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

Advertisements

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

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

Ormond Beach fighting a plague of zombie homes

Saul Saenz
March 30, 2014

This is one of the zombie house residents in Ormond Beach are trying to fight.

Florida leads the nation in zombie foreclosures.

 

Image

 

 

There’s a group of Ormond Beach homeowners battling a zombie home problem — homes that are standing dead and sucking the life out of entire neighborhoods.

The group is targeting homes that are abandoned and decaying, with so much overgrowth they are hard to look at.

“It is an eyesore and it is exactly a zombie home because we don’t even know at this point who owns the homes,” said Rita Press, president of Citizens for Ormond Beach.

“I think it’s gonna lower the property values if they see a rundown house,” said neighbor Joe Puccino.

The group has identified at least 300 foreclosed homes throughout the city, and numerous abandoned homes with no paper trail that homeowners simply walked away from. One house Press told us about is in the city’s exclusive, historic riverfront district.

The group contacts homeowners in foreclosure to help them through the process before a homes turns into a zombie home. They also want the city to prevent houses from turning into lifeless shells.

But the ultimate goal, Press said, is to get all those homes on the market so that new homeowners can breathe life back into a lifeless Zombie home.

FLORIDA AND ZOMBIE FORECLOSURES

Five of Florida’s housing markets are in the top 10 zombie foreclosures, according to RealtyTrac.

The foreclosure tracking group said there are more than 140,000 homes in Florida that are in zombie mode, or are bank-owned. And zombie homes in Florida are in foreclosure for about 1,095 days.