American public don't just want rules, they want enforcement.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
WELLS FARGO AND OTHER BIG BANKS BEAR BLAME FOR NJ'S FORECLOSURE CRISIS
How is it that a bank can violate the terms of its own mortgage modification whenever it wants to?
READ MORE HERE...
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/10/16/op-ed-wells-fargo-and-new-jersey-s-foreclosure-crisis/
FANNIE, FREDDIE NEAR DEAL THAT PROMISES TO BOOST MORTGAGE LENDING, BANKS PROTECTIONS AND REDUCE LENDER PENALTIES
Accord gives banks more protections againsts charges of making bad loans
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Monday, October 13, 2014
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
~ THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ~ WE ARE UPDATING THIS SITE
NOTICE
No2housingcrime.org wants to thank you for your support. We appreciate you following this page for the latest in the foreclosure crisis. We apologize for not giving you updated information. The foreclosure crisis continues to affect millions of Americans and may be with us for several more years.
For the latest on foreclosures you can follow
www.occupyfightsforeclosures.org
www.facebook/occupyfightsforeclosures
For questions regarding this blog you can call (323) 592-4663
For immediate attention to your questions you can email carlosoccupy@gmail.com
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
No2housingcrime.org wants to thank you for your support. We appreciate you following this page for the latest in the foreclosure crisis. We apologize for not giving you updated information. The foreclosure crisis continues to affect millions of Americans and may be with us for several more years.
For the latest on foreclosures you can follow
www.occupyfightsforeclosures.org
www.facebook/occupyfightsforeclosures
For questions regarding this blog you can call (323) 592-4663
For immediate attention to your questions you can email carlosoccupy@gmail.com
ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Monday, November 4, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Carlos the mailman: The Reality Behind the Housing Recovery Hype
Carlos the mailman: The Reality Behind the Housing Recovery Hype: By Carlos Marroquin Los Angeles, March 17, 2013 - In recent months, real estate pundits have been saying that the housing markets ...
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Obama Administration Asks Banks to Regulate Their Own Foreclosure Abuses
ALLGOV.COM
By Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky
Having bungled the so-called independent review of foreclosure mistakes, the Obama administration has now decided that the best way to help homeowners is to have the banks—which were responsible for the foreclosure errors—examine the case files and decide how best to fix the situation.
In January, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shut down the foreclosure review by independent consultants—which had already cost about $2 billion— after it was revealed that the banks had selected said consultants. The process also proved to be taking too long to resolve homeowner grievances, so the administration decided to reach a $3.6 billion settlement with the banks.
But before the money can be distributed to individuals wronged during the foreclosure crisis, more than four million cases need to be reviewed. Instead of federal regulators doing the work, they are trusting the financial institutions, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, to do it properly this time.
Housing advocates, not surprisingly, are worried the banks will shortchange homeowners while they scrutinize their earlier mistakes. “The whole process has been a slap in the face to homeowners and a slap on the wrist to banks,” Isaac Simon Hodes, an organizer with Massachusetts-based Lynn United for Change, told The New York Times. “The latest development shows how there has been no accountability.”
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Occupy Fights Foreclosures Speaks Out on State of The Union and the Republican Response, a Failure to American Families by Both Parties on the Ongoing Foreclosure Disaster
State of the Union by President Obama to the joint session of the United States Congress and the Republican response to the State of the Union address
Obama stated in his State of the Union address: “It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities,you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love.” Yet millions of American families are suffering from the inequitable injustice of predatory loans and fraudulent foreclosures that is still not being addressed.
Los Angeles - February 13, 2013 - As expected, in the State of the Union address by President Obama and the Republican response by Senator Rubio, both parties failed to address the American people on the ongoing foreclosure crisis.
As a candidate before his first term, President Obama said, "If we don't act swiftly on the foreclosure crisis there will be chaos." Years after this crisis, IT IS STILL CHAOS! Very little has been done to help homeowners. And millions of victims have lost their homes while millions more are facing foreclosure this year. But President Obama has said very little. As a matter of fact the little he did say was a "white-washed" version of the real housing crisis: "Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before."
Yet, after multiple investigations by many agencies on the housing/foreclosure fiasco and with all the evidence of major fraud and abuses by Wall Street, we still have the same response by the government: "Banks too big to fail--Bankers too big to go to jail." In fact, the same banks that committed financial terrorism against millions of American families have received protection by prosecutors, courts, regulators and both political parties. After years into this crisis and with millions of victims, there is still not one banker that has gone to jail for the "crime of the century."
It is time to recognize the crimes foisted upon American families. As our president talks about making it safer for our children, by implementing gun control, there are many more children suffering through the trauma of watching their family lose their home to fraudulent foreclosures.
While President Obama found the courage to stand up to the gun lobby with his new proposals to curtail gun violence, there has been no sigh that his administration is willing to buck the equally entrenched bank lobby or to defend its even more numerous victims, says OFF's Carlos Marroquin.
"I have been victimized by both guns and banks," says Columbine High massacre survivor Richard Castaldo, who took 8 bullets in the 1999 high school shootout and now faces foreclosure on the Hollywood condo he was buying with the help of settlement proceeds. "It might sound like apples and oranges," Castaldo adds, "and it'll be great if we can keep guns out of the hands of a maniac. But I have to say there's also serious victims of guys wielding foreclosure papers -- and we also need to get them under control. Fact is, that can be life-threatening too. I've met 90-some-year-old ladies facing being thrown out on the street. You can't say their lives aren't at risk, And usually," Richard adds, "they are just as innocent as the random victims of gun nuts."
Senator Rubio, who gave the Republican response, also continued to bury his head in the sand with regard to the housing issue. The Republican Party has been opposed to doing anything about the crisis--especially in regard to implementing regulations. Their party leaders have said that we should let the market fix itself. Florida, Senator Rubio’s home state, has been one hardest hit in the U.S. and will continue to suffer while he fights against regulations for the criminals, leading us to believe that he, like many politicians, has ceased to work for the people he represents. "And the truth is every problem can’t be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians", said Senator Rubio.
We at Occupy Fights Foreclosures will continue to stand for the American homeowners and we will continue to seek justice for families in danger of losing their homes, until we are recognized and heard. “While President Obama found the courage to stand up to the gun lobby with his new proposals to curtail gun violence, there has been no evidence that his administration is willing to buck the equally entrenched bank lobby or to defend its even more numerous victims,” says OFF's Carlos Marroquin.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Foreclosure Settlements, Senator Warren Thinks the Public Has a Right To Know What They Found
WONDER WARREN
By David Dayen
To help settle a probe into illegal mortgage practices, servicers were ordered to review all foreclosures between 2009 and 2010. The senator from Massachusetts thinks the public has a right to know what they found.
Since the start of the new Congress, liberal Democrats have anxiously awaited senior Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren’s initial moves. Celebrity entrants into the Senate—from Hillary Clinton to Al Franken—have tended to take a modest approach, immersing themselves in committee work and issues of local importance, building relationships with their colleagues, and operating as a “workhorse, not a show horse.” By contrast, Warren said during the campaign that she wanted to use her new position as a platform for her ideas. And one of her first actions suggests she will spend her time as Senator much the way she did as chair of the TARP oversight panel and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: shedding light on the harm caused by unscrupulous financial interests. (Editor's note: Warren's daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is a member of the Prospect's governing board).
Last Thursday, Warren teamed with the Democratic ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings, to launch an investigation into the Independent Foreclosure Reviews. Almost two years ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve ordered the reviews to help settle a probe into illegal mortgage practices that shortchanged homeowners and, in some cases, improperly kicked people out of their homes. Under the order, 14 of the biggest mortgage servicers had to give all borrowers who received a foreclosure notice in 2009 and 2010 the opportunity to have a neutral third party look at their files to see if the servicer had made errors. Borrowers would then be entitled to compensation for the mistakes. Of the 3.8 million eligible borrowers, around 500,000 submitted requests for review.
But the independent reviews turned out to be neither independent nor reviews. As whistleblowers have pointed out, the banks handpicked and paid the salaries of the reviewers, third-party consultants who have increasingly become a substitute for government bank examiners. The data from the borrower files, as well as the guidelines for review, all came from the banks, and in many cases the banks made the determinations of harm themselves, leaving the reviewers to merely check their work. Managers overseeing the consultants overlooked entire categories of borrower harm, even obvious ones like servicers rejecting loan-modification payments from a borrower with a signed agreement, or tallying up impermissible fees. The managers also steered the ground-level reviewers, most of whom were temporary employees with little or no expertise in mortgages or foreclosures, away from reporting significant mistakes. Banks could even appeal whatever errors did get through (borrowers, of course, could not). Meanwhile, the complex rules for scrutinizing the documents extended the time it took to examine each loan file, which was good news for the consultants who raked in well over $1 billion at last count.
The new OCC leadership, which inherited this debacle, put a stop to the reviews and instead said it would compensate homeowners with a cash settlement. The 3.8 million foreclosure victims from 2009 and 2010 would split $3.3 billion, which amounts to less than $1,000 per foreclosure. No effort would be made to use the data gained from the reviews in parceling out the funds; an as-yet-unknown process, determined largely by the servicers, will dole out a fixed amount to borrowers whose loans fit certain general characteristics. Another $5.2 billion would go toward reducing loan balances for borrowers still in their homes. OCC head Thomas Curry claimed that the review process became too costly, diverting money from homeowners to the consulting firms, and that the new settlement would provide the best way to get the most compensation in the hands of foreclosure victims quickly.
Warren’s belief in the power of transparency—which in this case means releasing public data whose collection the government mandated—to improve public policy has been a driving force even before she reached the Senate.
Enter Senator Warren. She and Representative Cummings have asked OCC and the Federal Reserve for all performance reviews the two agencies conducted during the program before nixing it; the amount of money the banks paid their third-party reviewers; and the total number of reviews, along with the percentages of those in which errors were found. “Public confidence in the banking system has been badly undermined by a widespread concern that large financial institutions are not held fully to account when they break the rules—and that consumers are not sufficiently compensated,” Warren and Cummings wrote in their letter to the OCC and the Fed last week. “It is critical that the OCC and the Federal Reserve disclose additional information about the scope of the harms found to establish confidence in the sufficiency and integrity of the settlement.” Warren’s belief in the power of transparency—which in this case means releasing public data whose collection the government mandated—to improve public policy has been a driving force even before she reached the Senate. For example, the CFPB Consumer Response Center—an initiative Warren championed when standing up the agency—makes available data from the organization’s complaint hotline about consumer-credit abuses and is an integral part of the supervision process.
While the information in the Independent Foreclosure Reviews may be flawed, it’s critical to know what was gathered. Too often in post-financial-crisis settlements with Wall Street banks, regulators settle on a remedy without determining or taking into account the level of harm. What’s more, without an accounting of the mortgage-servicer industry’s previous practices, it will be nearly impossible to fix the broken mortgage-servicer industry.
