Category: Information

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following regarding the numerous Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued against servicers and others for unsafe or unsound foreclosure policies and practices is available here: http://www.independentforeclosurereview.com/

Independent Foreclosure Review

Looking for information about the Independent Foreclosure Review? Si usted habla español, tenemos representantes que pueden asistirle en su idioma.

Homeowners whose primary residence was part of a foreclosure action between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, and whose home loan was serviced by a participating servicer, may be eligible for an Independent Foreclosure Review.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (federal bank regulators) have required an Independent Foreclosure Review by an independent consultant to identify eligible customers who may have been financially injured due to errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in their foreclosure process. If the review finds that financial injury occurred, the customer may receive compensation or other remedy.

To qualify, your mortgage loan would need to meet the initial eligibility criteria: Continue reading “Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM”

Wells Fargo Fined $85,000,000.00 for Falsifying Information on Loan Applications

Wells Fargo Fined $85,000,000.00 for Falsifying Information on Loan Applications

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On July 20, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Order of Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty Issued Upon Consent to Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc.

Here is an excerpt from this Order:

WHEREAS, this Order is issued with respect to the following allegations:

A. During the period from at least January 2004 to the Reorganization (the “Relevant Period”), Financial’s business model with respect to home mortgage lending was to sell debt consolidation, cash-out refinance loans at sub-prime rates (“nonprime loans”) to customers principally through a network of more than 800 offices located throughout the United States, called “stores.” The principal marketing method was salespersonnel making outbound, unsolicited telephone calls to individuals who had some existing customer relationship with Financial. Under Financial’s underwriting process, the salespersonnel were responsible for obtaining income-related documents (such as pay stubs and W-2 forms) and forwarding them to Financial’s centralized underwriting centers. Financial typically did not require that borrowers fill out and sign loan applications that included the borrower’s representation of his or her income. Continue reading “Wells Fargo Fined $85,000,000.00 for Falsifying Information on Loan Applications”

LAWYERS WORKSHOP IN FORECLOSURE OFFENSE AND DEFENSE – HONOLULU, HAWAII ON OCTOBER 14, 2011 – EVENT CANCELLED

LAWYERS WORKSHOP IN FORECLOSURE OFFENSE AND DEFENSE – HONOLULU, HAWAII ON OCTOBER 14, 2011

CANCELLED

IN RE WACHOVIA PREFERRED SECURITIES AND BOND/NOTES LITIGATION

IN RE WACHOVIA PREFERRED SECURITIES AND BOND/NOTES LITIGATION
 
 
 

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
 
This case discusses the “pick-a-pay” loans, CDO’s and RMBS from World Savings Bank and Wachovia.  Note that in paragraph 3 on page 8 Wachovia reported:

 

 

$120 billion portfolio of option adjustable rate mortgages (“Option ARMs”), known as the “Pick-A-Pay” portfolio, which Wachovia acquired through its May 2006 purchase of Golden West;

By my calculations, the original principal balance of World Savings REMICs that contain “Option ARMs” was $124.9 billion dollars.  What a coincidence.

View this case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Wachovia-Preferred-Securities-and-Bond-Notes-Litigation.pdf

The Los Angeles Times discusses a new settlement agreement:  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/wells-fargo-kpmg-reach-627-million-settlement-of-lending-lawsuit.html

Wells Fargo Bank 10-Q from quarterly period ended June 30, 2011: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000095012311073266/f59207e10vq.htm

Notice Must Provide the Name and Address of the Lender

Notice Must Provide the Name and Address of the Lender

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to StopForeclosureFraud.com for this gem (http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/08/09/bank-of-new-york-vs-laks-nj-appeals-court-reversal-a-notice-of-intention-is-deficient-if-it-does-not-provide-the-name-and-address-of-the-lender/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+(FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+|+by+DinSFLA))

The Notice of Intention did not contain the name and address of the lender so the New Jersey appeals court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting relief (the motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice).

View this case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BONY-v-LAKS_Lender_Must_Provide_The_Name_and_Address_of_Lender.pdf

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com.  It is reposted here with the following comments.  These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders.  In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim.  Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead.  To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Title Crisis

Title Crisis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you thought this was a foreclosure crisis brought about by the Mortgage Meltdown, you would be wrong.  If this were a foreclosure crisis only those in foreclosure would be the ones having problems.  And only those loans in foreclosure would be the ones having title issues and “robo-signer” issues.  I cannot say this loud enough: FORECLOSURE IS NOT THE PROBLEM.  Homeowners not making payments is not the problem.  “Freeing up” credit to stimulate lending is not the problem.  If you didn’t get a subprime loan, and yours is a 30 year fixed, you are at risk of a clouded title almost as much as anyone in foreclosure.  In fact, if you have refinanced or purchased your house from 2000 or later, you could easily have a defect in title.  Since I am not a lawyer and can only give myself legal advice, I will only discuss my own case.  And of course these are only my opinions based on my knowledge, education, training and research.  Apparently my title company thinks my title is good.  I know because somebody asked them and they said it was good.  At the end of the article I will explain why they would say that.  What they meant to say was “Everything is great because we, as a title company, are not at risk at all based on our review of your title”. Continue reading “Title Crisis”

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Am I the only one who missed this Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter “BAC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter “Countrywide”) from the Federal Trade Commission?  They seem to have put quite a damper in what they can and cannot do.  Has BAC complied with the following since this order dated June 15, 2010:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one-hundred fifty (150) days from the date of entry of this Order, Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and all other Persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan, from failing to disclose Clearly and Prominently the following information: Continue reading “FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing”

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

She has been fighting toothe and nail.  Nobody was listening.  The current bankruptcy judge was skeptical when she showed up in bankruptcy.  But now his ruling on a motion for relief from stay blows the doors off her case.  It seems that bank attorneys are confused by something that should be very simple for an attorney.  The issue is who is the real party in interest?  Many have failed to comprehend what is in a name.  If a very large bank is included in the name, most just glaze over it and go right to the pleadings.  Here it is in a nutshell: US Bank, NA as Indenture Trustee is MEANINGLESS.  This is because when a trust is involved, the trust is the real party, not the bank.  US Bank is a trustee of hundreds if not thousands of trusts.  Naming them as Trustee does not identify an entity that is real.  In the debtors case, the bank foreclosed on her home in the name of US Bank as Indenture Trustee of [some Terwin Trust].  This was a non-judicial foreclosure.  In the UD (unlawful detainer), which is a judicial case to evict her, the name used was US Bank as Indenture Trustee.  The lawyers did not specify a specific trust.  She lost that case in state court and before she was evicted she filed bankruptcy.  She had to keep objecting and protesting.  Eventually the judge came to the realization that something was wrong.  In fact the judge ruled as follows: 

“The defect cannot be cured, either directly or implicitly, by any ruling this court can make on behalf of the Terwin Trust in the Second 362 Motion.”

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.  If they put the wrong name, they have to cure the problem.  Based on my research, in a very large number of cases the wrong party is named.  Including yours truly.  Have a nice day, I know I will.

Download the case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Deamicis-Real-Party-in-Interest-For-Publication.pdf