Showing posts with label Mortgage-backed security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mortgage-backed security. Show all posts

Friday, August 26, 2011

BEAU BIDEN, GOOD MOVE.


Beau Biden, Delaware AG, Moves To [Intervene in the proposed] Bank Of America Mortgage Deal, Signaling Concerns

Beaubiden
First Posted: 8/5/11 06:22 PM ET Updated: 8/5/11 06:57 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden signaled his intent Friday to intervene in a proposed $8.5 billion settlement over troubled mortgage securities between Bank of America and a group of investors, uniting with his New York counterpart Eric Schneiderman, who argued a day earlier that the deal is unfair and its participants committed fraud.
Ian McConnell, director of Biden's consumer protection unit, told a New York state judge that the state of Delaware intends to file paperwork early next week asking to become a full party in the suit. If granted, that status would allow the state to comment on and question virtually every move "from start to finish" as Bank of America and the investors attempt to end their multi-billion dollar spat.
It would also give Delaware the right to investigate the claims the deal strives to settle, like whether the lender and the other bank involved in the case, Bank of New York Mellon, followed state law when creating these mortgage securities, and when they moved to foreclose on homeowners who defaulted on their obligations.
The two attorneys general represent states whose laws govern nearly all mortgage securitization trusts, vehicles that bundle home loans and issue notes to investors. Both offices have teamed up to investigate allegations that Wall Street firms failed to properly assemble loan documents in accordance with their states' laws when creating mortgage securities.
Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, argued in court papers Thursday that the bank overseeing the trusts, Bank of New York Mellon, "knowingly, repeatedly, and consistently" misled investors into thinking that the mortgage bonds were created properly. The bank also put its own interests before those of the investors it was supposed to be representing, he said.
BNY Mellon, one of the largest U.S. banks by assets, engaged in "repeated fraud and illegality," Schneiderman charged, which occurred "literally hundreds of times."
Schneiderman linked the paperwork failures to the foreclosure crisis, arguing that the alleged shortcomings in gathering and processing documents effectively had led to "foreclosure fraud," like in cases that involved so-called "robo-signing."
A BNY Mellon spokesman called Schneiderman's charges "baseless." McConnell declined to comment on Schneiderman's allegations.
The action by Schneiderman and Biden threaten the proposed accord between BofA and 22 of the world's most prominent investors. The investors had demanded Bank of America repurchase home loans packaged into 530 mortgage trusts with a original loan balance of $424 billion. The proposed $8.5 billion payout represents less than 4 cents on the dollar of the current unpaid balance, or about $220 billion, according to Bank of America's most recently quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
McConnell said in a phone interview that 527 of the trusts were created per New York law. The remaining three are governed by Delaware law, he said.
"We have enough information to think we have reasons to be concerned," McConnell said. "There may be serious issues regarding conflicts and concerns over the general value proposition of the deal for Delaware investors."
Bank of America is effectively indemnifying BNY Mellon for costs and liabilities arising from its duties as trustee. Some investors not party to the current deal have charged that BNY Mellon has a conflict of interest. New York's top law enforcement officer agrees.
"There's a paucity of information," McConnell said of the settlement deal and of how the final dollar figures were derived. "We'd be in a position to gather more information" when Delaware joins the suit, he added.
Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender when purchased by BofA in 2008, failed to properly pool loan documents needed for the creation of mortgage securities, and BNY Mellon effectively looked the other way in its role as overseer of these instruments, Schneiderman said in court documents. This "apparently triggered widespread fraud," he said.
BNY Mellon should have known the mortgage securities were improperly created because the evidence was "abundant," Schneiderman said, citing the bank's own documents, news coverage of the issue and foreclosure actions brought on BNY Mellon's behalf.
In addition, Schneiderman accused Bank of America of fabricating the missing documents when it came to foreclosing on homeowners who defaulted on their loans.
If the settlement is not finalized, Bank of America's future mortgage-related losses could be "substantially different" than what the lender has set aside and already braced investors for, the bank said in its filing.
Shares of Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank by assets, touched $8.03 in New York trading on Friday, a 52-week low. They're down 26 percent over the past month.
The cost to protect Bank of America's bonds against default have surged more than 17 percent since last Friday, according to Markit.
It now costs $207,000 to protect $10 million of BofA's debt, as of Friday's close. Last week, it cost just $176,000. The price of credit protection generally increases as investor confidence deteriorates.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 4, 2011

GREAT READER COMMENT

A READER EXPLAINS IT

Years back the banks began to turn a mortgage into a commodity, with good paying mortgages, then they saw they were running out of this commodity, so the big banks, including Fannie & Freddie started approving loans to almost anyone and everyone, not so much to just give that person a home to have, but they were more concerned about creating more of the commodity. More securities to sell to investors. They even knew some home owners would not last several years or several months, as long as they could say to investors, "Hey, we have more mortgage backed securities to sell”. 

