They never quit, cheating and lying to win a house.
One thing is very clear: the mega banks — who control nearly all foreclosures — are using algorithms to start and stop foreclosures so as to create the impression that foreclosures are not a big problem. In this article by ProMarket, this behavior was honed down to specific districts represented by members of the Financial Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The members were under very little pressure about foreclosures because the number of foreclosures in their districts was so small, even though the “delinquencies” were the same as surrounding districts.
This practice has been going on for many years as a method of manipulating the media and government into thinking that the foreclosure crisis is over. It is not. There are millions of foreclosures to come. But now, the banks have perfected a plan in which the number of foreclosures is capped in a given area and…
View original post 88 more words
Consumer Rights Defenders adds: The replacement [re-assignment] of a servicer does not abolish under Calif law the lender’s duty to follow the Code and reach out to explore programs to save homes. Failure to act under CC sec. 2923.55 is grounds to halt a foreclosure sale, and if the modification is deemed to be a sham, the argument stands that they failed to comply, as well based on modification fraud.
Call us today for more at 818.453.3585
By Patricia Rodriguez, Esq.
Nothing in this article is meant to be construed as legal advice; there is no attorney-client relationship that is being created. This is for general education purposes only.
After years of litigating against alleged lenders, investors, servicers, and foreclosure trustee’s we are starting to see a clear trend of the servicing rights being transferred upon receiving a complete loan modification application. What is an alleged lender – this is usually the party that claims to have funded the original loan or the originator.
The alleged investors are those who claim to have received an ownership interest in the loan through an assignment and endorsements or multiple assignments and endorsements. The foreclosure trustee in non-judicial foreclosure states such as California are entrusted with overseeing the foreclosure…
View original post 649 more words
Call Consumer Rights Defenders for more on this huge development. The tide has changed at last.
More soon on this tremendous victory stopping a crooked foreclosure sale.
Deck vs. Wells Fargo
USDC No. Dist of Calif-Sacramento
818.453.3585 for free consultation with our team of experts in litigation issues.
From Consumer Rights Defenders at 818.453.3585….investigate the accuracy of this article for yourself. Call is today for litigation support, attorneys and assistance.
UNPRECEDENTED CIVIL JURY VERDICT FINDS MAJOR U.S. BANK GUILTY OF FRAUD BANK BREACHED MORTGAGE AGREEMENT IN CASE BROUGHT BY U.S. GOVT. FRAUD INVESTIGATOR
Jan 30, 2013 – Washington, DC: In October 2012, an historic civil jury verdict in the District of Columbia found that OneWest Bank, which also does business as IndyMac Mortgage Services, violated DC’s consumer protection law by breaching its contract and committing fraud against the plaintiff, Ross Yerger (“the customer”) – a Special Agent with the United States Secret Service. Actual damages were awarded and accompanied by punitive damages and attorney fees. This is the highest level at which any such case has been decided against a financial institution in favor of victory for the plaintiff.
This case is also being considered by the United States Attorney’s Office for additional action and has already been considered similar in nature to the current Bank of America lawsuit filed by the U.S. Government. The case citation is Yerger v. OneWest Bank, No. 2011 CA 000706 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. JR Howell, Esq. of JRH Legal Strategies represented the customer.
In August of 2009, OneWest Bank, solicited the customer into joining its “Equity Accelerator Program.” Under that program, OneWest promised to debit the homeowner’s mortgage payment in two bi-monthly installments every month for the remainder of the loan. OneWest said that the program would result in over $170,000.00 in interest savings and a gain of nearly $70,000.00 of equity in ten years. OneWest Bank’s promises were reduced to a written agreement.
The program was not executed as promised. The bank never debited any money from the customer’s account. However, the bank consistently charged the customer hundreds of dollars in late fees. The customer repeatedly cured the bank’s failures by making the mortgage payment manually, including the fees that were charged because the bank failed to make the debits. Each time he made these payments, he was told the debits would continue under the program as agreed. But that never happened.
Several months later, the customer was threatened with foreclosure. The bank’s lawyers told the customer to pay $9,878.22 to stop the foreclosure in August of 2010. The customer immediately paid this amount, but three weeks later the customer received that payment back from the bank, which said it was refusing to accept the payment. The foreclosure was scheduled for October 21, 2010.
The bank’s lawyers then demanded over $16,000.00 a few weeks later, otherwise it was going to sell the customer’s home in a foreclosure sale. The customer came up with the money. At trial, several thousands of the dollars were labeled as miscellaneous fees and remained unexplained. Hundreds of dollars were never applied to the customer’s account and remained unaccounted for at trial. A witness for the bank was unable to explain why the customer was charged several thousand dollars in unspecified fees and what the bank did with hundreds of dollars of the customer’s money.
