Here we go again…

Fannie Mae, the state-sponsored U.S. mortgage backer, is at risk of needing a government bailout that could shake confidence in the housing finance market, senior officials have warned.

Fannie Mae’s chief executive and its regulator are sounding the alarm on a decline in the institution’s capital cushion, which is on course to vanish in 2018, when it would have to ask the US Treasury for emergency funds.

Their warnings highlight Washington’s inaction on housing policy and its failure to reform the institution, which guarantees nearly $3 trillion of securities and enables 30-year fixed rate loans, following the last financial crisis.

Read on.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of a fraudulently foreclosed-upon homeowner in a case that should serve as a wake-up call to state and federal prosecutors that mortgage companies continue to use false documents to evict homeowners on a daily basis.

“A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands,” the justices wrote.

But maddeningly, practically nobody in a position of authority has stepped up to prevent those injurious invasions.

The case, Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, sends a powerful signal from the nation’s biggest state that the massive false document scandal, first discovered nearly a decade ago, is not over, despite mortgage company promises to the contrary.

Read on.

The guy in the audience said it was a matter of trust. “Please just release those transcripts so we know exactly where you stand,” he said.

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t going there. At the MSNBC town hall with the Democratic presidential candidates on Thursday evening in Las Vegas, Clinton once again refused to release transcripts or recordings of the secret speeches she was paid millions of dollars to make to Wall Street banks.

Clinton literally laughed off the question when we first asked her in January. Several days later, when Chuck Todd asked her during an MSNBC debate in New Hampshire, she said she would “look into it.”

Shortly thereafter, however, Clinton had a new talking point, which is the one she used again on Thursday night, in response to a question from a self-identified Bernie Sanders supporter in the audience — a realtor named Joe Sacco

This one–the Yvanova decision by the California Supreme Court–was a no-brainer, of course. Had the Court ruled that homeowners cannot challenge a bogus assignment, there would be no point in a bank or other purported holder of  California mortgages following the law about assignments at all, because they’d never be challenged.  And what would be the result?  An absolutely broken system of keeping up with what person owns what property.  Which is kinda already the case, but that’s another story.

First, a little background…

Two of the major hallmarks of wrongful, fraudulent foreclosure were present in the Yvanova situation:

1. Zombie assignments: Defunct and/or bankrupt company assigns a mortgage or deed of trust years after said company has been dissolved.  In the Yvanova case, New Century was liquidated in 2008 but supposedly assigned Yvanova’s deed of trust to Deutsche Bank in 2011.

2.  Closed pools: By…

Why are modifications being undermined when they would so obviously preserve the value of the “loan?” The answer is because the real party in interest in the foreclosures is the servicer, not the trust, which doesn’t own the loan anyway, nor even the investor/beneficiaries, who reap very little out of the proceeds of foreclosure.

The servicer wants the loan to fail. The investor expects the servicer and trustee of the REMIC trust to make sure value is preserved. But that isn’t the game. If the property goes to foreclosure sale then the “servicer” can make its claim for “recovery” of “servicer advances.” The fact that “servicer advances” are made from a pool of funds established by investor money and the fact that the servicer accesses these funds to make payments, regardless of whether the borrower pays or not — all of that makes no difference in the game.

In that…

The newest Federal Reserve policymaker dismissed concerns that his call for radical action to rein in “too big to fail” banks was a partisan move, and instead said on Wednesday it highlighted the U.S. central bank’s independence from politics.

COULD THE SUDDENESS OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SCALIA’S DEATH BE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE LANDMARK SCOTUS RULING AGAINST MASSIVE FRAUDCLOSURES WRITTEN BY HIM?

By: Adam B. Brandon

The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) requires lenders to make certain disclosures to borrowers before the parties close on a residential mortgage.  TILA also affords borrowers the right to rescind a mortgage for any reason for three day after the transaction.  Furthermore, if a lender fails to make the disclosures that TILA requires, then the borrower may rescind the transaction within three years or until the sale of the secured property, whichever comes first.

On January 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant opinion that clarifies how a borrower may exercise the right to rescind.  Previously, many federal courts required a borrower seeking rescission to file a declaratory judgment action.  If the borrower failed to file suit within three years, the…