A thorough investigation of the entire failed review process would uncover much about the current system of bank regulation. It would expose the growing use of consultants; show the need for more funding so that regulators instead of consultants can conduct independent reviews; and highlight the need for additional standards and rules against the mortgage servicers, tailored to exactly what abuse they heaped on borrowers through 2009 and 2010. It could also put some much-needed focus on OCC, historically a light-touch bank regulator which has been embarrassed by this mess, to the extent that it’s overhauled its senior leadership. Right now the investigation is in its early stages—Warren is still getting her transition to the Senate in order. But there’s a lot under the surface, particularly the startling information from the whistleblowers, waiting to be uncovered. Combined with a forthcoming Government Accountability Office report on the reviews, which revealed a significant number of errors, policymakers and foreclosure victims could finally get the investigation of this industry that they deserve.
The request for the review data has let regulators and banks know that Warren will not be a silent, go-along-to-get-along Senator. There’s a certain value in just having a threat of congressional oversight, particularly from a high-profile figure who can stir public opinion. Cummings has worked on the foreclosure crisis for years, and House Financial Services Committee ranking Democrat Maxine Waters, who sent her own letter to OCC seeking more information, yesterday asked Republican chair Jeb Hensarling for hearings on the matter. But Warren, by virtue of her large following, can raise attention to the issue, which fits with a key principle of her nascent political career: whether government will bother to stand up when the middle class gets ripped off.
Posted by Carlos Marroquin
By David Dayen
To help settle a probe into illegal mortgage practices, servicers were ordered to review all foreclosures between 2009 and 2010. The senator from Massachusetts thinks the public has a right to know what they found.
Since the start of the new Congress, liberal Democrats have anxiously awaited senior Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren’s initial moves. Celebrity entrants into the Senate—from Hillary Clinton to Al Franken—have tended to take a modest approach, immersing themselves in committee work and issues of local importance, building relationships with their colleagues, and operating as a “workhorse, not a show horse.” By contrast, Warren said during the campaign that she wanted to use her new position as a platform for her ideas. And one of her first actions suggests she will spend her time as Senator much the way she did as chair of the TARP oversight panel and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: shedding light on the harm caused by unscrupulous financial interests. (Editor's note: Warren's daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is a member of the Prospect's governing board).
Last Thursday, Warren teamed with the Democratic ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Elijah Cummings, to launch an investigation into the Independent Foreclosure Reviews. Almost two years ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve ordered the reviews to help settle a probe into illegal mortgage practices that shortchanged homeowners and, in some cases, improperly kicked people out of their homes. Under the order, 14 of the biggest mortgage servicers had to give all borrowers who received a foreclosure notice in 2009 and 2010 the opportunity to have a neutral third party look at their files to see if the servicer had made errors. Borrowers would then be entitled to compensation for the mistakes. Of the 3.8 million eligible borrowers, around 500,000 submitted requests for review.
But the independent reviews turned out to be neither independent nor reviews. As whistleblowers have pointed out, the banks handpicked and paid the salaries of the reviewers, third-party consultants who have increasingly become a substitute for government bank examiners. The data from the borrower files, as well as the guidelines for review, all came from the banks, and in many cases the banks made the determinations of harm themselves, leaving the reviewers to merely check their work. Managers overseeing the consultants overlooked entire categories of borrower harm, even obvious ones like servicers rejecting loan-modification payments from a borrower with a signed agreement, or tallying up impermissible fees. The managers also steered the ground-level reviewers, most of whom were temporary employees with little or no expertise in mortgages or foreclosures, away from reporting significant mistakes. Banks could even appeal whatever errors did get through (borrowers, of course, could not). Meanwhile, the complex rules for scrutinizing the documents extended the time it took to examine each loan file, which was good news for the consultants who raked in well over $1 billion at last count.
The new OCC leadership, which inherited this debacle, put a stop to the reviews and instead said it would compensate homeowners with a cash settlement. The 3.8 million foreclosure victims from 2009 and 2010 would split $3.3 billion, which amounts to less than $1,000 per foreclosure. No effort would be made to use the data gained from the reviews in parceling out the funds; an as-yet-unknown process, determined largely by the servicers, will dole out a fixed amount to borrowers whose loans fit certain general characteristics. Another $5.2 billion would go toward reducing loan balances for borrowers still in their homes. OCC head Thomas Curry claimed that the review process became too costly, diverting money from homeowners to the consulting firms, and that the new settlement would provide the best way to get the most compensation in the hands of foreclosure victims quickly.
Warren’s belief in the power of transparency—which in this case means releasing public data whose collection the government mandated—to improve public policy has been a driving force even before she reached the Senate.
Enter Senator Warren. She and Representative Cummings have asked OCC and the Federal Reserve for all performance reviews the two agencies conducted during the program before nixing it; the amount of money the banks paid their third-party reviewers; and the total number of reviews, along with the percentages of those in which errors were found. “Public confidence in the banking system has been badly undermined by a widespread concern that large financial institutions are not held fully to account when they break the rules—and that consumers are not sufficiently compensated,” Warren and Cummings wrote in their letter to the OCC and the Fed last week. “It is critical that the OCC and the Federal Reserve disclose additional information about the scope of the harms found to establish confidence in the sufficiency and integrity of the settlement.” Warren’s belief in the power of transparency—which in this case means releasing public data whose collection the government mandated—to improve public policy has been a driving force even before she reached the Senate. For example, the CFPB Consumer Response Center—an initiative Warren championed when standing up the agency—makes available data from the organization’s complaint hotline about consumer-credit abuses and is an integral part of the supervision process.
While the information in the Independent Foreclosure Reviews may be flawed, it’s critical to know what was gathered. Too often in post-financial-crisis settlements with Wall Street banks, regulators settle on a remedy without determining or taking into account the level of harm. What’s more, without an accounting of the mortgage-servicer industry’s previous practices, it will be nearly impossible to fix the broken mortgage-servicer industry.
A thorough investigation of the entire failed review process would uncover much about the current system of bank regulation. It would expose the growing use of consultants; show the need for more funding so that regulators instead of consultants can conduct independent reviews; and highlight the need for additional standards and rules against the mortgage servicers, tailored to exactly what abuse they heaped on borrowers through 2009 and 2010. It could also put some much-needed focus on OCC, historically a light-touch bank regulator which has been embarrassed by this mess, to the extent that it’s overhauled its senior leadership. Right now the investigation is in its early stages—Warren is still getting her transition to the Senate in order. But there’s a lot under the surface, particularly the startling information from the whistleblowers, waiting to be uncovered. Combined with a forthcoming Government Accountability Office report on the reviews, which revealed a significant number of errors, policymakers and foreclosure victims could finally get the investigation of this industry that they deserve.
The request for the review data has let regulators and banks know that Warren will not be a silent, go-along-to-get-along Senator. There’s a certain value in just having a threat of congressional oversight, particularly from a high-profile figure who can stir public opinion. Cummings has worked on the foreclosure crisis for years, and House Financial Services Committee ranking Democrat Maxine Waters, who sent her own letter to OCC seeking more information, yesterday asked Republican chair Jeb Hensarling for hearings on the matter. But Warren, by virtue of her large following, can raise attention to the issue, which fits with a key principle of her nascent political career: whether government will bother to stand up when the middle class gets ripped off.
Posted by Carlos Marroquin
Carlos the mailman: Congressional Inquiry Into Foreclosure Review Is T...
Carlos the mailman: Congressional Inquiry Into Foreclosure Review Is T...: usnews.com By Roy Hoppenheim So now some key members of Congress want a thorough review of the Independent Foreclosure Review process? ...
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Senate's Warren Seeks Regulator Records on Foreclosure Deal - Bloomberg
By Jesse Hamilton
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Elijah Cummings want bank regulators to produce documents to show what led them to reach settlements this month with 13 mortgage servicers for faulty foreclosures.
“It is critical that the OCC and the Federal Reserve disclose additional information about the scope of the harms found to establish confidence in the sufficiency and integrity of the settlement,” the lawmakers, both Democrats, wrote in a letter dated today to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Warren and Cummings asked the regulators to turn over documents outlining how borrowers were harmed by foreclosure missteps of 2009 and 2010, as well as demographic details on the borrowers, who will get compensation from more than $9 billion in settlements with servicers including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) They are also asking for information on the performance and pay of independent consultants hired by the firms under a 2011 accord replaced by this month’s settlement.
Warren was elected in November to the Massachusetts seat once held by the late Edward M. Kennedy after setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a former special adviser to President Barack Obama.
Cummings has served in the House since 1996 and is the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Maryland lawmaker, who criticized the agreement before it was announced, said it could allow “banks to skirt what they owe and sweep past abuses under the rug.”
Warren and Cummings asked that the documents be delivered by Feb. 22. Eric Kollig, a Fed spokesman, and Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesman, both declined to comment on the correspondence.
Waters Letter
Representative Maxine Waters of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, sent a similar letter to the OCC and Fed that said “many questions remain” about the regulators’ settlement ending the case-by- case review of foreclosure missteps. She requested that documents about the review process be made public and that an independent monitor be appointed for the new settlement.
The bulk of the settlement with 13 of the largest mortgage servicers will go toward mortgage assistance for current borrowers, and the remainder will provide direct cash to borrowers foreclosed on in 2009 and 2010, with as much as $125,000 paid to those hurt the worst.
Among firms ordered in 2011 to have their foreclosures reviewed, three haven’t yet settled with regulators: Ally Financial Inc. (ALLY), IndyMac Bancorp’s successor OneWest Bank FSB and EverBank Financial Corp. (EVER)
Posted by Carlos Marroquin
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Elijah Cummings want bank regulators to produce documents to show what led them to reach settlements this month with 13 mortgage servicers for faulty foreclosures.
“It is critical that the OCC and the Federal Reserve disclose additional information about the scope of the harms found to establish confidence in the sufficiency and integrity of the settlement,” the lawmakers, both Democrats, wrote in a letter dated today to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Warren and Cummings asked the regulators to turn over documents outlining how borrowers were harmed by foreclosure missteps of 2009 and 2010, as well as demographic details on the borrowers, who will get compensation from more than $9 billion in settlements with servicers including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) They are also asking for information on the performance and pay of independent consultants hired by the firms under a 2011 accord replaced by this month’s settlement.
Warren was elected in November to the Massachusetts seat once held by the late Edward M. Kennedy after setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a former special adviser to President Barack Obama.
Cummings has served in the House since 1996 and is the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Maryland lawmaker, who criticized the agreement before it was announced, said it could allow “banks to skirt what they owe and sweep past abuses under the rug.”
Warren and Cummings asked that the documents be delivered by Feb. 22. Eric Kollig, a Fed spokesman, and Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesman, both declined to comment on the correspondence.
Waters Letter
Representative Maxine Waters of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, sent a similar letter to the OCC and Fed that said “many questions remain” about the regulators’ settlement ending the case-by- case review of foreclosure missteps. She requested that documents about the review process be made public and that an independent monitor be appointed for the new settlement.
