Disclosure Comparison_CFPB

*** CFPB; know before you owe ***

CFPB-Know-Before-Your-Owe-Mortgage-Disclosure

Mortgages are complex transactions that may include risky features. Consumers currently receive different, but overlapping, federal disclosure forms with the terms and costs of mortgage loans. Because these forms are confusing for consumers, Congress directed us to create new forms. We want you to use the new forms to inform yourself as you consider different loans.

What the new simplified mortgage disclosures mean for consumers

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_tila-respa_what-it-means-for-consumers.pdf

Final rule on simplified and improved mortgage disclosures
Detailed Summary

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_tila-respa_detailed-summary.pdf

CURRENT: Final TIL disclosure + HUD-1 Settlement Statement

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_combined_til_gfe.pdf

NEW: Loan Estimate

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_kbyo_loan-estimate.pdf

CURRENT: Final TIL + HUD-1

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201207_combined_til_hud1.pdf

NEW: Closing Disclosure

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_kbyo_closing-disclosure.pdf

CFPB who let this guy in

petition-pic-CFPB2

Second-Mortgage Case Has Justices Second-Guessing An Old Decision

by Daniel Fisher  3/24/15

Underwater-Mortgages

A case to decide whether homeowners can erase underwater second mortgages through bankruptcy quickly turned into a debate over whether the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the precedent that raised the issue in the first place.

Oral arguments in Bank of America BAC +0.13% vs. Caulkett ostensibly focused on whether the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals should have allowed David Caulkett and a second plaintiff to dispose of their second mortgages in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy courts let them off the hook after determining there was no way the lenders could collect because the properties were worth less than even the first mortgage standing in front of them in them. Coulkett, for example, borrowed $183,ooo through a first mortgage and another $47,855 with a second but his house at the time of foreclosure was only worth $98,000.

The financial crisis left thousands of homeowners in similar straits, and advocates for financial relief argue that second-lien holders can hold a blocking position preventing borrowers from using bankruptcy to negotiate a reduction in principal balances to stay in their homes instead of losing them to foreclosure. In a business bankruptcy, for example, creditors are ranked by priority and holdouts who refuse to negotiate can be forced to accept a loss under a judicial order known as a cramdown.

The Supreme Court ordered different treatment for mortgage lenders in a 1992 decision with the improbable title of Dewsnup v. Timm. That case held that Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize a court to “strip down” a mortgage lien to the current value of the property, eliminating the portion of the debt the lender wouldn’t get even if it seized the land and sold it at foreclosure. The question in Bank ofAmerica v. Caulkett was whether that same reasoning applied to a second lien that was completely underwater, with no hope of collecting anything in a foreclosure sale.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in Dewsnup and came out swinging in today’s arguments. Since Dewsnup was a “terrible decision,” he asked Bank of America’s attorney, Danielle Spinelli of WilmerHale, why shouldn’t the court use a familiar trick and narrow that precedent down to the exact facts in that case? Spinelli said that would leave an illogical distinction between semi-underwater and fully underwater liens and it was better to expand Dewsnup to include lenders in the position of her client.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy both expressed concern that second-mortgage holders with no hope of collecting anything in a foreclosure could nevertheless unfairly block a negotiated settlement in bankruptcy that would benefit borrowers and first-mortgage lenders.

Bankruptcy is supposed to give debtors a fresh start, Sotomayor said, and “if you’re able to hold up that fresh start, that is the concern.”

Full article here

See also: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bank-of-america-n-a-v-caulkett/

Former Fannie Mae Official Sentenced To Federal Prison For Soliciting Kickbacks From Broker Who Sold Foreclosed Properties

8-4-14 from Justice dot gov

SANTA ANA, California – A former sales associate with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was sentenced today to 15 months in federal prison for taking kickbacks from a real estate broker who sold properties on behalf of the mortgage agency.

Fannie Mae mortgage sues nine banks

Armando Granillo, 45, of Huntington Beach, who worked in the Fannie Mae’s Irvine office, was sentenced by United States District Judge David O. Carter.  In addition to his 15 month sentence in federal prison, Granillo was ordered to spend 6 months in a residential reentry center.

Following a two-day trial in March, Granillo was found guilty of three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for soliciting kickbacks while working for Fannie Mae.

