicers had done an adequate job of handling homeowner applications.

If you suspect that you are the victim of Mortgage Fraud, do not hesitate to email or call please contact The Resolution Law Group at (203) 542-7275 for a confidential, no obligation consultation. Our attorneys are here to help institutional investors recoup losses that are a result of a financial scam or negligence.

Lender Litigation, Unlawful Foreclosure, Tarp Money, Mortgage Backed Securities, Derivitives Lawsuits, Insider Trading Lawsuit, SEC Settlements, Ponzi Scheme Lawsuits, Intentional Misrepresentation, Securitized Mortgage, Class Action Securities Lawsuit, Robo-Signing Lawsuit, Lost Equity Litigation, Mortgage Lender Fraud, FINRA Fraud Lawsuit, Suing Banks, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Short Sale Fraud, Fraudulent Business Practices, Mortgage Litigation, Complex Tort Litigation, Injunctive Relief, MERS Fraud