Now, to sell all these securities, they would have to create a mortgage assignment which is normally recorded with the county land recorders office for a fee. Physically, that would take up too much time and money, so the big banks invented and created MERS,(Mortgage Electronic Registration System). This electronic service was only created to track mortgages sold and bought in the secondary securities market. MERS legally has no invested interest in the mortgage, so they truly are not able to transfer or assign the mortgage acting as a nominee of the loan. But they are! Wrong. The chain of title of the mortgage is broken right here at this very early stage. The mortgage/note has to be assigned from one owning entity to the next owning entity. MERS never owns the loan, but they are creating and are listed on assignments at the local land recorders office. Now that the mortgage was bundled, sold and bought back and forth with investors, no continuing assignments are recorded with the county recorders office. By not recording these documents, Fannie & Freddie & and all your Big Mortgage Servicing banks are saving millions-billions on recording fees, and possible taxes, etc.

What I have found was that the Servicer of the mortgage is listed with the county recorders office as if they own the mortgage, while Fannie & Freddie or other Big Banks are selling the bundled mortgages as securities. Kind of like a Pizza shop cooking pizza legitimately up front, and a mobster selling off investments in the back. (Racketeering). The Servicer up front really is not the owner of the loan, and they tell you this. They also admit that your loan is owned by Freddy or Fannie, or the Investors. So when the Servicer now tries to foreclose on a homeowner, they are not truly the owner of the loan, and you have to own the loan to foreclose!!! Many never even question the Servicer and walk away from their home. Now to foreclose as quick as they can, that’s where the robosigners come in. These people do not review anything in the foreclosure paperwork about the loan, but only sign a name on the affidavit page on thousands of mortgages to get the foreclosure going before any homeowners begin to catch on.

You see, its a matter of a quick process the Servicing banks want to achieve in order to get the property in their possession, only to sell it. The crazy thing is, when the originating bank gives the loan, then sells it to the 2nd bank which mostly ends up being the servicer, they again sell it to the 2 major players (Freddie & Fannie) and they sell the mortgage back securities to investors. So the servicing bank gets paid for the mortgage and still collects payments toward the mortgage and a percentage goes to the Servicer, Fannie & Freddie and the Investor. So they are all making money. Then the Servicing bank comes to foreclose and if they are allowed to foreclose they get the home without true ownership, even though the loan is actually sold off into bits and pieces to investors. I can go on further, but to conclude, if this were a murder case, I would call this act of the banks premeditated, not an accident. This was all planned out in order to reach the highest profit they could using the mortgage backed securities as a commodity, and have total disregard, deliberately, intentionally ruining the lives of millions of homeowners. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 16, 2011

WELLS FARGO, LYING THEN, OR NOW? LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT DOESN'T CUT IT.

LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT GOES DOWN IN FLAMES IN IOWA

