The Resolution Law Group: FDIC Sued by JPMorgan Chase in $1B Securities Case Involving Washington Mutual Purchase & Mortgage-Backed Securities

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is suing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for over $1 billion dollars related to the bank’s purchase of Washington Mutual (WMIH). The financial firm said that the FDIC did not honor its duties per the purchase agreement.

When Washington Mutual suffered the biggest bank failure in our nation’s history during the financial crisis in 2008, FDIC became its receiver and brokered the sale of assets. JPMorgan, which made the purchase for $1.9 billion, says that the FDIC promised to protect or indemnify the bank from liabilities. Regulators had encouraged the firm to buy Washington Mutual hoping this would help bring back stability to the banking system.

Since then, however, contends JPMorgan, the FDIC has refused to acknowledge mortgage-backed securities claims by investors and the government against the firm. The bank says that the cases should have been made against the receivership instead. (In its lawsuit, JPMorgan says there are enough assets in the receivership to cover a settlement with mortgage companies Freddie Mac (FMCC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA) and other claims, such as a slip and fall personal injury case involving a Washington Mutual branch.) Meantime, the FDIC maintains that JPMorgan is the one who should be accountable for any liabilities from its acquisition of Washington Mutual.

Since 2008, JPMorgan has agreed to multiple MBS settlements. Investors lost millions from bundled mortgages as the housing market crumbled and they wanted their money back. Recent settlements include last month’s $13 billion deal with the Justice Department and state regulators over mortgage-linked bonds, and another $4.5 million agreement with 21 institutional investors.

JPMorgan also says that it wants the FDIC receivership to separately take care of possible damages from the litigation brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The latter wants up to $10 billion on behalf of over 100 trusts that have Washington Mutual-issued bonds that have performed poorly.

If you suspect you sustained losses caused by institutional investor securities fraud, contact The The Resolution Law Group today.


The Resolution Law Group: Shutdown could slow mortgage lending

The government shutdown could make it difficult, or even impossible, for banks to close on your mortgage.

One problem lenders might face involves the Internal Revenue Service.

Before closing on a mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, banks must verify a borrower’s income with the IRS. But IRS operations are curtailed because of the shutdown, and the agency won’t be available to handle the paperwork the banks need to close on the loans.

Mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration could also face delays. The agency is operating with a skeleton staff — its shutdown plan called for furloughing 96% of its workers — and loan processing will suffer.

However, many of the biggest FHA lenders have the authority to make their own underwriting decisions and won’t need to wait for the IRS to come back online, and FHA mortgages issued through those firms will move forward.

Related: FHA will keep lending during shutdown

The shutdown’s effect on the Social Security Administration could also cause a snag for borrowers. Lenders often turn to that agency to verify a borrower’s identity and prevent fraud on mortgage applications.

For borrowers who are far along in the mortgage process, the good news is the shutdown likely won’t stop your loan from going through.

But those who apply for new mortgages, including refinancings, during the shutdown should be prepared to wait.

Wells Fargo, the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, said new applications will not get completed until after the shutdown ends and when borrower’s income claims can be officially verified.

Related: Learn more about the government shutdown

Other banks take a similar position.

“All the banks I deal with have told us they would not be able to close,” said Dan Frommeyer, president of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers.

There are some banks that might be willing to close on a loan without verifying income with the IRS.

TD Bank, for example, will continue to process loans, according to Mike Copley, head of retail lending. TD plans to keep the loans on its books until the shutdown is over and then sell them to Fannie and Freddie once they can finish the verification process.

If the shutdown ends quickly, its impact on mortgage lending and the housing market will be slight, according to Keith Gumbinger of, a mortgage information company. If it lasts a few weeks or longer, he said, home sales will slow and that could be a significant brake on the nation’s economy.

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.


The Resolution Law Group: Home mortgage rates drop again

30 year mortgage

The average interest rate for the most popular kind of home loan, the 30-year fixed rate, fell to 4.22%, down from 4.32% a week earlier.

Rates, as measured by a weekly Freddie Mac survey, have dropped from 4.57% since the Federal Reserve unexpectedly announced three weeks ago that it would not alter its stimulus program of buying Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities.