The bulk of the settlement with 13 of the largest mortgage servicers will go toward mortgage assistance for current borrowers, and the remainder will provide direct cash to borrowers foreclosed on in 2009 and 2010, with as much as $125,000 paid to those hurt the worst.
Among firms ordered in 2011 to have their foreclosures reviewed, three haven’t yet settled with regulators: Ally Financial Inc. (ALLY), IndyMac Bancorp’s successor OneWest Bank FSB and EverBank Financial Corp. (EVER)
Posted by Carlos Marroquin
Monday, January 21, 2013
Single Mom Twice Wrongfully Evicted, Announcement of Federal Class Action Lawsuit Against Bank of America and Other Major Banks, Violating "Holiday Moratorium"
Single Mom Twice Wrongfully Evicted
Announcement of federal class action lawsuit filed against Bank of America and other major banks for wrongfully foreclosing/evicting on families during "Holiday Moratorium" on foreclosures
Los Angeles - B of A's lackeys, the L.A.P.D., wrongfully evicted the Corona family Friday, Jan 18th at around noon. Soledad's teenaged daughter, Victoria, was the only one home at the time and they told her she had to leave immediately. This is the SECOND time the Corona family has been evicted during the so-called "Holiday Moratorium" on foreclosures and evictions announced by major banks. The LAPD claimed they were "trespassing" in their own home. One officer allegedly said there was an arrest warrant for Soledad Corona, although they denied this later that evening.
Soly was in Orange when Victoria called in a panic, saying the L.A.P.D. was at the door to evict them. Soly immediately contacted her lawyer, Lenore Albert, who immediately called the courts and said she needed to file an injunction to stop this unlawful eviction. The courts agreed, but could not move quickly enough to prevent the L.A.P.D.'s illegal eviction action, which was intentionally carried out by B of A late on a Friday, knowing the system would move too slowly to prevent their illegal harassment of the Corona family.
Atty. Albert did manage to file a court action to be heard at the earliest possible time, which would be Tuesday, Jan. 22, at 8:30 a.m., because Monday was a holiday.
"Every holiday season since 2009, Bank of America has told the public through the press that they would not foreclose by selling homes or evicting families during the holidays. And every year, Bank of America has foreclosed on thousands of families by selling homes and evicting families during the holidays," said Albert.
"Bank of America's foreclosure practices continue to hurt families. We are now seen a trend in which banks are involving police departments in evictions and foreclosures, utilizing city resources that should go to fighting crime," says homeowner advocate Carlos MarroquÃn.
Henry Cisneros: The nation understimated impact of foreclosure crisis
By Susana Baumann
voxxi
A former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros believes the banking sector has not done all they could in the foreclosure crisis
The debate over the real estate bubble and the consequential foreclosure wave that swept the nation has been reinstated as regulators announced an $8.5 billion bank settlement with 10 major banks led by regulators of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Adducing that the review process was too costly—an estimated $1.5 billion has been paid to consultants and third party reviewers—and it was taking too much time—the review has been ongoing for over a year. Regulators decided to stop the investigation and spread $3.3 billion among 3.8 million homeowners. The balance will help with loan modification programs to homeowners still underwater or struggling with payments.
“It is unfortunate that this settlement is about abuses that occurred in the recovery process but it is not part of the long term solution. It was a necessary step but not a great contribution to solve the problem of foreclosures,” Henry Cisneros, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, told VOXXI.
Cisneros believes the entire nation underestimated the impact of the foreclosure crisis in the overall economic recovery process not only zapping consumer confidence but also leaving homeowners threatened by foreclosures hanging from the banking and financial sector.
The crisis kept prices low in the real estate market, dragging sales and preventing new home builders from competing with those low prices. “The foreclosure was right at the front of the economic recovery and contributed greatly to the slowness and the flatness of the recovery,” Cisneros said. “Although in the last year and a half the Administration has really stepped up and launched a number of different programs, I believe the banking sector has not done all they could.”
Cisneros, like many borrowers’ advocate, sustains that banks could have done more with principal adjustment options, extensions and other approaches in refinancing mortgage loans to help those homeowners who wanted to stay in their homes but just needed some help.
“The process seems to have followed a pattern in which banks were not held accountable enough throughout this whole crisis. The Administration—from Secretary Geithner down—probably felt the turndown was so severe that they couldn’t put the banks over the cliff, but I know some people would disagree with this reason,” Cisneros stated.
Henry Cisneros’ career and impact on Latino community
As former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development—office he held between 1993 and 1997— Henry Cisneros considers that the focus should have been on the housing dimension of the crisis and not on the stimulus. “The core was the housing aspect of the crisis since the onset,” he affirmed.
During his time in office at the federal level—and throughout his life—Cisneros has been known for his tireless battle for fair housing policies and economic improvement for low-income Americans. He extended access to home loans and penalized an increasing number of lenders who discriminated against ethnic or minority borrowers by easing the process to file fair lending complaints.
Cisneros held this office during the first Clinton Administration. He had cross paths with the Clintons at the time he was Mayor of San Antonio and Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas.
“Clinton had invited me to speak at several events regarding public health clinics and strategies when he started to refine his national public health thinking, and we got to know each other,” Cisneros said.
From 1981 to 1989, Cisneros was elected for four terms as the second Hispanic Mayor of San Antonio. His time in office was dedicated to enhance the economics of the city, from reducing poverty to increasing wages and economic momentum.
Being that San Antonio is a largely Latino populated city—55 percent of its inhabitants are of Hispanic origin—Henry Cisneros campaigned among his community extensively, but once he became Mayor he had to make a practical decision. “I had to decide how much time I gave to a national Latino agenda and how much attention to being a good Mayor for all citizens in San Antonio, traditional Texans, African-Americans, Asians and Latinos equally,” he said.
His accomplishments really turned around the—at the time—tenth largest U.S. city, bringing federal and private funding to achieve economic development, revitalize downtown areas, build a 65000-seat stadium and attract companies and technology to create jobs and train skilled human resources.
San Antonio, now the seventh largest city in America, employs one of every six workers in the health care and bioscience industries, an effort Cisneros launched as Mayor. He also sought global investments mainly from Mexico and Japan to develop manufacturing and technology ventures, and extended infrastructure to integrate poor surrounding areas.
During his time, the city attracted two major players from the entertainment industry: the SeaWorld San Antonio, a 250-acre marine mammal park, aquarium and theme park; and Six Flags Fiesta Texas, the famous theme park owned by Six Flags. Both projects increased tourism traffic and enhanced the hospitality industry.
But maybe his main accomplishment was to create collaborative efforts to resolve old racial and ethnic tension in the community.
“I grew up in a city that suffered from many years of discrimination and economic disparity and there was great unfairness in the city. I also grew up at the time the Civil Rights movement was sweeping the country. Dr. King, Julian Bond, Barbara Jordan, Andrew Young and other leaders were my heroes. While I was not at the forefront of the Latinos Civil Rights, I thought we could use institutions of government, business and the city to improve the agenda of voting rights, civil rights and economic opportunities for all,” he said.
“I’m glad to say that San Antonio is a very different place today, works have continued and it is a very progressive city. I’m happy to see it being led by Major Julian Castro,” Cisneros affirmed
Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/henry-cisneros-impact-foreclosure-crisis/#ixzz2IeUQmRm6
Posted by Carlos Marroquin
Thursday, January 17, 2013
New Rules Aimed To Protect Homeowners From Foreclosure
By Les Christie
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Federal officials issued new rules for mortgage servicers Thursday aimed at protecting homeowners facing foreclosure. But consumer groups say the rules don't do enough to help prevent borrowers from unnecessarily losing their homes.
Since the housing crisis began, many mortgage servicers -- which collect payments for the owner of the loan and handle things like loan modifications and foreclosures -- have been ill equipped to handle the flood of delinquent loans, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said.
"In too many cases, it has led to unnecessary foreclosures," said CFPB director Richard Cordray. "Our rules ensure fair treatment for all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes."
Among the new rules are restrictions that prohibit servicers from foreclosing on borrowers who are seeking loan modifications and rules that require them to explore all alternatives to foreclosure. There are also guidelines for issuing clear, straightforward mortgage statements.
Yet, consumer advocates say the new rules don't go far enough.
"While the establishment of industry-wide standards is important, the failure to require meaningful loan modification protections is a retreat from current safeguards under the soon-to-expire HAMP loan modification program," the consumer rights organization said.
Requiring servicers to lower rates on loans or postpone payments would help prevent qualified borrowers from being unnecessarily foreclosed on, the organization said.
Still, the rules, which take effect in January 2014, address many of the problems borrowers face. Here's a rundown of the new requirements:
Restrictions on foreclosure proceedings while borrower seeks a mortgage modification: Referred to as "dual-tracking," servicers will no longer be able to start foreclosure proceedings on borrowers while they are actively seeking a loan modification or other alternative to foreclosure. To give borrowers time to apply for a modification, servicers cannot file the first foreclosure notice until the borrower falls at least 120 days behind on payments.
No foreclosure sales until alternatives are considered: If a borrower applies for a loan modification at least 37 days before their foreclosure auction is scheduled, the servicer must consider and respond to the request. They also must give the borrower enough time to accept an alternative to foreclosure before proceeding with the sale.
While the 37-day rule provides additional protections to borrowers in judicial foreclosure states, where courts review foreclosure cases, it does little to help those who live in non-judicial states, said Alys Cohen, a staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. Many homeowners in non-judicial states, like California and Arizona, won't know the sale date until it's too late since sales in these states are often scheduled with less than 37 days' notice.
"[T]he rules give servicers an opportunity to manipulate the system," said Cohen.
Consumer advocates also say the rules do not allow for appeals of a loan modification review when they are submitted within 90 days of a foreclosure sale. "If the data is wrong, the borrower is just out of luck," said Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending.
Consider all foreclosure alternatives: After a borrower has missed two consecutive payments, the servicer must send a written notice with examples of alternatives to foreclosure the borrower can pursue.
In addition, servicers must consider all available foreclosure alternatives as opposed to the ones that are just financially favorable to the servicer. These options may range from deferred payments to loan modifications.
Provide direct access to help: Servicers will be required to provide borrowers with easy access to employees who are dedicated and empowered to help them.
Publish clear mortgage statements: Servicers will have to break down mortgage payments by principal, interest, fees, and escrow (to pay property taxes and insurance premiums) and include the amount and due date of the next payment, recent transactions and alerts about fees.
Offer early warnings on rate hikes: For most adjustable-rate mortgages, servicers must notify borrowers about upcoming interest rate changes that will affect their payments. If the new payment is unaffordable, servicers must provide information about alternatives and counseling.
