Posted on January 8, 2015 by Neil Garfield
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
We have all seen it, heard and experienced it over and over again. In this case Wells Fargo offered a “temporary” modification, it was accepted and the trial payments were made. Wells Fargo said the modification offer and acceptance lacked consideration — the height of arrogance since they have no transaction with consideration supporting their claim of ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.
Wells disavowed the settlement and went forward with foreclosure. The homeowner’s claim to enforce the modification contract was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, agreeing with Wells Fargo that there was no consideration. The appellate court reversed stating that there was consideration and that it was more than adequate. There are now hundreds of cases in which trial judges and appellate courts have enforced the modification agreements.
Here is one you can look at:
Posted on April 7, 2014 by Neil Garfield
I have frequently commented that one of the first things I learned on Wall Street was the maxim that the more complicated the “product” the more the buyer is forced to rely on the seller for information. Michael Lewis, in his new book, focuses on high frequency trading — a term that is not understood by most people, even if they work on Wall Street. The way it works is that the computers are able to sort out buy or sell orders, aggregate them and very accurately predict an uptick or down-tick in a stock or bond.
Then the same investment bank that is taking your order to buy or sell submits its own order ahead of yours. They are virtually guaranteed a profit, at your expense, although the impact on individual investors is small. Aggregating those profits amounts to a private tax on large and small investors amounting to billions of dollars, according to Lewis and I agree.
As Lewis points out, the trader knows nothing about what happens after they place an order. And it is the complexity of technology and practices that makes Wall Street behavior so opaque — clouded in a veil of secrecy that is virtually impenetrable to even the regulators. That opacity first showed up decades ago as Wall Street started promoting increasing complex investments. Eventually they evolved to collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) and those evolved into what became known as the mortgage crisis.
in the case of mortgage CDO’s, once again the investors knew nothing about what happened after they placed their order and paid for it. Once again, the Wall Street firms were one step ahead of them, claiming ownership of (1) the money that investors paid, (2) the mortgage bonds the investors thought they were buying and (3) the loans the investors thought were being financed through REMIC trusts that issued the mortgage bonds.
Like high frequency trading, the investor receives a report that is devoid of any of the details of what the investment bank actually did with their money, when they bought or originated a mortgage, through what entity, for how much and what terms. The blending of millions of mortgages enabled the investment banks to create reports that looked good but completely hid the vulnerability of the investors, who were continuing to buy mortgage bonds based upon those reports.
The truth is that in most cases the investment banks took the investors money and didn’t follow any of the rules set forth in the CDO documents — but used those documents when it suited them to make even more money, creating the illusion that loans had been securitized when in fact the securitization vehicle (REMIC Trust) had been completely ignored.
There were several scenarios under which property and homeowners were made vulnerable to foreclosure even if they had no mortgage on their property. A recent story about an elderly couple coming “home” to find their door padlocked, possessions removed and then the devastating news that their home had been sold at foreclosure auction is an example of the extreme risk of this system to ALL homeowners, whether they have or had a mortgage or not. This particular couple had paid off their mortgage 15 years ago. The bank who foreclosed on the nonexistent mortgage and the recovery company that invaded their home said it was a mistake. Their will be a confidential settlement where once again the veil of secrecy will be raised.
That type of “mistake” was a once in a million possibility before Wall Street directly entered the mortgage loan business. So why have we read so many stories about foreclosures where there was no mortgage, or was no default, or where the mortgage loan was with someone other than the party who foreclosed?
The answer lies in how these properties enter the system. When a bank sells its portfolio of loans into the system of aggregation of loans, they might accidentally or intentionally include loans for which they had already received full payment. Maybe they issued a satisfaction maybe they didn’t. It might also include loans where life insurance or PMI paid off the loan.
Or, as is frequently the case, the “loan” was sold after the homeowner was merely investigating the possibility of a mortgage or reverse mortgage. As soon as they made application, since approval was certain, the “originator” entered the data into a platform maintained by the aggregator, like Countrywide, where it was included in some “securitization package.