Most industry experts had thought the Fed would start to taper off those purchases, which bring liquidity to the mortgage markets and help keep rates low.

Related: Top 10 markets to buy an investor property

The rate decline can also be traced to economic uncertainty, which has heightened due to the government shutdown, according to Frank Nothaft, Freddie’s chief economist.

“With the onset of the federal government shutdown and declining consumer confidence, fixed mortgage rates fell for the third consecutive week,” he said.

For borrowers applying for $200,000 loans, the rate decline over the past three weeks could save them about $42 a month, $500 a year — if they can get a mortgage.

Calculate what your mortgage payment would be

“While this is great news for mortgage shoppers, what’s not great is that it comes as the government has ground to a halt, making it hard for mortgage lenders to get verification of tax returns or even Social Security numbers,” said Keith Gumbinger, vice president of, a mortgage information firm. “This is likely to slow the loan approval process.”

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.

The Resolution Law Group: Five Years After Lehman’s Bankruptcy, How is the US Financial System Doing Now?

It was nearly five years ago on September 15, 2008 when the public learned that Lehman Brothers had gone bankrupt, resulting in billions of dollars of losses on a financial system already struggling with a housing market that was failing, as well as a growing credit crisis. Also, Merrill Lynch (MER) would be forced to join with Bank of America (BAC), the US car industry was in trouble, and insurer AIG stood on the brink of collapse. Now, while there has the economy has somewhat recovered, many Americans can’t help but worry that such a financial meltdown could happen again.

Back then, Wachovia (WB) was also in peril of going down and Washington Mutual (WAMUQ) was failing miserably—to become the biggest US banking failure to date—and government and financial industry leaders scrambled to save what they could. Bailouts were issued and emergency measures taken including: a federal takeover of housing finance giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which kept the housing market going by allaying worries that the two entities would default on bonds,the guaranteeing of money market mutual funds that the then-trillion dollar industry depended on for the business short-term funding as well as retirement, and the setting up of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (allowing the Treasury to help put back confidence in banks via the buying of equities of securities in many of these banks and recapitalizing the system.

In a USA Today article, ex-US senator Christopher Dodd said that he believes there will be another crisis; only this one could also involve China, Brazil, and India—not just the US and the European continent. Meantime, while US Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness CEO and President David Hirschmann said that a crisis as big as the one in 2008 is not as likely, he predicts there will still be failures. He also said that it is unclear whether we’ve established a better system for identifying problems and risks.

In August, US President Obama delineated a proposal to rework the country’s housing finance-system, which would phase out Freddie and Fannie. While putting them under government control a few years back provided some reprieve, this was never meant to be permanent solution to the problems that happened.

Also in the article, ex-US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said he wants broader industry reform and while he believes the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act is a big move n the right direction, he expressed the need for a reworking of the federal financial regulatory agencies and a closer examination of their duties, which sometimes overlap. There also have been calls from government watchdogs for reforms to the biggest US banks because of concerns that their interrelatedness and complexities make them an ongoing risk to the financial system.

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


The Resolution Law Group: UBS to Pay Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $885M to Settle RMBS Lawsuit

UBS (UBS) will pay $885 million to settle Federal Housing Finance Agency to settle allegations that it misrepresented mortgage-backed bonds during the housing bubble. $415 million of the mortgage settlement will go to Fannie Mae, while $470 million will be paid to Freddie Mac, both government-sponsored enterprises, over the $200 million in mortgage-backed securities that were sold to them.

According to FHFA, UBS misrepresented the quality of loans that were underlying residential mortgage-backed securities worth billions of dollars that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ended up buying. Both firms were seized in 2008 when losses from subprime mortgages brought them close to insolvency. They still are under US conservatorship.

UBS is the third to settle with FHFA over RMBS allegations. Citigroup (C) and General Electric Co. (GE) were the first.

The federal regulator is suing 18 banks, and already, Deutsche Bank (DB) and Credit Suisse (CS) have put money aside for their potential settlements. Analysts are estimating that European banks may end up paying $11 billion for mortgage-related litigation in the US, with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) perhaps having to pay $1.6 billion, HSBC $900 million, and Barclays (BCS) $1.1 billion.