Avoid overpriced "force-placed" insurance: Mortgage borrowers are nearly always required to insure their homes but if they don't have coverage, their servicers can buy insurance for them and charge the premiums to the borrower. This "force-placed" insurance can be very expensive and the CFPB would require servicers to give advance notice and pricing information before putting clients into this coverage. If servicers buy the insurance but receive evidence that it was not needed, they must terminate it within 15 days and refund the premiums.
Credit payments and correct errors quickly: Servicers must credit a consumer's account on the date a payment arrives. They will also have 7 business days to respond to written requests from borrowers to pay off the balances of their mortgages.
Also, within 30 days, servicers must conduct an investigation and either correct an error or dispute it.
Maintain accurate, accessible documents and information: Servicers must store borrowers' information in a way that allows it to be easily accessible. They must also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that they can provide timely and accurate information to borrowers, investors, and in any foreclosure proceeding, the courts.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Federal officials issued new rules for mortgage servicers Thursday aimed at protecting homeowners facing foreclosure. But consumer groups say the rules don't do enough to help prevent borrowers from unnecessarily losing their homes.
Since the housing crisis began, many mortgage servicers -- which collect payments for the owner of the loan and handle things like loan modifications and foreclosures -- have been ill equipped to handle the flood of delinquent loans, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said.
"In too many cases, it has led to unnecessary foreclosures," said CFPB director Richard Cordray. "Our rules ensure fair treatment for all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes."
Among the new rules are restrictions that prohibit servicers from foreclosing on borrowers who are seeking loan modifications and rules that require them to explore all alternatives to foreclosure. There are also guidelines for issuing clear, straightforward mortgage statements.
Yet, consumer advocates say the new rules don't go far enough.
"While the establishment of industry-wide standards is important, the failure to require meaningful loan modification protections is a retreat from current safeguards under the soon-to-expire HAMP loan modification program," the consumer rights organization said.
Requiring servicers to lower rates on loans or postpone payments would help prevent qualified borrowers from being unnecessarily foreclosed on, the organization said.
Still, the rules, which take effect in January 2014, address many of the problems borrowers face. Here's a rundown of the new requirements:
Restrictions on foreclosure proceedings while borrower seeks a mortgage modification: Referred to as "dual-tracking," servicers will no longer be able to start foreclosure proceedings on borrowers while they are actively seeking a loan modification or other alternative to foreclosure. To give borrowers time to apply for a modification, servicers cannot file the first foreclosure notice until the borrower falls at least 120 days behind on payments.
No foreclosure sales until alternatives are considered: If a borrower applies for a loan modification at least 37 days before their foreclosure auction is scheduled, the servicer must consider and respond to the request. They also must give the borrower enough time to accept an alternative to foreclosure before proceeding with the sale.
While the 37-day rule provides additional protections to borrowers in judicial foreclosure states, where courts review foreclosure cases, it does little to help those who live in non-judicial states, said Alys Cohen, a staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. Many homeowners in non-judicial states, like California and Arizona, won't know the sale date until it's too late since sales in these states are often scheduled with less than 37 days' notice.
"[T]he rules give servicers an opportunity to manipulate the system," said Cohen.
Consumer advocates also say the rules do not allow for appeals of a loan modification review when they are submitted within 90 days of a foreclosure sale. "If the data is wrong, the borrower is just out of luck," said Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending.
Consider all foreclosure alternatives: After a borrower has missed two consecutive payments, the servicer must send a written notice with examples of alternatives to foreclosure the borrower can pursue.
In addition, servicers must consider all available foreclosure alternatives as opposed to the ones that are just financially favorable to the servicer. These options may range from deferred payments to loan modifications.
Provide direct access to help: Servicers will be required to provide borrowers with easy access to employees who are dedicated and empowered to help them.
Publish clear mortgage statements: Servicers will have to break down mortgage payments by principal, interest, fees, and escrow (to pay property taxes and insurance premiums) and include the amount and due date of the next payment, recent transactions and alerts about fees.
Offer early warnings on rate hikes: For most adjustable-rate mortgages, servicers must notify borrowers about upcoming interest rate changes that will affect their payments. If the new payment is unaffordable, servicers must provide information about alternatives and counseling.
Avoid overpriced "force-placed" insurance: Mortgage borrowers are nearly always required to insure their homes but if they don't have coverage, their servicers can buy insurance for them and charge the premiums to the borrower. This "force-placed" insurance can be very expensive and the CFPB would require servicers to give advance notice and pricing information before putting clients into this coverage. If servicers buy the insurance but receive evidence that it was not needed, they must terminate it within 15 days and refund the premiums.
Credit payments and correct errors quickly: Servicers must credit a consumer's account on the date a payment arrives. They will also have 7 business days to respond to written requests from borrowers to pay off the balances of their mortgages.
Also, within 30 days, servicers must conduct an investigation and either correct an error or dispute it.
Maintain accurate, accessible documents and information: Servicers must store borrowers' information in a way that allows it to be easily accessible. They must also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that they can provide timely and accurate information to borrowers, investors, and in any foreclosure proceeding, the courts.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Occupy Fights Foreclosures Denounces Federal Reserve/Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Settlement Deal with Banks
OCCUPY FIGHTS FORECLOSURES DENOUNCES FEDERAL RESERVE / OCC
SETTLEMENT DEAL WITH BANKS
Letting the banks "win" via federal level settlement soundly underestimates
the power and resolve of the American people
LOS ANGELES, JAN 9, 2013— Occupy Fights Foreclosures (OFF), subcommittee of Occupy LA, denounces the settlement deal announced by the OCC and Federal Reserve with 14 banks whose fraudulent foreclosures "had ridden roughshod over borrowers and the rule of law" according to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times. The clear misapplication of justice that allowed the banks this seeming win soundly underestimates the power and resolve of the American people to see true justice is served. Occupy Fights Foreclosures joins the voices of millions of homeowners in saying this corruption and injustice cannot and will not stand.
Insiders have called the so called independent foreclosure review a "sham of a project." Banks insisted that no TV, radio, or print media be used to explain the program and its availability to former homeowners, now displaced from the homes where direct mail about the program was sent. Banks deliberately kept homeowners in the dark about their rights to the foreclosure review mandated by the courts. Only 11% of eligible homeowners had come forward as of the Dec. 31 deadline and homeowners have seen paltry compensation for losing their house via illegal means.
The independent contractors doing these foreclosure reviews were working under the banks, not the other way around. Findings were "quality controlled" by the banks who had violated the laws. A claims reviewer known as Luxtexente described in detail on Naked Capitalism that reviewers routinely found a dozen or more violations of foreclosure laws in a single file, not to mention "incompetence, immorality and poor judgment." Banks also routinely simply erased violations as the list of harm on borrowers grew. According to insider Luxtexente, "Issues of law were removed." Missed foreclosure timelines, missing documents, misapplied funds, multiple modifications … the list of violations was vast, but banks told reviewers to "ignore them."
This criminal behavior by the banks violates the very essence of trust the American people should have in our banking institutions. That the OCC and Federal Reserve would devalue and dishonor the American people by such a settlement makes a mockery of our monetary institutions. The harm caused to millions of American families is tantamount to a bank-made tsunami. Without just compensation for the rampant law-breaking of these financial institutions, there is a clear breach of faith in the American system. The OCC and the Federal Reserve's actions to sweep under the rug via a settlement the vast crimes without direct compensation to the victims underestimate the power and resolve of the American people. The unjust must be made just.
"Any victim of any crime doesn't have peace until they know the perpetrators of that crime have been brought to justice," says Carlos Marroquin, OFF activist. "There's no closure until you know the criminal has been brought to justice, you can see that with any kind of crime. We will not have closure until we see real justice for the homeowners who have had their homes stolen by criminal institutions."
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
Attorneys General National Mortgage Settlement, Independent Foreclosure Review a Failure to Victims
By Carlos Marroquin
December 31, 2012
Remember the 50 State Attorney General Mortgage Fraud Settlement? Well, as we all know it did nothing for the victims. Here in California, the hardest hit State received a record $18 Billion settlement. We are still asking, "Where is the money for the victims?". Homeowners who lost their homes are receiving letters with a $840.00 offer. NOT KIDDING! This is an insult to the victims who lost their homes.
SETTLEMENT PART II, NOTHING CHANGES
In April 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency moved forward with the so called "Independent Foreclosure Review", a process of reviewing thousands of foreclosure cases for errors and to compensate victims for the fraud committed by their banks. Sounds good so far, right? The program has been a bucket of questions about the process fairness, transparency and integrity.
We are now learning that banks may be pulling out of the Review. The OCC, Federal Reserve and banks are talking about a possible $10 Billion settlement.
TWO FAILURES
We know that the National A.G. $26 Billion settlement and now the Independent Foreclosure Review are a big failure and cover up for the banks. Tens of investigations have been conducted by different groups, both Government and public and they all come with the same results, major fraud by the banks. Just one example, in San Francisco California, the County Assessor examined files of properties subject to foreclosures sales from 2008 to 2011. In the report, it appeared that 84% of the files had violations of the law and fully two thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.
If the OCC and the Federal Reserve decides to settle with the banks, it will go down as another cover up and slap in the wrist for those who committed the "Crime of the Century". The IFR is another fraudulent scam to try to make the American people think that the overseers of the banks are doing something about the fraud. IT IS NOTHING BUT A JOKE! Once again, the banks are controlling the Gov. and their Agencies.
“We think if the reviews were done right, the payouts would have been significantly higher than they appear to be under this settlement,” said Alys Cohen, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The regulators will have abdicated their responsibility if the banks end up getting off the hook easily and cheaply.”
Homeowners (the victims) will continue to wait and hope that someone out there has the ....... to stand up to the banksters and stop the financial terrorism against our families. "Like victims of violent crimes, we will not have closure until the criminals are brought to justice".
Related links:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/occ-foreclosure-file-reviewer-independent-reviews-were-controlled-by-banks-which-suppressed-any-findings-of-harm-to-foreclosed-homeowner.html
http://www.propublica.org/article/as-foreclosure-crisis-drags-on-so-does-flawed-govt-response
http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2011/10/robosigning2.html
Flawed From the Start, Independent Foreclosure Review, Another Failure for Victimized Homeowners
By Ben Hallman,
Huffington Post
The surprising decision by regulators to scrap a massive and expensive foreclosure review program in favor of a $10 billion settlement with 14 banks -- reported by The New York Times Sunday night -- came after a year of mounting concerns about the independence and effectiveness of the controversial program.
The program, known as the Independent Foreclosure Review, was supposed to give homeowners who believe that their bank made a mistake in handling their foreclosure an opportunity for a neutral third party to review the claim. It's not clear what factors led banking regulators to abandon the program in favor of a settlement, but the final straw may have been a pending report by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, which was investigating the review program.
Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told The Huffington Post that the report, which has not been released, was "critical" and that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which administers the review, was aware of its findings. Miller said that that one problem the GAO was likely to highlight was an "unacceptably high" error rate of 11 percent in a sampling of bank loan files.