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEFEATED IN IOWA; TWO SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS IN NEVADA
July 14, 2011, 2 hours ago | Jeff Barnes
July 14, 2011
An Iowa District Court has issued a 5-page Order denying Wells Fargo’s
(second) Motion for Summary Judgment. Wells Fargo had originally been
granted summary judgment against the borrower, who was pro se at the
time, in 2005 based upon a sworn affidavit that Wells Fargo was the
holder of the note. The borrower had filed an affidavit which stated
that she had spoken to Wells Fargo and was told that the “investor” on
her loan was Lehman. The case languished in an appellate posture and
was continued for various reasons.
Jeff Barnes, Esq. began representing the borrower in early 2010 with
local Iowa counsel Christine Sand, Esq., who immediately initiated
extensive discovery. The Court ordered Wells Fargo to submit an
original of the Note by July 20, 2010. The next day (after the time
for compliance with the Court’s Order had already passed), Wells Fargo
filed a Motion for additional time to comply with the Order, and a
Motion to Substitute Plaintiff which stated that pursuant to a
servicing agreement between Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers Bank FSB
that the holder of the note and mortgage was Lehman. The 2005 summary
judgment was thus vacated.
Wells Fargo filed a “lost note affidavit” a month later on August 20,
2010 which the Court found did not disclose the specific facts in the
“record of account” which was reviewed by the Wells Fargo affiant upon
which she based her conclusion. On February 23, 2011, Wells Fargo
filed an Amended Foreclosure Petition alleging that Wells Fargo was
the owner and holder of the note and that Lehman Brothers Bank, Lehman
Brothers Holdings, and a securitized mortgage loan trust of which US
Bank was the “trustee” were added “for the purposes of quieting title
to subject property and to comply with” Iowa statutory law. The court
noted that it was unclear what form of relief was being sought with
the addition of these parties.
Wells Fargo filed another affidavit executed by the same Wells Fargo
affiant who executed the “lost note” affidavit. This “new” affidavit
stated that the original note and mortgage were sent to Wells Fargo’s
prior counsel in November 2004 and were lost while in the custody of
said counsel. The Court again found that the affiant did not state the
facts upon which the affiant relied for her conclusions nor what parts
of the file she reviewed upon which she relied.
In its Reply to the borrower’s opposition (which is termed
“Resistance” in Iowa) to Wells Fargo’s second Motion for Summary
Judgment, Wells Fargo attached a copy of a lost note affidavit which
the Court stated was “purportedly” executed by Wells Fargo’s attorney
in 2005. Wells Fargo’s current counsel represented to the Court in its
Reply that Wells Fargo’s previous counsel filed a lost note affidavit
on March 28, 2005. The Court stated that it had reviewed both the
docket sheet and the court file and found no evidence that the
original of the alleged 2005 lost note affidavit was ever filed.
Based on these matters, the Court found that there were factual issues
as to whether or not the note has been lost and whether the note has
been “transferred”, and denied summary judgment to Wells Fargo on its
foreclosure claim.
Our question to Wells Fargo is, were you lying then or are you lying
now? Round and around and around we go, and where Wells Fargo and its
attorneys will stop, nobody knows! Note, note, who has the note?
Lehman? Lehman Holdings? The USBank securitization? None of the above?
Separately, the Supreme Court of Nevada issued two opinions on July 7,
2011 which finally compel foreclosing parties in Nevada to produce
material documentation as to chain of title to the Note and Deed of
Trust in order to be permitted to continue with a foreclosure action
when mediation is requested. in Leyva v. National Default Servicing et
al., No. 55216, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 40, the Supreme Court held
that strict compliance is required with Nevada statutes governing the
production of certain documents including any assignment of the Deed
of Trust; that a foreclosing party’s failure to do so “is a
sanctionable offense; and the district court is prohibited from
allowing the foreclosure process to proceed”. Wells Fargo was also the
culprit in this case.
Significantly, in discussing the transfer of the Note, the Supreme
Court of Nevada cited to the recent In Re Veal decision from the 9th
Circuit Bankruptcy Appeals Panel (which was previously discussed on
this website), holding that the borrower “has the right to know the
identity of the entity that is ‘entitled to enforce’ the mortgage note
under Article 3 (of the Uniform Commercial Code).” The Court concluded
that Article 3 “clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than
mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a
negotiable instrument”. The court found that there was no endorsement
and no assignment, and reversed the District Court.
The opinion in Leyva cited to the Court’s opinion in Pasillas v. HSBC
Bank as Trustee, No. 56393, 127 Nev. Advance Opinion 39 (also decided
July 7, 2011), which also reversed the District Court and also cited
to Veal , setting forth the requirements for production of evidence of
chain of title to the note and Deed of Trust in a foreclosure.
The multiple citations to Veal, which is a Federal Bankruptcy
appellate court opinion, by the state Supreme Court of Nevada, is more
than important. It demonstrates that simply because a foreclosure
issue is decided by a Bankruptcy court does not mean that it is not
applicable to a non-Bankruptcy (or non-Federal) foreclosure case. Time
and again, when we argue that an issue in a state foreclosure case has
already been decided by a Bankruptcy court in the foreclosure context,
attorneys representing foreclosing “lenders” and servicers argue
“Well, Judge, that was a Bankruptcy case, and we are not in Bankruptcy
Court”. Leyva and Pasillas have now put that argument to bed. If a
Federal Bankruptcy decision is good enough for the Supreme Court of
Nevada in two separate opinions, it should be good enough for any
state court.
We thank one of our dedicated readers for alerting us to these two
highly significant Nevada decisions.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefensenationwide.com
Be the first to like this post.

One Response

  1. Thank you Neil for again calling attention to these matters, my own court case continues to grow. I forgot a number of things, and repetition is KEY…..Thank You.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 11, 2011

PRO SE EMPLOYEE WINS ARBITRATION CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO!

Wells Fargo Loses
FINRA Arbitration Case to
Pro Se Former Employee


In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in January 2011, Claimant Wells Fargo sought $11,000 in damages, $1,475.00 in filing fees, and $3,300.00 in collection fees for an amount owed pursuant to the terms of an Investment Broker Agreement and subsequent settlement agreement. Claimant Wells Fargo was represented by its in-house legal counsel Michael Naccarato, Esq. Respondent DeBord represented himself pro se.