Other banks that FHFA is suing on behalf of Freddie and Fannie:

Bank of America Corp. (BAC)
Countrywide Financial Corp.
• Ally Financial
• First Horizon National Corporation
Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS)
JPMorgan Chase 7 Co. (JPM)
• HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
Morgan Stanley (MS)
Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER)
• Nomura Holding America Inc.
• Société Générale

The securities complaints were filed in state and federal courts and invoke government is seeking, in addition to compensatory damages  GE was the first to settle FHFA’s mortgage bond case against it. The company was one of the underwriters to the RMBS that were sold to Fannie and Freddie. The terms of the settlement, however, remain confidential. However, FHFA did accuse GE of misleading Freddie Mac into purchasing $549 million of securities.  Citibank’s RMBS settlement with FHFA was also resolved with the terms left confidential. That mortgage-backed securities lawsuit was over allegations that it misled Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into purchasing $3.5B of the securities.
Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities
RMBS are a type of MBS with a cash flow that comes from, residential debt, including home-equity loans, residential mortgages, and subprime mortgages, rather than commercial debt. At The Resolution Law Group, our securities lawyers help investors that suffered losses from mortgage-backed securities in getting their investments back from negligent brokerage firms, brokers, and investment advisers. We represent corporations, high net worth individuals, banks, partnerships, financial firms, private foundations, large trusts, charitable organizations, school districts, retirement plans, and municipalities.

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.

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: Mortgage Executive Charged with Defrauding Fannie & Freddie

Patrick J. Mansell, 68, Boca Raton, FL, Vice President of Coastal States Mortgage Corporation, has been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud to defraud government sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

According to the Information, from April 2007 through February 2012, in the Southern District of Florida, Coastal was a licensed mortgage brokerage whose primary business activity was the selling and servicing of mortgage loans for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As alleged in the Information, Coastal processed payments and payoffs received from borrowers on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, according to the contractual agreements entered into between them.

As further alleged in the Information, Coastal failed to remit some of the mortgage loan payoffs that it received from borrowers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, resulting in a loss to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This misappropriation was concealed by the regular submission of false financial reports by Coastal, via an internet portal, to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. If convicted, the defendant faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years’ incarceration, followed by a three year period of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000 and restitution.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and Steve Linick, Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General, announced the charges.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of the Inspector General.

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.

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: Lenders seek court actions against homeowners years after foreclosure

For Jose Santos Benavides, the ordeal of losing his home was over.

The Salvadoran immigrant had worked for years as a self-employed landscaper to make a $15,000 down payment on a four-bedroom house in Rockville. He had achieved a portion of the American dream, earning nearly six figures.

Then the economy soured, and lean paychecks turned into late mortgage payments. On Aug. 20, 2008, one year after he bought his dream home for $469,000, the bank’s threat to take his house became real via a letter in the mail. Just four days before the bank seized the property, he moved out, along with his wife and their two young children.

That wasn’t the worst of it.

In November, more than three years after the foreclosure, he was stunned to learn he still owed $115,000 — with the interest alone growing at a rate high enough to lease a luxury car.

“I’m scared, you know,” Benavides said. “I can’t pay.”

The 42-year-old is among the many homeowners being taken to court by their lenders long after their houses were taken in foreclosure. Lenders are filing new motions in old foreclosure lawsuits and hiring debt collectors to pursue leftover debt, plus court fees, attorneys’ fees and tens of thousands in interest that had been accruing for years.

It’s an aftershock of the foreclosure crisis, and most homeowners don’t know it’s coming.

“When people take out a loan, they generally think the home is the security for the loan,” said Alys Cohen, an attorney in the Washington office of the National Consumer Law Center. When they no longer have that home, “people don’t expect that debt to follow them,” she said.

It’s all part of a legal process known as a “deficiency judgment,” which is allowed in the District and 40 of 50 states, including Maryland and Virginia. Since the start of the mortgage meltdown of 2008, at least 400 Maryland homeowners have been pursued in court, according to a Washington Post analysis of state court data. In the first four months of this year, 57 new court actions have been filed against homeowners — on pace to exceed last year’s total of 120.

It works like this: A property with a $500,000 mortgage might be worth only $300,000 following the housing crisis. The $200,000 difference, or what’s commonly referred to as the “underwater amount,” is known to lenders as a deficiency balance.