The sample files were chosen at random by the banks from their broader pool of foreclosed homeowners, who had not necessarily applied for relief. The data suggests that of the 4 million families who lost their homes to foreclosure since the housing crash, more than 400,000 had some bank-caused problem in their loan file. It also suggests that many thousands of those who could have applied for relief didn't -- because they weren't aware of the review, or weren't aware that their bank had made a mistake. Some of these mistakes pushed homeowners into foreclosure who otherwise could have afforded to keep their homes.
Miller said the news that a settlement to replace the review was in the works caught him by surprise, and stressed that he had no way of knowing whether the impending GAO report had triggered the decision.
It's not clear what will happen to the 250,000 homeowners who have already applied to the Independent Foreclosure Review for relief. The Times, citing people familiar with the negotiations, said that a deal between the banks and banking regulators, led by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, could be reached by the end of the week. It wasn't clear how that money would be distributed or how many current and former homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure -- or who were hit with an unnecessary fee -- might qualify.
Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for the OCC, which administers the program, declined to comment on the Times' story. Hubbard told HuffPost, "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is committed to ensuring the Independent Foreclosure Review proceeds efficiently and to ensuring harmed borrowers are compensated as quickly as possible."
Since the housing market crashed in 2007, thousands of foreclosed homeowners have complained that their mortgage company made a mistake in the management of their home loan, such as foreclosing on someone making payments on a loan modification plan. The Independent Foreclosure Review emerged from a legal agreement in April 2011 between 14 mortgage companies and bank regulators over these abusive "servicing" practices. It was supposed to give homeowners an opportunity to have an unbiased third party review their foreclosure and determine whether they might qualify for a cash payout of up to $125,000.
The initial response was tepid, at best. Homeowners and advocates complained that the application forms were confusing and that information about what type of compensation they might get was missing. Some told HuffPost that they were so disillusioned by the federal government's anemic response to widely reported bank errors that they weren't going to bother to apply.
In one instance, Daniel Casper, an Illinois wedding videographer, applied to the program in January after years of combat with Bank of America over his home loan. As The Huffington Post reported in October, he was initially rejected, because, according to the bank, his mortgage was not in the foreclosure process during the eligible review period. Promontory Financial Group, which Bank of America hired to review his loan, apparently did not double check Bank of America's analysis against the extensive documentation that Chase submitted. That documentation clearly showed that his loan was eligible for review.
In recent months ProPublica, an investigative nonprofit, has issued a series of damning articles about the Independent Foreclosure Review. The most recent found that supposedly independent third-party reviewers looking over Bank of America loan files were given the "correct" answers in advance by the bank. These reviewers could override the answers, but they weren't starting from a blank slate.
Banks, if they did not find a "compensable error," did not have to pay anything, giving them a strong incentive to find no flaws with their own work.
"It was flawed from the start," Miller said of the review program. "There was an inherent conflict of interest by just about everyone involved."
Huffington Post
The surprising decision by regulators to scrap a massive and expensive foreclosure review program in favor of a $10 billion settlement with 14 banks -- reported by The New York Times Sunday night -- came after a year of mounting concerns about the independence and effectiveness of the controversial program.
The program, known as the Independent Foreclosure Review, was supposed to give homeowners who believe that their bank made a mistake in handling their foreclosure an opportunity for a neutral third party to review the claim. It's not clear what factors led banking regulators to abandon the program in favor of a settlement, but the final straw may have been a pending report by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, which was investigating the review program.
Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told The Huffington Post that the report, which has not been released, was "critical" and that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which administers the review, was aware of its findings. Miller said that that one problem the GAO was likely to highlight was an "unacceptably high" error rate of 11 percent in a sampling of bank loan files.
The sample files were chosen at random by the banks from their broader pool of foreclosed homeowners, who had not necessarily applied for relief. The data suggests that of the 4 million families who lost their homes to foreclosure since the housing crash, more than 400,000 had some bank-caused problem in their loan file. It also suggests that many thousands of those who could have applied for relief didn't -- because they weren't aware of the review, or weren't aware that their bank had made a mistake. Some of these mistakes pushed homeowners into foreclosure who otherwise could have afforded to keep their homes.
Miller said the news that a settlement to replace the review was in the works caught him by surprise, and stressed that he had no way of knowing whether the impending GAO report had triggered the decision.
It's not clear what will happen to the 250,000 homeowners who have already applied to the Independent Foreclosure Review for relief. The Times, citing people familiar with the negotiations, said that a deal between the banks and banking regulators, led by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, could be reached by the end of the week. It wasn't clear how that money would be distributed or how many current and former homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure -- or who were hit with an unnecessary fee -- might qualify.
Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for the OCC, which administers the program, declined to comment on the Times' story. Hubbard told HuffPost, "The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is committed to ensuring the Independent Foreclosure Review proceeds efficiently and to ensuring harmed borrowers are compensated as quickly as possible."
Since the housing market crashed in 2007, thousands of foreclosed homeowners have complained that their mortgage company made a mistake in the management of their home loan, such as foreclosing on someone making payments on a loan modification plan. The Independent Foreclosure Review emerged from a legal agreement in April 2011 between 14 mortgage companies and bank regulators over these abusive "servicing" practices. It was supposed to give homeowners an opportunity to have an unbiased third party review their foreclosure and determine whether they might qualify for a cash payout of up to $125,000.
The initial response was tepid, at best. Homeowners and advocates complained that the application forms were confusing and that information about what type of compensation they might get was missing. Some told HuffPost that they were so disillusioned by the federal government's anemic response to widely reported bank errors that they weren't going to bother to apply.
In one instance, Daniel Casper, an Illinois wedding videographer, applied to the program in January after years of combat with Bank of America over his home loan. As The Huffington Post reported in October, he was initially rejected, because, according to the bank, his mortgage was not in the foreclosure process during the eligible review period. Promontory Financial Group, which Bank of America hired to review his loan, apparently did not double check Bank of America's analysis against the extensive documentation that Chase submitted. That documentation clearly showed that his loan was eligible for review.
In recent months ProPublica, an investigative nonprofit, has issued a series of damning articles about the Independent Foreclosure Review. The most recent found that supposedly independent third-party reviewers looking over Bank of America loan files were given the "correct" answers in advance by the bank. These reviewers could override the answers, but they weren't starting from a blank slate.
Banks, if they did not find a "compensable error," did not have to pay anything, giving them a strong incentive to find no flaws with their own work.
"It was flawed from the start," Miller said of the review program. "There was an inherent conflict of interest by just about everyone involved."
Occupy Fights Foreclosures Denounces the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Handling of Independent Foreclosure Review Program
OCCUPY FIGHTS FORECLOSURES DENOUNCES THE OCC'S HANDLING OF INDEPENDENT FORECLOSURE REVIEW PROGRAM
Occupy Fights Foreclosures demands the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency extend its application deadline for independent foreclosure reviewDecember 31, 2012
LOS ANGELES - The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has failed those who have been financially devastated due to wrongful foreclosures by mortgage lenders and servicers. The Independent Foreclosure Review process announced in April, 2011 grew out of an OCC enforcement action against the abusive mortgage lending and foreclosure practices of the 14 largest banks and servicers. In order to be considered for financial compensation following the loss of their home, applicants were to complete a report with details about how the bank handled their foreclosure process.
With the December 31st deadline looming, Occupy Fights Foreclosures argues the OCC did not properly notify the public and advertise the program. Many homeowners had no idea that the review process was available to them even though these homeowners were desperately working with government agencies, law firms, and community advocacy groups to recover some of their losses. Why hadn’t the OCC properly publicized the program to reach people who had lost their homes?
The review process is also inherently discriminatory. The applicant must print out the form from an internet website, which makes access to the review impossible for those who lack the resources for computer access.
Given the OCC’s mishandling of the Independent Foreclosure Review program, Occupy Fights Foreclosures requests that the application deadline be extended and that the OCC address the other problems of access explained above.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Bank of America Breaks Holiday Promise, Occupy Help Single Mom Return to Home for The Holidays, Vows to Fight Back
Occupy LA Activists, Occupy Fights Foreclosures help Single Mom Return to Foreclosed Home for the Holidays and Promise to Fight Wrongful Foreclosure and Eviction by Bank of America.
December 25, 2012
Los Angeles - Bank of America did not specify dates on which it will halt foreclosures, but spokesman Rick Simon said in an email, "it is the bank's policy to avoid foreclosure sales or displacement of homeowners or tenants during and around the Christmas holiday."
On December 23rd, members of Occupy Fights Foreclosures and community supporters moved Soledad Corona along with her daughter back into their foreclosed home. "In early October I reached out to Bank of America regarding the Corona's case and have been given the round-around by Bank of America officials", says Carlos Marroquin, a homeowner activist from Occupy Fights Foreclosures, " I called Bank of America immediately after the eviction and for five days I could not get a respond from the bank. They kept
mis-placing my Letter of Authorization to speak to the bank on behalf of Ms. Corona. On Friday, December 21st, I received I call from John Boyd on behalf of the CEO's office telling me that they promise that they would be in touch with me by the end of business on the same day and that never happen. They totally disregarded the Corona family emergency and had no intentions to give me any answers as to why they broke their promise."
Soledad, a single mother of thirteen years, moved into the Los Angeles neighborhood of Lincoln heights in 2008. In the year 2009, Bank of America granted her a loan modification. After faithfully making her payments, Bank of America reneged their loan modification agreement, withheld her money for a month, and notified her that her home was being foreclosed on. For a month the family was in need of food, and extra money to pay for basic survival needs. After repeatedly speaking with the bank, trying to convince them to let the family continue to make their home payments, The Corona family is now facing eviction.
Bank of America continues to notify the public that they will not evict or foreclose on families during the holidays, but the Corona family is just one of many families that is currently being subjected to Bank of America's fraudulent banking practices.
December 25, 2012
Los Angeles - Bank of America did not specify dates on which it will halt foreclosures, but spokesman Rick Simon said in an email, "it is the bank's policy to avoid foreclosure sales or displacement of homeowners or tenants during and around the Christmas holiday."
On December 23rd, members of Occupy Fights Foreclosures and community supporters moved Soledad Corona along with her daughter back into their foreclosed home. "In early October I reached out to Bank of America regarding the Corona's case and have been given the round-around by Bank of America officials", says Carlos Marroquin, a homeowner activist from Occupy Fights Foreclosures, " I called Bank of America immediately after the eviction and for five days I could not get a respond from the bank. They kept
mis-placing my Letter of Authorization to speak to the bank on behalf of Ms. Corona. On Friday, December 21st, I received I call from John Boyd on behalf of the CEO's office telling me that they promise that they would be in touch with me by the end of business on the same day and that never happen. They totally disregarded the Corona family emergency and had no intentions to give me any answers as to why they broke their promise."
