“Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.”

In her first appearance on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show,” Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton took a firm stance against America’s big banks.

Clinton stopped by to chat about various aspects of her campaign, including her staunch support for a stable middle class and an increase to the minimum wage. She even let it be known what she and Bill like to binge-watch after 11-hour-long congressional hearings. (“The Good Wife,” “House of Cards” and “Madam Secretary.” Duh.)

When Colbert turned his questioning to Wall Street reform, he asked directly if Clinton were president, “and the banks are failing, do we let them fail?”

“Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” the former secretary of state responded. “Their shareholders have to know that yes, they will fail. And if they’re too big to fail, then under my plan and others that have been proposed they may have…

This time, the revolving door smacked Goldman Sachs on the backside.

Lloyd Blankfein’s bank is expected to pay a roughly $50 million fine and an ex-banker is expected to plead guilty to federal criminal charges that he took confidential documents from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, The Post has learned.

The civil penalties against Goldman are among the harshest ever levied by New York. The settlement is being ironed out between Goldman and the Department of Financial Services.

Read on.

39% of appraisals contained property quality or condition ratings that conflicted with previous ratings on the same property in the third quarter of 2015, according to a report from Platinum Data Solutions.

For the report, the company analyzed its database of over 300,000 appraisals that were evaluated by RealView, its appraisal quality technology, in Q3 2015.

This infographic shows what the company discovered.

(Source: Platinum Data Solutions)

“More than one in three appraisals contain inconsistencies in property ratings,” said Phil Huff, president and CEO of Platinum Data Solutions. “Causes aren’t easy to determine, so they need to be investigated. Doing this after Uniform Collateral Data Portal (UCDP) submission opens lenders up to numerous issues. Costly delays are just one of them.”

Read on.

A quick note on the subject of criminal prosecution of bankers. The excuse is the four dog defense.

As a refresher, the first part is “I don’t have a dog.” In the case of the mortgage crisis, it started with the banks claiming that trusts, derivatives, mortgage backed securities had nothing to do with the loans. Actually, they were telling at least part of the truth. It was the banks and servicers that brought the foreclosures to the door of homeowners. Then it evolved into “U.S. Bank as Trustee for [either the certificate holders or a named REMIC Trust]”. Now they have gone back to naming the bank as though there was no trust, claiming no securitization.

Part 2 is “OK I have a dog but my dog doesn’t bite.” In the courts this translates as it was “legal” because it was disclosed. In part, that is true. But the…

Among the criticisms that Osceola County Clerk of Court Armando Ramirez has received for various policies and personnel moves since taking office in 2013, backing down from a legal challenge isn’t one of them.

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not a legal opinion on any case. Consult with an attorney.

=============================

see Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo

“The core element concerning to whom the note was payable on the date suit was filed was not proven.”

Bottom Line: You can’t file a lawsuit without standing. Judgment reversed with instructions to enter Judgment for the homeowner. And you can’t cure standing by getting it later. That would be like filing suit for a slip and fall in front of a super market, and once the suit was filed, you then go to the supermarket, get out of your car and proceed to slip and fall. And the second story is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the foreclosing party, not the homeowner.

Many courts are now leaning away from the legal fantasies being promoted by “servicers”, “trustees’ and other parties…

Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Well, for legal and compliance officers representing mortgage servicers who often cite concentration risk as a justification for maintaining an expansive network of legal service providers, it “just ain’t so.”

Ironically, it is this focus on concentration risk that leads to slower case resolution and increased servicing costs overall.

Risk is inherent in all litigation. There are direct financial risks such as legal fees, court costs and other expenses incurred due to attorney action or inaction (e.g., sanctions, opposing party legal fees, refiling fees associated with lack of prosecution dismissals), along with indirect risks such as extended resolution timelines and reputational harm.

Mortgage servicers too often ignore the real risk of law firm failure. This risk, now a recurring reality in the default servicing world…

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A federal judge Thursday said he does not believe Wells Fargo breached contracts or misled homebuyers, but he’s not sure he can deny borrowers class certification on that basis.
Karen and Jeffrey Lucia et al. say Wells Fargo failed to offer permanent loan modifications to homeowners who participated in the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program from April 2009 to March 2010.
A trial period agreement required the bank to notify borrowers if they qualified for permanent loan changes within three months, the plaintiffs say.
In August 2013 the Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of two class actions accusing Wells Fargo of offering temporary loan modifications with no intention to make them permanent. Offering borrowers permanent loan modifications was one of two conditions the bank agreed to when it accepted federal bailout money in 2008, according to the lawsuits .
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria heard…

Huffington Post:

Presidential candidate and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee struggled to explain during Tuesday’s Democratic debate why he voted in favor of deregulating big banks in 1999. 

CNN host and debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Chafee how he could press Hillary Clinton on Wall Street when he voted for a bill repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, a landmark financial regulation bill that separated the banking industry from the securities industry. 

“Glass-Steagall was my very first vote,” Chafee said. “I’d just arrived, my dad had died in office.”

Chafee was appointed to the U.S. Senate seat held by his father, John Chafee, until his death in 1999.

Cooper continued to press Chafee, asking if he didn’t understand the bill before voting on it.

“I think you’re being a little rough,” Chafee replied.

And here is his vote in 1999. Click here.

On a side note : The final vote of the…