It’s unclear how many people walk away from homes when they can still afford to pay the mortgage. Likewise, there is little publicly available data on how many people pay off their deficiency judgments. A recent government audit found the recovery rate at one-fifth of 1 percent. But for those hit with the judgments, it can seem like double-dipping on their pain.

“Deficiency judgments are absolutely devastating to the foreclosed home buyer both as a matter of immediate financial impact and income tax consequence,” said John Mixon, a recently retired professor at the University of Houston Law Center who has studied deficiency judgments for the past 30 years.

Among the lenders pursuing the judgments are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-governmental lending agencies that have long strived to open up home ownership to a wider segment of the population. Officials at those agencies said the judgments are necessary to recoup money lost in the crisis.

“Pursuing deficiency judgments has always been a remedy that we have looked at to mitigate our losses prior to the recent housing crash,” said Freddie Mac spokesman Brad German. “It is not a new thing.”

German said Freddie Mac is targeting “strategic defaulters,” which the agency defines as “someone who had the means but chose to go into default, that there were no extenuating circumstances that affected their ability to pay. If you’re choosing not to pay off your mortgage, but you’re paying other bills, we would consider that strategic default.”

In 2011, Fannie and Freddie flagged 12 percent of 298,327 properties they had foreclosed on — more than 35,000 — for deficiency judgments in an attempt to collect $2.1 billion in unpaid mortgage debt, according to an inspector general’s report released in October from the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“Pursuing these collections against borrowers we believe have the ability to pay but who have decided not to helps us minimize our losses, which in turn helps minimize taxpayer losses,” said Malloy Evans, an attorney and Fannie Mae’s vice president for default management. “And we think it’s our responsibility to try to minimize those taxpayers’ losses as much as we can.”

Robert Van Order, who was a chief economist for Freddie Mac from 1987 to 2002, said he did not believe that targeting deficiencies would produce much revenue.

“That may be a good business decision, but I don’t think that’s a huge part of the market,” Van Order said. “Is it worthwhile to hire some lawyers and some people to try to do it? It might be, but it’s not going to make or break the companies.”

“Deficiencies are less lucrative than some other types of debt recovery work. They tend to be larger and more complicated and more paperwork-intensive than, say, a medical or credit card bill,” said Michael J. Cramer, president of Dyck-O’Neal, a Texas-based firm that has been collecting deficiencies for 25 years. “However, deficiency recovery represents an important facet of the debt recovery industry.”

Fannie is also pursuing defaulting homeowners as a “deterrent” for people who might be thinking about defaulting in the future, Van Order said. Fannie Mae has hired debt collectors to pursue people in 38 states and the District, while Freddie Mac has taken homeowners to court in 17 states and the District.

Banks and lenders have rarely resorted to pursuing people for remaining debt once the home was taken. Before 2008, since property values were consistently increasing, the value of the home usually covered the mortgage amount, and lenders could make their money back by reselling the properties.

Van Order said the agency did not pursue homeowners very often for deficiencies during his tenure.

But the mortgage meltdown changed the equation.

Suing people immediately after foreclosure was problematic. For one thing, lenders usually could not get more money out of already broke homeowners. But, if lenders waited a few years, some forecast that people would have money again once the economy recovered.

The irony is not lost on Evan Goitein, a Bethesda-based foreclosure attorney.

“There is very little to be gained from the bank’s perspective to be suing people for the money at this point,” Goitein said. “While deficiency judgments are not really a problem right now, I can see it being a big problem in the future. So seven years from now when my client has recovered from his foreclosure, he’s got a job again, he’s saved up enough money . . . [from the bank’s perspective], that would be a great time for the bank to try to sue them.”

People are usually shocked when that happens, even though mortgage documents state that lenders are entitled to immediately recover the full loan amount upon default. Mixon said ordinary people often do not realize what is contained in the arcane legal language. “The thing that looks like it’s protecting them is biting them,” he said.

Benavides and his family had been living in a cramped, two-bedroom Besley Court apartment for four years when the process server handed him a document stating that collectors were coming after him over the debt on his old house. He had 30 days to respond.