Soledad, a single mother of thirteen years, moved into the Los Angeles neighborhood of Lincoln heights in 2008. In the year 2009, Bank of America granted her a loan modification. After faithfully making her payments, Bank of America reneged their loan modification agreement, withheld her money for a month, and notified her that her home was being foreclosed on. For a month the family was in need of food, and extra money to pay for basic survival needs. After repeatedly speaking with the bank, trying to convince them to let the family continue to make their home payments, The Corona family is now facing eviction.
Bank of America continues to notify the public that they will not evict or foreclose on families during the holidays, but the Corona family is just one of many families that is currently being subjected to Bank of America's fraudulent banking practices.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Fraudulent "Indepedent" Foreclosure Review
Foreclosure Crisis
Banks and Government Fail Homeowners
Foreclosure CrisisBanks and the government have fallen short in helping homeowners in danger of foreclosure.
Latest Stories in this ProjectExec Who Allegedly Enabled Fraud Runs Chase’s Effort to Compensate Foreclosure VictimsRead the Documents Treasury Has Been Keeping SecretSecret Documents Show Weak Oversight of Key Foreclosure ProgramWhy Florida is Sitting on $300 Million Meant to Help HomeownersWhere Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State?Full Coverage
Cheat Sheet: BofA Supplied Default Answers for ‘Independent’ Foreclosure Claims Reviewers
The Independent Foreclosure Review, the government's main effort to compensate homeowners for harm by banks, is supposed to be independent from the banks. But in Bank of America's case, it wasn't. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
By Paul Keil,
ProPublica
The Independent Foreclosure Review is the government's main effort to compensate homeowners for harm they suffered at the hands of banks — and, as its name indicates, it's supposed to be independent.
But until recently, that was hardly the case with Bank of America. Supposedly independent, third-party reviewers would sit at a computer, analyzing each homeowner's case by going through hundreds of questions, such as whether the bank had properly reviewed a homeowner for a modification or had charged bogus fees. But the reviewers weren't starting from a blank slate. Bank of America employees had already supplied the answers, which the reviewers would have to override if they did not agree.
No evidence has emerged that Bank of America pressured reviewers to accept its answers, and the bank did not supply answers for the final questions: whether the bank should pay compensation and, if so, how much. But those ultimate determinations depended on responses to the preceding questions, and for reviewers the path of least effort was to accept the bank's answers.
This practice only ended a month after ProPublica published a story showing that Bank of America was doing much of the work itself [1]. When that story was published, ProPublica hadn't yet learned that the answers the bank supplied showed up on the reviewers' computer screens as defaults, and Bank of America strenuously denied that it had compromised the integrity of the review. Since November, the reviewers now begin their analysis without the bank's answers.
Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm confirmed the change: "Steps were taken" so that the independent reviewer, Promontory Financial Group, "could not view answers supplied by the Bank of America Claim Researcher."
Frahm maintained, however, that the change didn't mean the reviews completed under the prior system were tainted. Promontory's employees have always had the ability to "override any answer supplied by the Bank of America Claim Researcher," he said.
Advocates for homeowners aren't convinced. "It's hard to imagine" that Promontory's reviewers weren't influenced by having the bank's answers right in front of them, said Alys Cohen of the National Consumer Law Center. "As a result it seems obvious that the earlier reviews should be re-reviewed."
Potential Conflict of Interest
The Independent Foreclosure Review is the government's largest program to compensate victims of the banks' foreclosure abuses. 4.4 million homeowners are eligible, but homeowners must submit a claim to ensure they're covered by the review [2]. As of the end of November, only 315,000 homeowners had done so, according to regulators, a low response rate [3] of about seven percent.
Victims could receive up to $125,000 in cash compensation or, if possible, get their home back [4]. The review is overseen by the nation's bank regulators, who were spurred to action in 2011 by the robo-signing scandal [5].
The review has been dogged by criticism since the outset, partly because of how it works. Banks hire and pay consultants to be the independent, third-party reviewers. Bank regulators must approve them, which the regulators say ensures the independence of the review [6]. But critics argue [7] that the consulting firms have other contracts with the banks and so have a conflict of interest: If the consultants anger the banks, they may lose future business.
For its "independent consultant," Bank of America hired Promontory. Promontory is also conducting the review for Wells Fargo, which has the second largest number of loans eligible for review (about 933,000 [8]) after Bank of America (1.3 million [9]) of all the banks.
"A Technical Change"
As ProPublica reported in October, all four of the country's largest banks planned to participate heavily in evaluating whether homeowners were harmed [10], according to their contracts with the consultants. Of course, homeowners claiming their bank abused them were never told the same bank would be integrally involved in the review.
In October, ProPublica uncovered internal [11] Bank of America memos [12] and emails indicating that, while Promontory made the ultimate decision as to a homeowner's compensation, the bank was doing much of the review work itself [1].
When ProPublica first presented this evidence to Promontory, Bank of America, and the bank's primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, all three initially denied that Promontory was using analysis performed by the bank's own employees.
Now, even as Promontory and Bank of America confirmed they had changed their system to make the bank's analysis invisible to Promontory's reviewers, both companies insisted that the independence of the reviews had never been compromised.
"Promontory resources have always reviewed the files, performed all tests, and reached independent conclusions, without input or influence from Bank of America," said Promontory spokeswoman Debra Cope. "A technical change was made in November with respect to the visibility of information uploaded by Bank of America file preparers.... Although these responses were previously visible to Promontory reviewers, they never had any bearing on Promontory's independent testing processes."
OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the OCC has a policy of not commenting on specific institutions, but added, "as we have stressed before, the OCC expects the independent consultants to exercise their independence in reviewing and evaluating each file. Our examiners are ensuring that occurs."
The NCLC's Cohen said the core problem with the Independent Foreclosure Review is that it is largely being handled in secret.
"At the end of the day, if the regulators and servicers want to put this behind them, they need the public to believe this is legitimate. Without transparency, you can't have real accountability."
Banks and Government Fail Homeowners
Foreclosure CrisisBanks and the government have fallen short in helping homeowners in danger of foreclosure.
Latest Stories in this ProjectExec Who Allegedly Enabled Fraud Runs Chase’s Effort to Compensate Foreclosure VictimsRead the Documents Treasury Has Been Keeping SecretSecret Documents Show Weak Oversight of Key Foreclosure ProgramWhy Florida is Sitting on $300 Million Meant to Help HomeownersWhere Are the Foreclosure Deal Millions Going in Your State?Full Coverage
Cheat Sheet: BofA Supplied Default Answers for ‘Independent’ Foreclosure Claims Reviewers
The Independent Foreclosure Review, the government's main effort to compensate homeowners for harm by banks, is supposed to be independent from the banks. But in Bank of America's case, it wasn't. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
By Paul Keil,
ProPublica
The Independent Foreclosure Review is the government's main effort to compensate homeowners for harm they suffered at the hands of banks — and, as its name indicates, it's supposed to be independent.
But until recently, that was hardly the case with Bank of America. Supposedly independent, third-party reviewers would sit at a computer, analyzing each homeowner's case by going through hundreds of questions, such as whether the bank had properly reviewed a homeowner for a modification or had charged bogus fees. But the reviewers weren't starting from a blank slate. Bank of America employees had already supplied the answers, which the reviewers would have to override if they did not agree.
No evidence has emerged that Bank of America pressured reviewers to accept its answers, and the bank did not supply answers for the final questions: whether the bank should pay compensation and, if so, how much. But those ultimate determinations depended on responses to the preceding questions, and for reviewers the path of least effort was to accept the bank's answers.
This practice only ended a month after ProPublica published a story showing that Bank of America was doing much of the work itself [1]. When that story was published, ProPublica hadn't yet learned that the answers the bank supplied showed up on the reviewers' computer screens as defaults, and Bank of America strenuously denied that it had compromised the integrity of the review. Since November, the reviewers now begin their analysis without the bank's answers.
Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm confirmed the change: "Steps were taken" so that the independent reviewer, Promontory Financial Group, "could not view answers supplied by the Bank of America Claim Researcher."
Frahm maintained, however, that the change didn't mean the reviews completed under the prior system were tainted. Promontory's employees have always had the ability to "override any answer supplied by the Bank of America Claim Researcher," he said.
Advocates for homeowners aren't convinced. "It's hard to imagine" that Promontory's reviewers weren't influenced by having the bank's answers right in front of them, said Alys Cohen of the National Consumer Law Center. "As a result it seems obvious that the earlier reviews should be re-reviewed."
Potential Conflict of Interest
The Independent Foreclosure Review is the government's largest program to compensate victims of the banks' foreclosure abuses. 4.4 million homeowners are eligible, but homeowners must submit a claim to ensure they're covered by the review [2]. As of the end of November, only 315,000 homeowners had done so, according to regulators, a low response rate [3] of about seven percent.
Victims could receive up to $125,000 in cash compensation or, if possible, get their home back [4]. The review is overseen by the nation's bank regulators, who were spurred to action in 2011 by the robo-signing scandal [5].
The review has been dogged by criticism since the outset, partly because of how it works. Banks hire and pay consultants to be the independent, third-party reviewers. Bank regulators must approve them, which the regulators say ensures the independence of the review [6]. But critics argue [7] that the consulting firms have other contracts with the banks and so have a conflict of interest: If the consultants anger the banks, they may lose future business.
For its "independent consultant," Bank of America hired Promontory. Promontory is also conducting the review for Wells Fargo, which has the second largest number of loans eligible for review (about 933,000 [8]) after Bank of America (1.3 million [9]) of all the banks.
"A Technical Change"
As ProPublica reported in October, all four of the country's largest banks planned to participate heavily in evaluating whether homeowners were harmed [10], according to their contracts with the consultants. Of course, homeowners claiming their bank abused them were never told the same bank would be integrally involved in the review.
In October, ProPublica uncovered internal [11] Bank of America memos [12] and emails indicating that, while Promontory made the ultimate decision as to a homeowner's compensation, the bank was doing much of the review work itself [1].
When ProPublica first presented this evidence to Promontory, Bank of America, and the bank's primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, all three initially denied that Promontory was using analysis performed by the bank's own employees.
Now, even as Promontory and Bank of America confirmed they had changed their system to make the bank's analysis invisible to Promontory's reviewers, both companies insisted that the independence of the reviews had never been compromised.
"Promontory resources have always reviewed the files, performed all tests, and reached independent conclusions, without input or influence from Bank of America," said Promontory spokeswoman Debra Cope. "A technical change was made in November with respect to the visibility of information uploaded by Bank of America file preparers.... Although these responses were previously visible to Promontory reviewers, they never had any bearing on Promontory's independent testing processes."
OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the OCC has a policy of not commenting on specific institutions, but added, "as we have stressed before, the OCC expects the independent consultants to exercise their independence in reviewing and evaluating each file. Our examiners are ensuring that occurs."
The NCLC's Cohen said the core problem with the Independent Foreclosure Review is that it is largely being handled in secret.
"At the end of the day, if the regulators and servicers want to put this behind them, they need the public to believe this is legitimate. Without transparency, you can't have real accountability."