As a “real estate owned foreclosure specialist” for Fannie Mae, Granillo reviewed applications submitted by real estate brokers who wanted to list Fannie Mae foreclosure properties, and he had the authority to approve sale offers presented by the brokers. In late 2012, Granillo asked a real estate broker in Tucson to pay a percentage of the commissions the broker earned for selling Fannie Mae foreclosure properties. The broker brought the matter to the attention of federal law enforcement officials and assisting in the investigation.

During subsequent conversations between Granillo and the broker, Granillo demanded 20 percent of the real estate broker’s commissions in exchange for preferential treatment in the assignment and sales of Fannie Mae properties. In February 2012, Granillo traveled from Orange County to the Phoenix area, where he met with the broker. During the recorded meeting, Granillo stated that the kickback arrangement was a “natural part of business.” Granillo promised to increase the broker’s portfolio and ensure that he always had at least 100 listings, to give the broker the best properties, and to help the broker get offers approved by Fannie Mae. Granillo then arranged to receive the $11,200 payment from the broker.

Granillo was arrested in this case on March 5, 2013 during an undercover operation after accepting an $11,200 payment from the real estate broker.

Granillo “violated Fannie Mae and the public’s trust by engaging in a form of public corruption,” prosecutors wrote in a sentencing brief filed with the court. “This crime is akin to those involving governmental officials who solicit bribes in exchange for favorable treatment. The reputational damage is devastating and potentially permanent.”

Fannie Mae is currently under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The investigation into Granillo was conducted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of Inspector General.

Release No. 14-103

See also; http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/08/armando_granillo_fannie_mae_kickback.php

Debt Collectors Harass Americans Even After They’ve Lost Their Homes To Banks

Reuters 10/14/14

By Michelle Conlin

NEW YORK, Oct 14 (Reuters) – Many thousands of Americans who lost their homes in the housing bust, but have since begun to rebuild their finances, are suddenly facing a new foreclosure nightmare: debt collectors are chasing them down for the money they still owe by freezing their bank accounts, garnishing their wages and seizing their assets.

Dept. of common sense
By now, banks have usually sold the houses. But the proceeds of those sales were often not enough to cover the amount of the loan, plus penalties, legal bills and fees. The two big government-controlled housing finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as other mortgage players, are increasingly pressing borrowers to pay whatever they still owe on mortgages they defaulted on years ago.

Using a legal tool known as a “deficiency judgment,” lenders can ensure that borrowers are haunted by these zombie-like debts for years, and sometimes decades, to come. Before the housing bubble, banks often refrained from seeking deficiency judgments, which were seen as costly and an invitation for bad publicity. Some of the biggest banks still feel that way.

But the housing crisis saddled lenders with more than $1 trillion of foreclosed loans, leading to unprecedented losses. Now, at least some large lenders want their money back, and they figure it’s the perfect time to pursue borrowers: many of those who went through foreclosure have gotten new jobs, paid off old debts and even, in some cases, bought new homes.

“Just because they don’t have the money to pay the entire mortgage, doesn’t mean they don’t have enough for a deficiency judgment,” said Florida foreclosure defense attorney Michael Wayslik.

Advocates for the banks say that the former homeowners ought to pay what they owe. Consumer advocates counter that deficiency judgments blast those who have just recovered from financial collapse back into debt – and that the banks bear culpability because they made the unsustainable loans in the first place.
“SLAPPED TO THE FLOOR”

Borrowers are usually astonished to find out they still owe thousands of dollars on homes they haven’t thought about for years.

In 2008, bank teller Danell Huthsing broke up with her boyfriend and moved out of the concrete bungalow they shared in Jacksonville, Florida. Her name was on the mortgage even after she moved out, and when her boyfriend defaulted on the loan, her name was on the foreclosure papers, too.

She moved to St. Louis, Missouri, where she managed to amass $20,000 of savings and restore her previously stellar credit score in her job as a service worker at an Amtrak station.

But on July 5, a process server showed up on her doorstep with a lawsuit demanding $91,000 for the portion of her mortgage that was still unpaid after the home was foreclosed and sold. If she loses, the debt collector that filed the suit can freeze her bank account, garnish up to 25 percent of her wages, and seize her paid-off 2005 Honda Accord.

“For seven years you think you’re good to go, that you’ve put this behind you,” said Huthsing, who cleared her savings out of the bank and stowed the money in a safe to protect it from getting seized. “Then wham, you get slapped to the floor again.”

Bankruptcy is one way out for consumers in this rub. But it has serious drawbacks: it can trash a consumer’s credit report for up to ten years, making it difficult to get credit cards, car loans or home financing. Oftentimes, borrowers will instead go on a repayment plan or simply settle the suits – without questioning the filings or hiring a lawyer – in exchange for paying a lower amount.