If the loan closed then it was frequently sold again with the new dates and data, so it would like like a different loan. Then the investment banks, posing as the lenders, obtained insurance, TARP, guarantee proceeds and other payments from “co-obligors” on each version of the loan that was sold, thus essentially creating the equivalent of new sales on loans that were guaranteed to be foreclosed either because there was no mortgage or because the terms were impossible for the borrower to satisfy.
The LPS roulette wheel in Jacksonville is the hub where it is decided WHO will be the foreclosing party and for HOW MUCH they will claim is owed, without any allowance for the multiple sales, proceeds of insurance, FDIC loss sharing, actual ownership of the loans or anything else. Despite numerous studies by those in charge of property records and academic studies, the beat goes on, foreclosing by entities who are “strangers to the transaction” (San Francisco study), on documents that were intentionally destroyed (Catherine Ann Porter study at University of Iowa), against homeowners who had no idea what was going on, using the money of investors who had no idea what was going on, and all based upon a triple tiered documentary system where the contractual meeting of the minds could never occur.
The first tier was the Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement that was used to obtain money from investors under false pretenses.
The second tier consisted of a whole subset of agreements, contracts, insurance, guarantees all payable to the investment banks instead of the investors.
And the third tier was the “closing documents” in which the borrower, contrary to Federal (TILA), state and common law was as clueless as the investors as to what was really happening, the compensation to intermediaries and the claims of ownership that would later be revealed despite the borrower’s receipt of “disclosure” of the identity of his lender and the terms of compensation by all people associated with the origination of the loan.
The beauty of this plan for Wall Street is that nobody from any of the tiers could make direct claims to the benefits of any of the contracts. It has also enabled then to foreclose more than once on the same home in the name of different creditors, making double claims for guarantee from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FDIC loss sharing, insurance and credit default swaps.
The ugly side of the plan is still veiled, for the most part in secrecy. even when the homeowner gets close in court, there is a confidential settlement, sometimes for millions of dollars to keep the lawyer and the homeowner from disclosing the terms or the reasons why millions of dollars was paid to a homeowner to keep his mouth shut on a loan that was only $200,000 at origination.
This is exactly why I tell people that most of the time their case will be settled either in discovery where a Judge agrees you are entitled to peak behind the curtain, or at trial where it becomes apparent that the witness who is “familiar” with the corporate records really knows nothing and ahs nothing about the the real history of the loan transaction.
Filed under: AMGAR, CDO, CORRUPTION, discovery, escrow agent, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: appraisal fraud, bailout, countrywide, disclosure, Fannie, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, fraud, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit | 64 Comments »
Posted on February 1, 2013 by Neil Garfield
For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).
Editor’s Analysis: As we move into the fifth inning of a nine inning game, it looks like we are going into overtime. Just as the GOP failed to read the census and lost the national elections, the Banks have failed to read the Congressional Census and are finding that the “deals” they made with regulators and law enforcement are not the end of the story. There are people in office now who do actually give a damn and who want to do something about Wall Street grifting.
Elizabeth Warren is leading the charge: They want full disclosure of the failed review process, and full disclosure of the deal that was reached. This could be a problem for banks who are holding worthless mortgage bonds and for entities claiming that they own loans that either never existed at all or were misstated in every meaningful way.
Warren and others want oversight of the deal this time and they are likely to get it, one way or another. It would be nice is the President took some time out of his schedule, albeit precious little free time exists, and decide for himself the direction that should be taken now that Geithner is leaving. Maybe he already has.
The questions that remain in the context of doing what is best for the country remain unresolved:
- Knowing that the title chain is corrupted in all 50 states and that the amount of chaos ranges all the way up to 80%, what are the remedial steps required to boost confidence in the title registries around the country? At present it is a leap of faith to even buy a plot of empty land.
- Knowing now that the investors put up the money and borrowers put down payments on homes and refinancing, how will the victims of Wall Street chicanery be compensated by a appointment of a receiver? Restitution is a fundamental bedrock for fraudulent deals. What economic, legal or financial reason would there be to allow the Wall Street banks that took and kept the loss mitigating payments from insurance, credit default swaps, and bailouts for the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve.
- Knowing that the quantitative easing and Federal bailouts, insurance and credit default swaps were supposed to mitigate damages and most importantly re-start lending and commerce, how do we move those trillions (estimates run as high as $17+ trillion) back to the economy which remains gasping for air.
