Damning report finds state agencies wasted millions meant for struggling homeowners

Posted on August 26, 2017 by Deadly Clear

Un-frickin’ real! Families are made homeless while Treasury was partying with the state! Such a life.

A damning new report from a federal watchdog shows that 19 state housing finance agencies wasted millions of dollars that should have gone to struggling homeowners as part of the government’s Hardest Hit Fund program.

The report, published Friday by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, showed that SIGTARP’s investigation found that the all 19 of the state housing finance agencies that participated in the Hardest Hit Fund collectively wasted $3 million on items like barbecues, steak and seafood dinners, gift cards, flowers, gym memberships, employee bonuses, litigation, celebrations, and cars, instead of using the money to help struggling borrowers.

Read on.

View original post

U.S. 9TH CIRCUIT RULES ROBINS HAS ARTICLE 3 STANDING!

Posted on August 21, 2017 by Deadly Clear

Excellent post! Open for the details:

“The 9th Circuit remanded the case back down to the Central District of California for further action. For those of you in the 9th Circuit states, you should be jumping for joy, because the little guy has won another round. To see the opinion, click the link: Robins v Spokeo Inc, 9th App Cir No 11-56843 (August 15, 2017)“

Fannie Mae begins marketing fourth re-performing loan sale

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Deadly Clear

Trump approves MORTGAGE DEBT FORGIVENESS PLAN that Obama couldn’t. Performing loans sold at a loss. #Fanniegate $FNMA

Fannie Mae began its marketing efforts with Citigroup Global Markets for its fourth sale of re-performing loans, or loans previously delinquent, but now performing again. Here are the details of the new pool, which includes about 11,000 loans.

Source: Fannie Mae begins marketing fourth re-performing loan sale

Attorney Linda Tirelli Defines Robo-Signing for Clueless Steven Mnuchin

Posted on August 9, 2017 by Deadly Clear

Make it simple. Robo-signing is forgery. Forgery is a legal term. Hiding GSEs as real party in interest is fraudulent concealment and also a legal term. If Mnuchin understood the rule of law surely he would not have knowingly participated in this corruption. On the other hand, if he knew… well, couldn’t that play the “intent” card? No wonder he got huffy.

Livinglies's Weblog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/attorney-linda-tirelli-defines-robo-signing-for-clueless_us_59824797e4b0396a95c8747e

It seemed like the Treasury Secretary doth protest a bit too much as a Shakespearean drama unfolded at a July 27th meeting of the House Financial Services Subcommittee . Steven Mnuchin, like some wayward damsel in distress, took deep umbrage at Representative Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) suggestion that he was anything but an honest, ethical banker; albeit one who headed up the hyper-controversial OneWest Bank.

The ghosts of banking’s past seemed to surface with a vengeance when the term “robo-signing” — a foreclosure short-cut liberally used by OneWest — was hurled his way by the Congressman. This, in turn, proved too much for the normally passive Treasury boss who decided, like Network’s , Howard Beale, he was angry, really angry and wasn’t going to take it any more.

In prickly fashion he loaded up his blunderbuss and unloaded some lead balls Ellison’s way:

Do you even know what Robo-signing…

View original post 1,099 more words

EverBank failed to comply with HUD Face-to-Face Requirements

Posted on August 2, 2017 by Deadly Clear

Livinglies's Weblog

EverBank failed to comply with a condition precedent to foreclosure, imposed by HUD regulations, requiring that in the event of payment default, the mortgagee have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to do so.

This was a Massachussets Appeal Court case entitled Everbank v. Chacon, that was originally filed in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy court.

Download EverBank v Chacon.

The regulation reads, “[t]he mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting,” before commencing foreclosure proceedings or acquiring title to the property. 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b) (2016). See 24 C.F.R.§ 203.500 (2016).

The purpose of a face-to-face interview is to discuss the possibility of a repayment plan, modification of the mortgage, or other measures that may avoid the need for foreclosure and allow the mortgagor to remain in his or her residence and repay…

View original post 22 more words

NJ Supreme Court: If Borrower Abides By Terms Of Settlement Agreement, Lender Must Modify Mortgage

Posted on August 2, 2017 by Deadly Clear

As with any of these cases where a defunct originator is noted, it brings to mind Kuehlman v. Bank of America, NA, 177 So. 3d 1282 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015 where the court in its decision plainly stated: “Lender’s “investor” (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac), which was not a party to the contracts, instructed Lender to “pull the plug on” (or “not accept”) the modification.”

More than likely, as Fannie is now (since the bailout) the “financial agent for the United States of America,” and it appears the GSEs are feeding the Treasury with the foreclosure (and insurance?) funds used to prop up Obamacare, Fannie may well be the concealed real party in interest in most cases – and pulling the strings in all aspects of modification and foreclosure.

Attorneys have been asserting and ascertaining Fannie’s real role through motions and discovery which has made for a sticky wicket in Plaintiff’s ballpark.

Livinglies's Weblog

BlogPete’s Take

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06b8e212-01e0-4a00-aacf-87b6af32b34d

USA August 1 2017

Lawsuits arising out of foreclosures and mortgage modifications are common. (Even more common than lawsuits about gyms or health clubs if you can believe that.) Nearly every day there is a decision from the Appellate Division arising out of a residential foreclosure. Most of these fall into the same category — borrower defaults and loses home through foreclosure then challenges lender’s standing to foreclose after the fact — but some are more interesting. That was the case with GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Willoughby, a decision released yesterday by the New Jersey Supreme Court involving a mortgage modification agreement entered into to settle a foreclosure lawsuit.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a post about Arias v. Elite Mortgage, a lawsuit over the alleged breach of a mortgage modification agreements. In that case, borrowers entered into…

View original post 944 more words