Though court officials and attorneys in foreclosure-ravaged regions like Florida, Ohio and Illinois all say the cases are surging, no one keeps official tabs on the number nationally. “Statistically, this is a real difficult task to get a handle on,” said Geoff Walsh, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

Officials in individual counties say that the cases, while virtually zero a year or two ago, now number in the hundreds in each county. Thirty-eight states, along with the District of Columbia, allow financial institutions recourse to claw back these funds.

“I’ve definitely noticed a huge uptick,” said Cook County, Illinois homeowner attorney Sandra Emerson. “They didn’t include language in court motions to pursue these. Now, they do.”

“A CURSE”

Three of the biggest mortgage lenders, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co., all say that they typically don’t pursue deficiency judgments, though they reserve the right to do so. “We may pursue them on a case-by-case basis looking at a variety of factors, including investor and mortgage insurer requirements, the financial status of the borrower and the type of hardship,” said Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda. The banks would not comment on why they avoid deficiency judgments.

Perhaps the most aggressive among the debt pursuers is Fannie Mae. Of the 595,128 foreclosures Fannie Mae was involved in – either through owning or guaranteeing the loans – from January 2010 through June 2012, it referred 293,134 to debt collectors for possible pursuit of deficiency judgments, according to a 2013 report by the Inspector General for the agency’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

It is unclear how many of the loans that get sent to debt collectors actually get deficiency judgments, but the IG urged the FHFA to direct Fannie Mae, along with Freddie Mac, to pursue more of them from the people who could repay them.

It appears as if Fannie Mae is doing just that. In Florida alone in the past year, for example, at least 10,000 lawsuits have been filed – representing hundreds of millions of dollars of payments, according to Jacksonville, Florida-based attorney Chip Parker.

Parker is about to file a class action lawsuit against the Dallas-based debt collection company, Dyck O’Neal, which is working to recoup the money on behalf of Fannie Mae. The class action will allege that Dyck O’Neal violated fair debt collection practices by suing people in the state of Florida who actually lived out of state. Dyck O’Neal declined to comment.

In Lee County, Florida, for example, Dyck O’Neal only filed four foreclosure-related deficiency judgment cases last year. So far this year, it has filed 360 in the county, which has more than 650,000 residents and includes Ft. Myers. The insurer the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company has also filed about 1,000 cases this past year in Florida alone.

Andrew Wilson, a spokesman for Fannie Mae, said the finance giant is focusing on “strategic defaulters:” those who could have paid their mortgages but did not. Fannie Mae analyzes borrowers’ ability to repay based on their open credit lines, assets, income, expenses, credit history, mortgages and properties, according to the 2013 IG report. “Fannie Mae and the taxpayers suffered a loss. We’re focusing on people who had the ability to make a payment but decided not to do so,” said Wilson.

Freddie Mac spokesman Brad German said the decision to pursue deficiency judgments for any particular loan is made on a “case-by-case basis.”

The FHFA declined to comment.

But homeowner-defense lawyers point out that separating strategic defaulters from those who were in real distress can be tricky. If a distressed borrower suddenly manages to improve their financial position – by, for example, getting a better-paying job – they can be classified as a strategic defaulter.

Dyck O’Neal works with most national lenders and servicing companies to collect on charged-off residential real estate. It purchases foreclosure debts outright, often for pennies on the dollar, and also performs collections on a contingency basis on behalf of entities like Fannie Mae. “The debt collectors tend to be much more aggressive than the lenders had been,” the National Consumer Law Center’s Walsh said.

A big reason for the new surge in deficiency claims, attorneys say, is that states like Florida have recently enacted laws limiting the time financial institutions have to sue for the debt after a foreclosure. In Florida, for example, financial institutions now only have a year after a foreclosure sale to sue – down from five.

Once financial institutions secure a judgment, they can sometimes have years to collect on the claim. In Maryland, for example, they have as long as 36 years to chase people down for the debt. Financial institutions can charge post-judgment interest of an estimated 4.75 percent a year on the remaining balance until the statute of limitation runs out, which can drive people deeper into debt.

“This is monumentally unfair and damaging to the economy,” said Ira Rheingold, the executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “It prevents people from moving forward with their lives.”