- Knowing that the Wall Street frequently diverted documents and money from investors, this leaving borrowers with no authorized party with whom they could negotiate a modification based upon the true balance owed on the loans, how will the government announce its conclusions without starting a run on the big banks that may bleed over to the small banks.
- Knowing that some 14 banks have grown to a size with cross border relationships that there is no one regulatory agency to watch and correct them, how will the banks be brought down to a size that can be regulated? And in a related matter, how do we level the playing field such that the mega banks no longer control the size, growth, and business plans of smaller banks.
- AND knowing the criminal acts performed by or on behalf of the mega banks by specially created corporations, law offices and other vendors, how will the government bring these people to justice in a way that is meaningful — i.e., that will deter Wall Street titans from doing it again?
- How will the government take the reigns of regulation such that settlements for pennies on the dollar avoids civil and criminal prosecution by the government that is supposed to protect those who cannot adequately protect themselves, and avoids administrative complaints against the bank charter.
- How will the administration demonstrate to every American that the Government is running the show, not the Banks.
- Knowing that the vast majority of foreclosures were completed” by strangers to the transactions, what do we do the displaced homeowners and the homes that were put in distress as a result of a ball of lies?
- If the review process was revealing damages to homeowners (and indirectly to investors) that were vastly understated, as alleged by numerous whistle-blowers, then what will be installed as a watchdog over that process and what resources will be applied to get to the truth rather than a PR result?
Warren Demands Transparency On Failed Foreclosures
Elizabeth Warren Demands Mortgage Settlement Documents From Regulators
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: agency settlements with banks, Bank of America, Business News, Elizabeth Warren, Failed Foreclosure Reviews, foreclosure crisis, FORECLOSURE REVIEW, foreclosure reviews, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, independent foreclosure review, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, transparency | 65 Comments »
Posted on May 15, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Contact: Darrell Blomberg Darrell@ForeclosureStrategists.com 602-686-7355
Meeting: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012, 7pm to 9pm
It appears the most rulings against homeowners are predicated on some arcane and minute failure of the homeowner to make the record. We’ll be discussing how to make sure you cover all of those points by Making the Record as your case moves along. We’ll also look at how the process of Making the Record starts long before you even think of going to court
We meet every week!
Every Tuesday: 7:00pm to 9:00pm. Come early for dinner and socialization. (Food service is also available during meeting.) Macayo’s Restaurant, 602-264-6141, 4001 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (east side of Central Ave just south of Indian School Rd.) COST: $10… and whatever you want to spend on yourself for dinner, helpings are generous so bring an appetite. Please Bring a Guest! (NOTE: There is a $2.49 charge for the Happy Hour Buffet unless you at least order a soft drink.)
FACEBOOK PAGE FOR “FORECLOSURE STRATEGIST”
I have set up a Facebook page. (I can’t believe it but it is necessary.) The page can be viewed at www.Facebook.com, look for and “friend” “Foreclosure Strategist.”
I’ll do my best to keep it updated with all of our events.
Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.
MEETUP PAGE FOR FORECLOSURE STRATEGISTS:
I have set up a MeetUp page. The page can be viewed at www.MeetUp.com/ForeclosureStrategists. Please get the word out and send your friends and other homeowners the link.
May your opportunities be bountiful and your possibilities unlimited.
“Emissary of Observation”
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: appeal, attorney general, bankruptcy, borrower, court, Darrell Blomberg, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure offense, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, Foreclosure Strategists, foreclosures, forgery, homeowners, housing market, housing prices, Lender Liability, Macayo’s Restaurant Phoenix, Make the record, making the record, Mortgage, mortgage meltdown, mortgages, predatory lending | 1 Comment »
Posted on May 11, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Partly as a result of the recent settlement with the Attorneys General and partly because they have run out of options and excuses, the banks are reducing principal and offering to reduce payments as well. What happened to the argument that we can’t reduce principal because it would be unfair to homeowners who are not in distress? Flush. It was never true. These loans were based on fake appraisals at the outset, the liens were never perfected and the banks are staring down a double barreled shotgun: demands for repurchase from investors who correctly allege and can easily prove that the loans were underwritten to fail PLUS the coming rash of decisions showing that the mortgage lien never attached to the land. The banks have nothing left. BY offering principal reductions they get new paperwork that allows them to correct the defects in documentation and they retain the claim of plausible deniability regarding origination documents that were false, predatory, deceptive and fraudulent.