“He tells me, ‘You have to go to court,’ ” Benavides said. “I was just scared.”

The notice spelled out that he owed $95,500 from the $375,200 mortgage, plus at least $21,000 in unpaid interest. The letter said the interest on the debt was $19 a day, roughly $577 a month. And the clock had been running for more than three years.

Benavides tried to call his original lender, Lehman Brothers, but it had filed for bankruptcy before being acquired by Barclays. He called one of the attorneys in the suit. He called the process server listed on the summons. Finally, he called a bank, and it said there was nothing that could be done, he said. Freddie Mac, which declined to comment on his case, had backed Benavides’s loan, but for $1 assigned the note to Dyck-O’Neal.

Five days before Christmas, he filed for bankruptcy.

A long window for lenders

Lenders have an opportunity to forgive the deficiency. Most do so, either through a short sale before foreclosure, in which the lenders agree to accept an amount of money from a home sale that falls short of the mortgage, or through a “deed in lieu,” in which the homeowner merely gives up the deed to the house in order to get out quickly.

But even then, homeowners can be stuck with paying state and federal tax on what the bank has forgiven. The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act waived taxes on that debt until 2012. That relief was extended until December, but the act doesn’t exempt homeowners from state tax, and it’s uncertain whether the federal relief will be extended again. Most states forgive the taxes, said Annapolis bankruptcy lawyer Tate Russack.

States have different statutes of limitation on how long they allow lenders to pursue deficiency judgments, ranging from 30 days to 20 years. In Kansas, a deficiency judgment must be sought at the time of foreclosure. If a judge feels the bid at foreclosure sale isn’t “fair value,” the judge can deny or reduce the judgment.

In Maryland, it’s three years. However, there’s a little-known exemption for most mortgage documents that gives debt collectors 12 years to sue homeowners, plus another 12 years to collect the debt and on top of that a one-time renewal of 12 years for a total of 36 years.

“That’s 36 years that lenders have to go after people,” said Russack, whose firm has taken on 80 bankruptcy cases in the past four months, all of which involve deficiency judgments.

The rate of deficiency judgments has increased sharply in Maryland in recent years, The Post’s analysis shows.

In 2006, the owners of 19 properties in Maryland were ordered to pay their deficiencies totaling at least $432,115. Six years later, the owners of 120 properties were pursued for $13.6 million.

Since 2008, a majority of the cases pursued were in Prince George’s County, with Baltimore City and Montgomery County coming in at a close second and third. Those three jurisdictions had more homeowners taken to court than the state’s other 21 counties combined. Those three jurisdictions also represented nearly $3 of every $4 sought by lenders and debt collectors, which totaled $45 million among all counties.

In Prince George’s, one homeowner was hit with a judgment of $577,000, another with $563,000. All told, the median judgment for Prince George’s homeowners was $98,000 — $10,000 more than the statewide median of $88,000.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who in the past has been a defendant in foreclosure filings on his personal home, said he supports deficiency judgment reform.

“I strongly support policies and aid initiatives that will minimize or even waive deficiency judgments against borrowers to help ensure that such judgments do not compound the harms borrowers have already suffered,” he said.

Already-foreclosed homeowners won’t know that they’re being targeted until they receive the court notice. In many cases, it is hard to even know who owns the debt until the notice arrives. Often times, the entity pursuing the debt is not the original lender, because that debt can be sold by the homeowner’s lender to someone on the secondary debt market for pennies on the dollar. Most of the deficiency cases that Goitein said he sees involve smaller banks.

Because the debt is old, accruing interest becomes a major cost to homeowners.

According to The Post’s analysis, the median interest rate in Maryland was $10 a day, $310 a month. One Germantown woman was charged $40 a day, or $46,000 in total, for what was originally a $136,000 deficiency on a four-year-old foreclosure case.

A Montgomery County Circuit Court spokeswoman said courts do not decide the amount of interest to be charged. The post-judgment interest is governed by state statute, she said, which mandates a minimum of 10 percent interest per year, according to the statute.

Once a judgment is entered, it sticks with the homeowner until it is paid off. In Maryland, it is filed with the land record in the county where the homeowner lives and follows him each time he moves. A lien is then attached to whatever future real estate the homeowner purchases and prevents the homeowner from selling that new property until the deficiency is paid off, Russack said.