Saturday, December 15, 2012
(94) Occupy Calcap, The Mozilo Family, Foreclosure Mill
Occupy Fights Foreclosures pictures of action at Mozilo residence and business....
(94) Occupy Calcap, The Mozillo Family, Foreclosure Mill
(94) Occupy Calcap, The Mozillo Family, Foreclosure Mill
Mozilo Unbowed Says Countrywide Was "World Class Company"
By Hugh Son & Edvart Pattersson
Bloomberg
Countrywide Financial Corp. co- founder Angelo Mozilo said under oath last year that he had “no regrets” about how he ran the mortgage firm and that he only agreed to a record $67.5 million regulatory settlement in 2010 to protect his children.
Mozilo, who led the lender blamed by lawmakers and regulators for contributing to the housing collapse, spoke in a June 2011 deposition as part of a lawsuit between his firm, which was bought by Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and MBIA Inc. (MBI), according to documents filed this week in New York. MBIA, once the biggest bond insurer, claims Countrywide committed fraud by securitizing loans that were riskier than promised.
Enlarge image
Angelo Mozilo Unbowed Says Countrywide Was ‘World-Class Company’ Jay Mallin/Bloomberg News
Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founder Angelo Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble.
Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founder Angelo Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble. Photographer: Jay Mallin/Bloomberg News
.The crisis was “not caused by an act of Countrywide,” said Mozilo, 73, according to a transcript of the deposition. “This is all about an unprecedented, cataclysmic situation, unprecedented in the history of this country. Values in this country dropped by 50 percent.”
Bank of America, the second-biggest U.S. bank by assets, has spent more than $40 billion to clean up mortgages inherited from the 2008 Countrywide purchase. Congressional investigators released e-mails from Mozilo, the Countrywide chief executive officer, showing that as early as 2004 he was concerned about the decline in quality of mortgages the lender was originating.
Mozilo was responding to questions from an MBIA attorney who asked if he regretted how Calabasas, California-based Countrywide was run after “all the foreclosures and ruined lives and lawsuits.” Mozilo called the lawyer’s question “nonsensical and insulting.”
Mortgage Mess
“I have no regrets about how Countrywide was run,” Mozilo said. “We were a world-class company in every respect.”
Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble. Had he known that unemployment would surge and housing prices would collapse during the financial crisis, Mozilo said he would’ve attempted to sell his company years earlier than he did.
The firm only made loans that it was confident would be repaid, Mozilo said. Countrywide was the third-largest subprime lender in 2006, with about $40.6 billion in the mortgages, compared with $44.6 billion in 2005, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance.
“We never made a loan knowingly -- and it would be stupid to do so -- that we knew the borrower could not pay. Never,” Mozilo said. “All our loans had that one standard from 1968 to the end of my reign at Countrywide.”
‘Dire’ Warnings
While publicly reassuring investors about the quality of his loans, Mozilo issued “dire” internal warnings and engaged in insider trading accelerating stock sales to reap about $140 million, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in a 2009 lawsuit. In one e-mail, he described a “particularly profitable subprime product as ‘toxic.’”
He also wrote that Countrywide was “flying blind” and had “no way” to determine the risks of some adjustable-rate mortgages, the SEC said.
In 2010, Mozilo agreed to a $67.5 million settlement to resolve SEC claims that he misled investors, without admitting or denying the allegations. The Justice Department ended a criminal investigation of Mozilo without bringing charges, a person familiar with the investigation said in February 2011.
He paid the $22.5 million fine included in the SEC deal to protect his nine grandchildren and five children from the effects of his notoriety, Mozilo said.
‘Really Proud’
“It had nothing to do with anything that I did at Countrywide or anything I did in my personal life,” Mozilo said. Relatives “were being harassed in school. My name was in the paper every day nationally and internationally, accusing me of things that were absolutely untrue. I could not have my family go through it anymore, and that’s why I settled.”
Mozilo “remains really proud of his company and this institution he built,” said his attorney, David Siegel. “It would be unfair to say he doesn’t feel a great deal of empathy for the honest, hard-working Americans who suffered in the financial crisis.”
Information in the public record contradicts Mozilo’s contention that Countrywide never knowingly made a bad loan, said Joel Bernstein, the lead lawyer for plaintiffs in a shareholder lawsuit that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America settled for $600 million.
“A lot of people would find a different solution for their grandchildren being pestered than agreeing to a $67 million settlement,” Bernstein said.
‘Friends’ Program
If he were in Mozilo’s position, Bernstein said, he would have found a different school for them.
In the 2011 deposition, Mozilo also denied that there was a program called “Friends of Angelo” to reward high-profile customers, including elected officials, with below-market rates for home loans. Instead, he said that he gave people including taxi drivers, stewardesses, and gardeners his business card.
“Almost everybody I come in contact with, that was my job, was to originate loans,” Mozilo said. “That’s who I was. That’s why I started the company.”
Kevin Callahan, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment, as did Kevin Brown, an MBIA spokesman. Lawrence Grayson, a Bank of America spokesman, didn’t respond to a telephone call seeking comment.
Posted by
Carlos Marroquin
Occupy Fights Foreclosures
Pictures of Occupy Fights Foreclosures Action against the Mozilo Family, Pasadena
Bloomberg
Countrywide Financial Corp. co- founder Angelo Mozilo said under oath last year that he had “no regrets” about how he ran the mortgage firm and that he only agreed to a record $67.5 million regulatory settlement in 2010 to protect his children.
Mozilo, who led the lender blamed by lawmakers and regulators for contributing to the housing collapse, spoke in a June 2011 deposition as part of a lawsuit between his firm, which was bought by Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and MBIA Inc. (MBI), according to documents filed this week in New York. MBIA, once the biggest bond insurer, claims Countrywide committed fraud by securitizing loans that were riskier than promised.
Enlarge image
Angelo Mozilo Unbowed Says Countrywide Was ‘World-Class Company’ Jay Mallin/Bloomberg News
Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founder Angelo Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble.
Countrywide Financial Corp. co-founder Angelo Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble. Photographer: Jay Mallin/Bloomberg News
.The crisis was “not caused by an act of Countrywide,” said Mozilo, 73, according to a transcript of the deposition. “This is all about an unprecedented, cataclysmic situation, unprecedented in the history of this country. Values in this country dropped by 50 percent.”
Bank of America, the second-biggest U.S. bank by assets, has spent more than $40 billion to clean up mortgages inherited from the 2008 Countrywide purchase. Congressional investigators released e-mails from Mozilo, the Countrywide chief executive officer, showing that as early as 2004 he was concerned about the decline in quality of mortgages the lender was originating.
Mozilo was responding to questions from an MBIA attorney who asked if he regretted how Calabasas, California-based Countrywide was run after “all the foreclosures and ruined lives and lawsuits.” Mozilo called the lawyer’s question “nonsensical and insulting.”
Mortgage Mess
“I have no regrets about how Countrywide was run,” Mozilo said. “We were a world-class company in every respect.”
Mozilo sought to defend his company’s role in the mortgage mess even before the U.S. housing market showed signs of recovery from the bursting of the housing bubble. Had he known that unemployment would surge and housing prices would collapse during the financial crisis, Mozilo said he would’ve attempted to sell his company years earlier than he did.
The firm only made loans that it was confident would be repaid, Mozilo said. Countrywide was the third-largest subprime lender in 2006, with about $40.6 billion in the mortgages, compared with $44.6 billion in 2005, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance.
“We never made a loan knowingly -- and it would be stupid to do so -- that we knew the borrower could not pay. Never,” Mozilo said. “All our loans had that one standard from 1968 to the end of my reign at Countrywide.”
‘Dire’ Warnings
While publicly reassuring investors about the quality of his loans, Mozilo issued “dire” internal warnings and engaged in insider trading accelerating stock sales to reap about $140 million, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in a 2009 lawsuit. In one e-mail, he described a “particularly profitable subprime product as ‘toxic.’”
He also wrote that Countrywide was “flying blind” and had “no way” to determine the risks of some adjustable-rate mortgages, the SEC said.
In 2010, Mozilo agreed to a $67.5 million settlement to resolve SEC claims that he misled investors, without admitting or denying the allegations. The Justice Department ended a criminal investigation of Mozilo without bringing charges, a person familiar with the investigation said in February 2011.
He paid the $22.5 million fine included in the SEC deal to protect his nine grandchildren and five children from the effects of his notoriety, Mozilo said.
‘Really Proud’
“It had nothing to do with anything that I did at Countrywide or anything I did in my personal life,” Mozilo said. Relatives “were being harassed in school. My name was in the paper every day nationally and internationally, accusing me of things that were absolutely untrue. I could not have my family go through it anymore, and that’s why I settled.”
Mozilo “remains really proud of his company and this institution he built,” said his attorney, David Siegel. “It would be unfair to say he doesn’t feel a great deal of empathy for the honest, hard-working Americans who suffered in the financial crisis.”
Information in the public record contradicts Mozilo’s contention that Countrywide never knowingly made a bad loan, said Joel Bernstein, the lead lawyer for plaintiffs in a shareholder lawsuit that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America settled for $600 million.
“A lot of people would find a different solution for their grandchildren being pestered than agreeing to a $67 million settlement,” Bernstein said.
‘Friends’ Program
If he were in Mozilo’s position, Bernstein said, he would have found a different school for them.
In the 2011 deposition, Mozilo also denied that there was a program called “Friends of Angelo” to reward high-profile customers, including elected officials, with below-market rates for home loans. Instead, he said that he gave people including taxi drivers, stewardesses, and gardeners his business card.
“Almost everybody I come in contact with, that was my job, was to originate loans,” Mozilo said. “That’s who I was. That’s why I started the company.”
Kevin Callahan, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment, as did Kevin Brown, an MBIA spokesman. Lawrence Grayson, a Bank of America spokesman, didn’t respond to a telephone call seeking comment.
Posted by
Carlos Marroquin
Occupy Fights Foreclosures
Pictures of Occupy Fights Foreclosures Action against the Mozilo Family, Pasadena
Thursday, November 29, 2012
OCCUPIERS ESCALATE DIRECT ACTIONS FOR L.A. FAMILIES FACING FORECLOSURE BY FORECLOSURE KING DEUTSCHE BANK
German bank’s refusal to help East L.A. family brings participation by the Occupy Movement to bring attention to bank's foreclosure practices affecting tens of thousands of families in the U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
Los Angeles - After residing in East L.A. for 15 years, the Lucero family faces eviction by LA County Sheriffs following a questionable foreclosure by Deutsche Bank. The Luceros made payments towards a loan modification on time, but Deutsche Bank refuses to honor it and help the family stay in their home. Homeowner Margarita Lucero explains, “I just want to keep my home and I want the bank to accept the payment plan they promised me. I want to keep my family together.”
The Lucero family came to Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a homeowners advocacy group fighting foreclosures, asking for assistance in what she describe as "wrongful foreclosure and eviction". OFF and activists from Occupy LA and Occupy Whittier took action and mobilized to protect the family by occupying the Lucero residence.