Fannie, Freddie are set to reduce mortgage balances in California
The mortgage giants sign on to Keep Your Home California, a $2-billion foreclosure prevention program, after state drops a requirement that lenders match taxpayer funds used for principal reductions.
By Alejandro Lazo
State officials are making a significant change to the Keep Your Home California program. They are dropping a requirement that banks match taxpayers funds when homeowners receive mortgage reductions through the program.
The initiative, which uses federal funds from the 2008 Wall Street bailout to help borrowers at risk of foreclosure, has faced lackluster participation and lender resistance since it was rolled out last year. By eliminating the requirement that banks provide matching funds, state officials hope to make it easier for homeowners to get principal reductions.
The participation by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, confirmed Monday, could provide a major boost to Keep Your Home California.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own about 62% of outstanding mortgages in the Golden State, according to the state attorney general’s office. But since the program was unveiled last year, neither has elected to participate in principal reduction because of concerns about additional costs to taxpayers.
Only a small number of California homeowners — 8,500 to 9,000 — would be able to get mortgage write-downs with the current level of funds available. But given the previous opposition to these types of modifications by the two mortgage giants, housing advocates who want to make principal reduction more widespread hailed their involvement.
“Having Fannie and Freddie participate in the state Keep Your Home principal reduction program would be a really important step forward,” said Paul Leonard, California director of the Center for Responsible Lending. “Fannie and Freddie are at some level the market leaders; they represent a large share of all existing mortgages.”
The two mortgage giants were seized by the federal government in 2008 as they bordered on bankruptcy, and taxpayers have provided $188 billion to keep them afloat.
Edward J. DeMarco, head of the federal agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie, has argued that principal reduction would not be in the best interest of taxpayers and that other types of loan modifications are more effective.
But pressure has mounted on DeMarco to alter his position. In a recent letter to DeMarco, congressional Democrats cited Fannie Mae documents that they say showed a 2009 pilot program by Fannie would have cost only $1.7 million to implement but could have provided more than $410 million worth of benefits. They decried the scuttling of that program as ideological in nature.
Fannie and Freddie last year made it their policy to participate in state-run principal reduction programs such as Keep Your Home California as long as they or the mortgage companies that work for them don’t have to contribute funds.
Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to participate in widespread principal reductions. Lenders argue that such reductions aren’t worth the cost and would create a “moral hazard” by rewarding delinquent borrowers.
As part of a historic $25-billion mortgage settlement reached this year, the nation’s five largest banks agreed to reduce the principal on some of the loans they own.
Since then Fannie and Freddie have been a major focus of housing advocates who argue that shrinking the mortgages of underwater borrowers would boost the housing market by giving homeowners a clear incentive to keep paying off their loans. They also say that principal reduction would reduce foreclosures by lowering the monthly payments for underwater homeowners and giving them hope they would one day have more equity in their homes.
“In places that are deeply underwater, ultimately those loans where you are not reducing principal, they are going to fail anyway,” said Richard Green of USC’s Lusk Center for Real Estate. “So you are putting off the day of reckoning.”
The state will allocate the federal money, resulting in help for fewer California borrowers than the 25,135 that was originally proposed. The $2-billion program is run by the California Housing Finance Agency, with $790 million available for principal reductions.
Financial institutions will be required to make other modifications to loans such as reducing the interest rate or changing the terms of the loans.
The changes to the program will roll out in early June, officials with the California agency said. The agency will increase to $100,000 from $50,000 the amount of aid borrowers can receive.