Software developer Doug Weinberg was just getting back on his feet when he got served in July with a $61,000 deficiency judgment on his old condo in Miami’s Biscayne Bay. Weinberg thought the ordeal was over after Bank of America, which rejected Weinberg’s short sale offers, foreclosed in 2009.

“It’s a curse,” said Weinberg. “It’s still haunting me. It just doesn’t go away.” (Reporting by Michelle Conlin in New York; Editing by Dan Wilchins and Martin Howell)

Massive new fraud coverup: How banks are pillaging homes — while the government watches

WEDNESDAY, APR 23, 2014

When financial crimes go unpunished, the root problem of fraud never gets fixed — and these are the consequences

Image

Eric Holder (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

Joseph and Mary Romero of Chimayo, N.M., found that their mortgage note was assigned to the Bank of New York three months after the same bank filed a foreclosure complaint against them; in other words, Bank of New York didn’t own the loan when they tried to foreclose on it.

Glenn and Ann Holden of Akron, Ohio, faced foreclosure from Deutsche Bank, but the company filed two different versions of the note at court, each bearing a stamp affirming it as the “true and accurate copy.”

Mary McCulley of Bozeman, Mont., had her loan changed by U.S. Bank without her knowledge, from a $300,000 30-year loan to a $200,000 loan due in 18 months, and in documents submitted to the court, U.S. Bank included four separate loan applications with different terms.

All of these examples, from actual court cases resolved over the last two months, rendered rare judgments in favor of homeowners over banks and mortgage lenders. But despite the fact that the nation’s courtrooms remain active crime scenes, with backdated, forged and fabricated documents still sloshing around them, state and federal regulators have not filed new charges of misconduct against Bank of New York, Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank or any other mortgage industry participant, since the round of national settlements over foreclosure fraud effectively closed the issue.

Many focus on how the failure to prosecute financial crimes, by Attorney General Eric Holder and colleagues, create a lack of deterrent for the perpetrators, who will surely sin again. But there’s something else that happens when these crimes go unpunished; the root problem, the legacy of fraud, never gets fixed. In this instance, the underlying ownership on potentially millions of loans has been permanently confused, and the resulting disarray will cause chaos for decades into the future, harming homeowners, investors and the broader economy. Holder’s corrupt bargain, to let Wall Street walk, comes at the cost of permanent damage to the largest market in the world, the U.S. residential housing market.

By now we know the details: During the run-up to the housing bubble, banks bought up millions of mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them around the world. Amid the frenzy, lenders failed to follow basic property laws, which ensure legitimate transfers of mortgages from one legal owner to another. When mass foreclosures resulted from the bubble’s collapse, banks who could not demonstrate they owned the loans got caught trying to cover up the irregularities with false documents. Federal authorities made the offenders pay fines, much of which banks paid with other people’s money. But the settlements put a Band-Aid over the misconduct. Nobody went in, loan by loan, to try to equitably confirm who owns what.

Now, the lid banks and the government tried to place on the situation has begun to boil over. For example, Bank of America really wants to exit the mortgage servicing business, because it now finds it unprofitable. The bank entered into a deal to sell off all the servicing for loans backed by the Government National Mortgage Association (often known as Ginnie Mae). But Ginnie Mae refused the sale, because the loans Bank of America serviced are missing critical documents, including the recorded mortgages themselves.

If you’re a mortgage servicer, and you don’t possess the recorded mortgage, you probably aren’t able to foreclose on that loan without fabricating the document. And Ginnie Mae made it clear that the problem could go beyond Bank of America. “I don’t mean to sound like we’re picking on BofA,” Ginnie Mae president Ted Tozer told trade publication National Mortgage News. “I can’t say if it’s just BofA or not.” Incredibly, this would represent the first time a government agency has actually examined loan files under its control to search for missing documents, seven years after the collapse of the housing bubble and four years after the recognition of mass document fabrication.

Any effort to fix the system would start by reforming MERS, the electronic database banks use to track mortgage trades (and avoid fees they would incur from county clerks with every transfer). MERS was part of a broad settlement in 2011 with federal regulators, and they promised to improve the quality control over their database to avoid errors and fraudulent assignments. Three years later, the fixes haven’t happened, and four senior officers brought in to comply with the settlement have left. MERS then tried to hire a consultant to manage the settlement terms whom U.S. regulators found unqualified for the job.

The database still tracks roughly half of all U.S. home loans, and banks fear that without changes, they might have to – horrors – actually go back to recording mortgages individually with the county clerks! You know, the property law system that the nation somehow survived under for more than 200 years.

Link to full article here