"We contacted top Deutsche Bank executives in New York to try to get help but thus far they have been unwilling to help, they claim that they are only the trustees," says Carlos Marroquin. Deutsche Bank didn’t just act as a trustee that — coincidentally, it seems — they are actively involved in pushing the foreclosure process, court proceedings, auctions, sales and trading properties. "Deutsche Bank has referred us to their servicer Carrington Mortgage and refuses to take responsibility for the eviction." The German bank is responsible for tens of thousands of foreclosures and evictions here in the United States and has repeatedly broken U.S. foreclosures laws by short-cutting the process, forging documents, and ignoring U.S. judges' orders. Since Occupy has begun defending the Lucero home more victimized homeowners have come forward seeking help from what they are calling "wrongful foreclosure by Deutsche Bank." The German bank is berated on the internet as “America’s Foreclosure King.”
According to real estate expert Steve Dilbert, “some 85 to 90 percent of all outstanding mortgages in the USA are ultimately controlled by four banks, either as trustees or owners of a trust company. Deutsche Bank is one of the four.” Criticized publicly for his company’s role in the foreclosures, former Deutsche-Bank CEO Josef Ackermann responded: “It’s painful to look at these houses.”
Deutsche Bank as Trustees also played a central role in the profitable boom in high-risk mortgages that were marketed predatorily to people. The Countrywide Financial Corporation, which approved risky mortgages for $97.2 billion from 2005 to 2007, was the biggest provider of these mortgages in the United States. According to the study by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, Deutsche Bank was one of Countrywide’s biggest financiers.
The German bank is currently facing several lawsuits by the U.S. Government and the City of Los Angeles for their participation in fraud and blight conditions in Los Angeles. They are now under fire from Occupy Los Angeles. Occupy is committed to standing with Deutsche Bank's victims and all homeowners fighting foreclosure fraud.
German bank’s refusal to help East L.A. family brings participation by the Occupy Movement to bring attention to bank's foreclosure practices affecting tens of thousands of families in the U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
Los Angeles - After residing in East L.A. for 15 years, the Lucero family faces eviction by LA County Sheriffs following a questionable foreclosure by Deutsche Bank. The Luceros made payments towards a loan modification on time, but Deutsche Bank refuses to honor it and help the family stay in their home. Homeowner Margarita Lucero explains, “I just want to keep my home and I want the bank to accept the payment plan they promised me. I want to keep my family together.”
The Lucero family came to Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a homeowners advocacy group fighting foreclosures, asking for assistance in what she describe as "wrongful foreclosure and eviction". OFF and activists from Occupy LA and Occupy Whittier took action and mobilized to protect the family by occupying the Lucero residence.
"We contacted top Deutsche Bank executives in New York to try to get help but thus far they have been unwilling to help, they claim that they are only the trustees," says Carlos Marroquin. Deutsche Bank didn’t just act as a trustee that — coincidentally, it seems — they are actively involved in pushing the foreclosure process, court proceedings, auctions, sales and trading properties. "Deutsche Bank has referred us to their servicer Carrington Mortgage and refuses to take responsibility for the eviction." The German bank is responsible for tens of thousands of foreclosures and evictions here in the United States and has repeatedly broken U.S. foreclosures laws by short-cutting the process, forging documents, and ignoring U.S. judges' orders. Since Occupy has begun defending the Lucero home more victimized homeowners have come forward seeking help from what they are calling "wrongful foreclosure by Deutsche Bank." The German bank is berated on the internet as “America’s Foreclosure King.”
According to real estate expert Steve Dilbert, “some 85 to 90 percent of all outstanding mortgages in the USA are ultimately controlled by four banks, either as trustees or owners of a trust company. Deutsche Bank is one of the four.” Criticized publicly for his company’s role in the foreclosures, former Deutsche-Bank CEO Josef Ackermann responded: “It’s painful to look at these houses.”
Deutsche Bank as Trustees also played a central role in the profitable boom in high-risk mortgages that were marketed predatorily to people. The Countrywide Financial Corporation, which approved risky mortgages for $97.2 billion from 2005 to 2007, was the biggest provider of these mortgages in the United States. According to the study by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, Deutsche Bank was one of Countrywide’s biggest financiers.
The German bank is currently facing several lawsuits by the U.S. Government and the City of Los Angeles for their participation in fraud and blight conditions in Los Angeles. They are now under fire from Occupy Los Angeles. Occupy is committed to standing with Deutsche Bank's victims and all homeowners fighting foreclosure fraud.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Foreclosure Crisis Hitting Older Americans Hard
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- More than 1.5 million older Americans already have lost their homes, with millions more at risk as the national housing crisis takes its toll on those who are among the worst positioned to weather the storm, a new AARP report says. Older African Americans and Hispanics are the hardest hit.
"The Great Recession has been brutal for many older Americans," said Debra Whitman, AARP's policy chief. "This shows that home ownership doesn't guarantee financial security later in life."
Even working two jobs hasn't been enough to allow Jewel Lewis-Hall, 57, to make her monthly mortgage payments on time. Her husband has made little money since being laid off from his job at a farmers' market, and Lewis-Hall said her salary as a school cook falls short of what she needs to make the payments on her home in Washington.
Lewis-Hall and her husband have been making their payments late for about a year, but panic didn't set in until recently, when the word "foreclosure" showed up in a letter from the bank.
"You're used to living a certain way, but one thing leads to another," Lewis-Hall said. "It's not like I have a new car or anything. I'm driving one from 1991."
According to AARP:
* About 600,000 Americans who are 50 or older are in foreclosure.
* About 625,000 in the same age group are at least three months behind on their mortgages.
* About 3.5 million -- 16 percent of older homeowners -- are underwater, meaning the home value has gone down and homeowners now owe more than their homes are worth.
AARP said that over the past five years, the proportion of loans held by older Americans that are seriously delinquent jumped more than 450 percent.
Homeowners who are younger than 50 have a lower rate of serious delinquency than their older counterparts, and the rate is increasing at a faster pace for older Americans than for younger ones, according to AARP's analysis of more than 17 million mortgages.
Americans who are 50 or older are hard-pressed to recover from the collapse of the housing market that started in 2006 and was compounded by the recession that started in 2007. Eight in 10 of them own homes, but many live on fixed incomes, have little savings or already have burned through much of their retirement savings. They also have fewer working years left to build back what they may have lost.
Also, those who are forced to re-enter the workforce often find they can't command the same salary that they did in the past.
Older minorities are facing foreclosure rates that are almost double those faced by white borrowers of the same age, mirroring a nationwide trend seen in other age groups as well. Among older African Americans, 3.5 percent were in foreclosure at the end of 2011, and the rate was 3.9 percent for Hispanics. Just 1.9 percent of white homeowners were in foreclosure.
The issue has become so dire in U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings' Maryland district that he has assigned one of his 20 staffers to work fulltime to help struggling homeowners, and his office holds regular foreclosure prevention workshops. He said the federal government can do its part by promoting principal reduction and loan modification programs.
"These are people who in many instances have never missed a payment in 20 years," Cummings, a Democrat, said in an interview. "You see grown men crying because of the potential loss of a home."
Among older homeowners, those who are 75 or older are in the worst shape when it comes to foreclosures, the report showed. In 2007, one out of every 300 homeowners 75 or older was in foreclosure. Five years later, about one in 30 face that same fate.
Many of those oldest homeowners may have lost income they were counting on, such as the retirement benefits of a deceased spouse. In the meantime, their mortgage payments have stayed the same. The situation is likely to get worse before it gets better, AARP officials predicted, because of a housing market that is recovering at a snail's pace. "This crisis is far from over," Whitman said. "We need to think about more creative solutions now that we have this data."
WASHINGTON -- More than 1.5 million older Americans already have lost their homes, with millions more at risk as the national housing crisis takes its toll on those who are among the worst positioned to weather the storm, a new AARP report says. Older African Americans and Hispanics are the hardest hit.
"The Great Recession has been brutal for many older Americans," said Debra Whitman, AARP's policy chief. "This shows that home ownership doesn't guarantee financial security later in life."
Even working two jobs hasn't been enough to allow Jewel Lewis-Hall, 57, to make her monthly mortgage payments on time. Her husband has made little money since being laid off from his job at a farmers' market, and Lewis-Hall said her salary as a school cook falls short of what she needs to make the payments on her home in Washington.
Lewis-Hall and her husband have been making their payments late for about a year, but panic didn't set in until recently, when the word "foreclosure" showed up in a letter from the bank.
"You're used to living a certain way, but one thing leads to another," Lewis-Hall said. "It's not like I have a new car or anything. I'm driving one from 1991."
According to AARP:
* About 600,000 Americans who are 50 or older are in foreclosure.
* About 625,000 in the same age group are at least three months behind on their mortgages.
* About 3.5 million -- 16 percent of older homeowners -- are underwater, meaning the home value has gone down and homeowners now owe more than their homes are worth.
AARP said that over the past five years, the proportion of loans held by older Americans that are seriously delinquent jumped more than 450 percent.
Homeowners who are younger than 50 have a lower rate of serious delinquency than their older counterparts, and the rate is increasing at a faster pace for older Americans than for younger ones, according to AARP's analysis of more than 17 million mortgages.
Americans who are 50 or older are hard-pressed to recover from the collapse of the housing market that started in 2006 and was compounded by the recession that started in 2007. Eight in 10 of them own homes, but many live on fixed incomes, have little savings or already have burned through much of their retirement savings. They also have fewer working years left to build back what they may have lost.
Also, those who are forced to re-enter the workforce often find they can't command the same salary that they did in the past.
Older minorities are facing foreclosure rates that are almost double those faced by white borrowers of the same age, mirroring a nationwide trend seen in other age groups as well. Among older African Americans, 3.5 percent were in foreclosure at the end of 2011, and the rate was 3.9 percent for Hispanics. Just 1.9 percent of white homeowners were in foreclosure.
The issue has become so dire in U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings' Maryland district that he has assigned one of his 20 staffers to work fulltime to help struggling homeowners, and his office holds regular foreclosure prevention workshops. He said the federal government can do its part by promoting principal reduction and loan modification programs.
"These are people who in many instances have never missed a payment in 20 years," Cummings, a Democrat, said in an interview. "You see grown men crying because of the potential loss of a home."
Among older homeowners, those who are 75 or older are in the worst shape when it comes to foreclosures, the report showed. In 2007, one out of every 300 homeowners 75 or older was in foreclosure. Five years later, about one in 30 face that same fate.
Many of those oldest homeowners may have lost income they were counting on, such as the retirement benefits of a deceased spouse. In the meantime, their mortgage payments have stayed the same. The situation is likely to get worse before it gets better, AARP officials predicted, because of a housing market that is recovering at a snail's pace. "This crisis is far from over," Whitman said. "We need to think about more creative solutions now that we have this data."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)