Spokespeople for the nation’s three largest banks — Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. — said they were evaluating the changes. BofA has been the only major servicer participating in the principal reduction component of the program.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: attorneys general, Bank of America, Bank of America Corp, BOA, BofA, borrower, California Housing Finance Agency, Edward J DeMarco, fake appraisals, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure prevention, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, housing market, housing prices, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Keep Your Home California, Lender Liability, LOAN MODIFICATION, Mortgage, mortgage lien, mortgage meltdown, mortgages, origination documents, predatory lending, principal reduction, reduce foreclosures, reduce mortgage balances, reduce payments, reduce principal and payments, reducing principal, Richard Green, settlement, underwater homeowners, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, Wall Street bailout, Wells Fargo & Co | 85 Comments »
Posted on May 10, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
These damn judges here in Florida, they really need to wake up, start working harder and grant more foreclosures more quickly. Hurry up already, and stop whining about budget cuts and staff positions cut, and who cares that the entire state court system is funded by less than one percent of the state budget, and shut up about case loads that have tripled to 3,000 or more cases per judge and frazzled judicial assistant. Just grant those damn foreclosure judgments….after all, everyone knows the economy cannot recover until these damn slacking judges push through this foreclosure backlog….right?
Oh wait a minute, there’s apparently a bit of a fly in this ointment. You see, apparently the banks are cancelling foreclosure sales just as quickly as our good judges are able to sign those damn Final Judgments of Foreclosure…yup…apparently, now wait just a dadgummed minute.
You mean to tell me our elected circuit court judges are busy throwing families out into the streets just so the banks can amass ever larger portfolios of vacant and abandoned properties that they are apparently not responsible for taking care of?
Well shut my mouth! You don’t say? Really! No way? Do you mean to tell me we can’t blame all this on our under-funded judges and this ain’t the fault of those damn ethically-challenged foreclosure defense attorneys what with all their delay tactics and pesky rules and those absurd arguments about THE LAW…blah, blah, blah.
When exactly will this nation wake up and start directing appropriate anger and rage at the real evil that’s hard at work, everyday all across this sleeping nation?
From the Tampa Times:
It’s an oft-repeated pattern.
In the last 12 months, lenders have canceled auctions on 4,204 properties in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. Sales have been canceled two, three, even nine times on some homes.
In many cases, banks delay seizures to avoid having to pay maintenance bills or homeowner association fees. Meanwhile, neighbors fend off vandals and thieves and worry about property values falling because of the deteriorating houses.
The repeated cancellations burden the court system.
“These never seem to go away,” said Thomas McGrady, chief judge of the Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit. “It’s a nuisance.”
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: borrower, Eviction, Florida, foreclosure, foreclosure backlog, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure judgement, foreclosure offense, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, Hillsborough county, homeowner association, housing market, judges, Matthew D Weidner, Mortgage, Pinellas county, Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit, predatory lending, rush to foreclosure, Tampa Times, Thomas McGrady, vacant homes | 33 Comments »
Posted on May 10, 2012 by Neil Garfield
Whether it is force-placed insurance or any other device available, banks and servicers are pushing homeowners, luring homeowners and tricking homeowners into foreclosures. It is the only way they can put distance between them and the collosal corruption of title, the fact that strangers are foreclosing on homes, and claims of predatory, deceptive and fraudulent lending practices.
Most of those five million homes belong back in the hands of the people who lost them in fake foreclosures. And that day is coming.
Foreclosures are good but short- sales are better as those in the real estate Market will tell you. Either way it has someone other than the bank or servicer signing the deed to the ” buyer” and eventually it will all come tumbling down. But what Banks and servicers are betting is that the more chaotic and confused the situation the less likely the blame will fall on them.
Watch out Mr. Banker, you haven’t seen our plan to hold you accountable. You might think you have control of the narrative but that is going to change because the real power is held by the people. Go read the constitution — especially the 9th Amendment.
Look Who’s Pushing Homeowners Off the Foreclosure Cliff
By the Editors
One of the more confounding aspects of the U.S. housing crisis has been the reluctance of lenders to do more to assist troubled borrowers. After all, when homes go into foreclosure, banks lose money.
Now it turns out some lenders haven’t merely been unhelpful; their actions have pushed some borrowers over the foreclosure cliff. Lenders have been imposing exorbitant insurance policies on homeowners whose regular coverage lapses or is deemed insufficient. The policies, standard homeowner’s insurance or extra coverage for wind damage, say, for Florida residents, typically cost five to 10 times what owners were previously paying, tipping many into foreclosure.