A few days later, the customer was sent a mortgage statement rife with accounting errors, saying that the customer was a month behind on his mortgage-even though the bank told him that the $16,000.00 payment would bring him current. Even though the bank’s lawyers told him the accounting error was fixed, the following month he was sent a mortgage statement demanded three times his regular mortgage payment. OneWest Bank refused to accept the amount of the regular monthly mortgage payment and demanded the customer pay the full amount that they insisted. In deposition, the witness for the bank confessed that these statements were mistakes. But at trial, the witness recanted this statement and restated that the November 2010 statement was accurate. Neither the bank, nor an independent auditor completed an audit of the customer’s account.
The lawsuit began in January of 2011. When the summons was served on the bank, the customer’s legal counsel sent a letter with the complaint, explaining that there was no need for litigation to fix this issue and that the parties could negotiate their differences amicably. There was no response to the letter. Instead, OneWest Bank forced the customer to undergo two years of protracted litigation, as well as surveillance on the residence by the bank’s contractors and other harassment.
Jurors awarded this $169M verdict (PDF) against three former IndyMac Bank executives for originating dubious construction and development loans. It happened last Friday in Los Angeles at the US District Court for the Central District of California.
The jurors agreed with the FDIC on the 21 loans that went to trial. The result: a verdict for the FDIC on every count—and, in one combination or another, against each former executive respectively—totaling about $169M in damages.
From Attorney John R from Washington DC —– SETTLEMENTS ARE A FALSE HOPE FOR THE HOMEOWNER
We follow this weblog and Garfield’s Living Lies regularly for the latest in current trends and information We are writing this to disclose a troubling trend of political deception about the real state of the housing crisis.
As of 1-15-2013 the state of these so called “attorney general” or “Government settlements” is absolutely ineffective and impotent to stop the banks from continuing their tactics. These “settlements” are not benefiting the homeowner. Most only fatten the pockets of attorneys, the states and counties, but offer literally “scraps” to the homeowners. This is particularly true of the settlement crafted out by the California Attorney General Harris and many others similar.
Our firm’s opinion is that the ONLY, repeat ONLY way to stop foreclosures and evictions and turn the tables is to sue the bank for a restraining order and for millions in damages in court. Most cannot afford our firm in the East Coast area. We highly recommend that desperate homeowners get some form of legal assistance from knowledgeable sources.
Believe it when you read that the DC politicians are a bunch of beholden deceivers. Now Congress and the White House want to bail out the “bailed out” and will do nothing new or inventive to help the homeowner and their kids and families. It is downright pathetic. The courts are your only last resort, and from our research, the trend is changing to favor the homeowners more than ever now.
If you can’t afford a big firm in your area that “get’s it” then try Consumer Rights Defenders who have specialized attorneys, paralegals and expert loan and securitization auditors on staff who can help you sue and get more than these politicians who brag, but offer little in real relief. Consumer Rights Defenders has helped us litigate for our clients and offers the exact same strategies for the in pro se [unrepresented] as we have for years. When you need an attorney for court appearances, they help you get one, as well.
John R. Washington D.C. Attorney, J.D., MBA.
Call us today at 818.453.3585 for immediately assistance, nationwide. We have offices in California, Texas, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. and soon in New York, New Jersey, Penn, Mass. and Georgia/So. Carolina to help homeowners just like you. Ask for Steve or Sara.
Our success rate for Foreclosure stopping Restraining Orders is now over 90% nationwide.
Owners of wrongfully repossessed houses could now get up to $125,000 as ten major US banks agree to settle federal complaints. This will end a foreclosure review process begun by a 2011 enforcement action.
Under the new agreement, those people who had their homes seized and then sold would get the biggest pay offs, while banks who failed to modify people’s loans in light of a change of income would get off more lightly. The settled compensation is anywhere between $1000 and $125,000.
The initial 2011 enforcement review was ordered because banks and mortgage companies had bypassed steps in the foreclosure process and had mishandled people’s paperwork.
The banks involved include the Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, MetLife Bank, PNC Financial Services and Sovereign.
Monday’s settlement was announced by the Office for the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve and covers up to…
View original post 20 more words
Recent California case you can find on Neil Garfield’s site Living Lies in which we cite an appellate decision pro-homeowner: If the bank fails to comply with HUD guidelines [contact and work out payment issues with borrower] a TRO is appropriate enjoining foreclosure.
We are starting our 8th year saving homes and helping borrowers fight the courtroom battles. Call us today for free consultation at 818.453.3585. See us on Garfield’s Living Lies Blog as well.
Steve Nelson, J.D. and Sara Stephens, J. D.
Executive Directors-Litigation Department