In most cases, the only way out of a deficiency judgment is by filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. But because of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, that’s only available to people earning no more than the state’s median family income by family size, which is $108,915 for a family of four in Maryland. All others must file under chapters 11 and 13, where the debt is restructured, not eliminated.

The Post found 144 cases of bankruptcy filed after homeowners received a court order for deficiency — nearly 20 percent of all cases. Among them, 38 — more than a quarter — had some sort of garnishment of wages or other assets. Another 113 cases also involved garnishment, but there had not yet been a filing of bankruptcy.

‘Foreclosure fatigue’

In 2011, an attempt was made to pass a one-year nationwide cap on deficiency judgments, but it died in a House committee.

Last year, the Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition was asked to make legislative recommendations to help ease the state’s foreclosure crisis. Among other things, the commission recommended ending deficiency judgments and mandating a statewide forgiveness of the debt. But that recommendation was ignored, according to Marceline White, the commission’s executive director.

The coalition considered making a renewed push for the recommendation during the spring session, which ended April 8, but ultimately held off.

“Frankly, I think there’s a little bit of foreclosure fatigue among lawmakers,” White said.

White said Bank of America recently announced it would forgive deficiencies in exchange for credit as part of a federal and state settlement of a $25 billion national mortgage lawsuit. The settlement requires the nation’s top five lenders to help people who are having difficulty paying their mortgage.

As of March 31, Bank of America provided 599 deficiency waivers in Maryland totaling $40 million, an average of $67,235 per deficiency. The settlement terms end in 2014, and the bank says it will continue to forgive the debts.

“I can confirm that we will continue to waive deficiencies even after the monitor certifies us as having met our obligations under the settlement,” said Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens.

The wave of deficiency judgments had a prologue in Texas.

During the 1980s in Houston, the bottom went out of the oil market, with the price dropping to about $15 a barrel. Homes that had been assessed at $200,000 couldn’t be sold for $100,000. More than 200,000 people lost their jobs and could not pay their mortgages.

The lenders foreclosed on the homes and then pursued the homeowners for the outstanding balance.

Once a judgment was granted, debt collectors had 10 years to collect, according to the Texas statute at the time, and another 10 years if the debt collector petitioned the court to renew the judgment.

“It was an absolute disaster,” Mixon said.

In response to the situation, the state passed laws increasing consumer protections in deficiency cases.

“It’s less an event in Texas today than it was back then,” Mixon said. “But Texas still provides the object lesson of what could happen.”

But for the moment, efforts to pursue deficiency judgments are ramping up rather than winding down.

Following the mortgage crisis in 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency took over management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA is now in private talks with the quasi-private lending giants to ramp up their efforts to go after even more homeowners for their deficiencies starting this September, according to the inspector general’s report.

The FHFA inspector general’s report showed that the return on the 35,000 deficiency judgments pursued in 2011 was less than 1 percent, or $4.7 million.

“Given a recovery rate of .22 percent, the Enterprises appear to have room for improvement,” according to the audit. “Further, with 1.1 million seriously delinquent mortgages looming on the foreclosure horizon — triple the Enterprises’ foreclosures in 2011 — FHFA’s timely guidance on deficiency management processes may help the Enterprises recoup future losses and protect taxpayers’ investment in their financial health.”

By Sept. 20, the FHFA is expected to have drafted new guidelines for making the process more effective.

“Through our supervisory process, FHFA is working to implement the Inspector General’s recommendations,” said Jon Greenlee, the FHFA’s deputy director of the division of enterprise regulation.

Evans said Fannie Mae applies a specific methodology to determine whom it will pursue, though he declined to elaborate, saying people could use such information to thwart the process. He did say that Fannie Mae does not pursue homeowners who have experienced certain financial hardships, such as a job loss, medical issue, death of a spouse or divorce.

But they do target people based on credit history and the characteristics of their loans and properties. For example, a person who pays their other bills but not their mortgage could be considered a strategic defaulter, he said.

“We do the analysis first to really focus on the population that we think has the ability to pay but hasn’t chosen to do so,” Evans said.

“It is a problem of monumental proportions,” Russack said.

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