The situation has caught the attention of state regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is considering rules to help homeowners avoid unwarranted “force- placed insurance.” The U.S. ought to go further and limit commissions, fine any company that knowingly overcharges a homeowner and require banks to seek competitive bids for force- placed insurance policies. Because insurance is not regulated at the federal level, states also need to play a stronger role in bringing down rates.
All mortgages require homeowners to maintain insurance on their property. Most mortgages also allow the lender to purchase insurance for the home and “force-place” it if a policy lapses or is deemed insufficient. These standard provisions are meant to protect the lender’s collateral — the property — if a calamity occurs.
Here’s how it generally works: Banks and their mortgage servicers strike arrangements — often exclusive — with insurance companies in which the banks agree to buy high-priced policies on behalf of homeowners whose coverage has lapsed. The bank advances the premium to the insurer, and the insurer pays the bank a commission, which is priced into the premium. (Insurers say the commissions compensate banks for expenses like “advancing premiums, billing and collections.”) The homeowner is then billed for the premium, commissions and all.
It’s a lucrative business. Premiums on force-placed insurance exceeded $5.5 billion in 2010, according to the Center for Economic Justice, a group that advocates on behalf of low- income consumers. An investigation by Benjamin Lawsky, who heads New York State’s Department of Financial Services, has found nearly 15 percent of the premiums flow back to the banks.
It doesn’t end there. Lenders often get an additional cut of the profits by reinsuring the force-placed policy through the bank’s insurance subsidiary. That puts the lender in the conflicted position of requiring insurance to protect its collateral but with a financial incentive to never pay out a claim.
Both New York and California regulators have found the loss ratio on these policies — the percentage of premiums paid on claims — to be significantly lower than what insurers told the state they expected to pay out, suggesting that premiums are too high. For instance, most insurers estimate a loss ratio of 55 percent, meaning they’ll have to pay out about 55 cents on the dollar. But actual loss ratios have averaged about 20 percent over the last six years.
It’s worth noting that force-placed policies often provide less protection than cheaper policies available on the open market, a fact often not clearly disclosed. The policies generally protect the lender’s financial interest, not the homeowner’s. If a fire wipes out a house, most force-placed policies would pay only to repair the structure and nothing else.
Lack of Clarity
Homeowners can obviously avoid force-placed insurance by keeping their coverage current. Banks are required to remove the insurance as soon as a homeowner offers proof of other coverage. But the system, as the New York state investigation and countless lawsuits have demonstrated, is defined by a woeful lack of clarity, so much so that Fannie Mae has issued a directive to loan servicers to lower insurance costs and speed up removal times. And it said it would no longer reimburse commissions. The recent settlement with five financial firms over foreclosure abuses also requires banks to limit excessive coverage and ensure policies are purchased “for a commercially reasonable price.”
That’s not enough. Tougher standards should be applied uniformly, regardless of the loan source. Freddie Mac should follow Fannie Mae’s lead and require competitive pricing on the loans it backs. The consumer bureau should require mortgage servicers to reinstate a homeowner’s previous policy whenever possible, or to obtain competitive bids when not.
The bureau should also prevent loan servicers from accepting commissions or, at the very least, prohibit commissions from inflating the premium. It should require servicers to better communicate to borrowers that their policy has lapsed, explain clearly what force-placed insurance will cost and extend a grace period to secure new coverage. Finally, states should follow the example of California, which recently told force-placed insurers to submit lower rates that reflect actual loss ratios.
Many homeowners who experience coverage gaps have severe financial problems that lead them to stop paying their insurance bills. They are already at great risk of foreclosure. Banks and insurers shouldn’t be allowed to add to the likelihood of default by artificially inflating the cost of insurance.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: 9th Amendment, advancing premiums, Benjamin Lawsky, billing and collections, Center for Economic Justice, constitution, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, corruption of title, cost of insurance, deceptive lending, Department of financial Services, fake foreclosures, Fannie MAe, Force Placed Insurance, foreclosure, foreclosure cliff, FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT, foreclosures, fraudulent lending, Freddie Mac, Housing crisis, housing market, insurance policies, insurance subsidiary, mortgage insurance, mortgage servicers, predatory lending, short sales, strangers foreclosing | 45 Comments »