In the FINRA Arbitration Between Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, formerly known as Wachovia Securities LLC, Claimant, vs. Laurence Debord,Respondent (FINRA Arbitration 11-00135, June 29, 2011)

You Lose — Because I Say So

In adjudicating this FINRA arbitration, the sole FINRA Arbitrator advises us that
1) Claimant’s claim is denied in its entirety. 2) Claimant’s request for interest is denied. 3) Claimant’s request for costs is denied. 4) All other relief requests are denied. 5) FINRA Dispute Resolution shall retain the $1,050.00 filing fee previously deposited by Claimant. OTHER FEES: Claimant was assessed the $425.00 Member Surcharge.

Bill Singer’s Comment

I mean, really? 
Claimant Wells Fargo, a humongous financial services firm, files a FINRA Arbitration for a lousy $11,000 in compensatory damages, plus all the add-on fees and costs they can toss in there.  Apparently, we got to this point after Debord told Wells Fargo that he ain’t repaying them anywhere near what they wanted and, you know — bring it on!. 
And when all was said in done, wow, did Claimant Wells Fargo miscalculate.  Little Mr. Debord, with not so much as a single overpriced defense lawyer, ducked all that Wells Fargo tossed his way, flung his puny stone smack dab between their eyes, and stepped back as the giant tumbled down. Goose eggs. Zero. Nada. Zip. That was all Wells Fargo had to show for it’s FINRA arbitration claim against Debord. In the terse words of the sole FINRA Arbitrator: denied, denied, denied, and denied.
Frankly, for such a dramatic shut-out, it might have been just a tad helpful — dare I say, informative? — if the FINRA Decision provided the barest bones of Arbitrator’s rationale for this outcome. 
Was Wells Fargo’s case garbage to start with?
Was pro se litigant Debord an attorney who previously argued before the United States Supreme Court, and he stunned the FINRA Arbitrator with his brilliant legal defense?
Was the FINRA arbitrator outraged by Wells Fargo’s claims or enamored with the Respondent?
Given the unequal positions of these two litigants and the basic you-owe-us premise of the case, how the hell did Claimant Wells Fargo lose this one?  Alas, guess away. I can’t contribute much else beyond barely contained anger.  Frankly, it’s a damn shame that FINRA, once again, believes that arbitration by titillation is appropriate. 


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, July 10, 2011

IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION, 09-1376, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE) WELLS FARGO'S MBS BACKED BY POOLS OF TOXIC MORTGAGE LOANS BASED ON INFLATED APPRAISALS

July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $125 million to settle accusations by investors that the bank misled them about the risks of mortgage-backed securities it sold.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated group case, or class action, include the General Retirement System of Detroit, New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System and other public pensions, according to the proposed settlement filed yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California.
Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. home lender, and several investment banks that underwrote the securities were sued in 2009 over alleged violations of securities laws in connection with sales of $36 billion in mortgage pass-through certificates in 2005 and 2006.
The securities were backed by pools of mortgage loans that Wells Fargo or its affiliates originated or purchased. In 28 offerings, the bank misrepresented the quality of the loans, failing to disclose that it hadn’t followed appropriate underwriting standards and loans were made based on inflated appraisals, investors said in a complaint.
The bank and the underwriters deny wrongdoing, according to the proposed accord, which is subject to a judge’s approval.
“The proposed settlement agreement is a negotiated resolution as to all named defendants and is intended to avoid the distraction and expense of litigation,” Ancel Martinez, a Wells Fargo spokesman, said in a telephone interview.
State Court Claims
The bank still faces claims in state courts in California, Illinois and Indiana filed by individual investors and federal home loan banks seeking to rescind billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities purchases.
“It’s a very favorable outcome and will be significant for investors,” David Stickney, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview.
Bank of America Corp. agreed on June 29 to pay $8.5 billion to resolve investor claims over sales of bonds backed by home loans by Countrywide Financial Corp., which it had acquired in 2008. The settlement covers 530 mortgage trusts with an original loan balance of $424 billion, the bank said.
The case is In Re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation, 09-1376, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
--Editors: Fred Strasser, Andrew Dunn
To contact the reporters on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco federal court at kgullo@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.

Enhanced by Zemanta

MBS FRAUD COSTS WELLS FARGO, AGAIN.

Wells Fargo to pay $125 million in mortgage suit

Published: Friday, Jul. 8, 2011 - 2:17 pm
Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to pay $125 million to a group of pension funds and other investors to settle allegations the bank failed to warn investors of the risks the poorly-written mortgage backed securities.
The proposed settlement was filed Wednesday in a California federal court and represents lawsuits filed by the pension funds of Detroit, Alameda County, New Orleans, Guam, and other plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to court approval.
The mortgage-backed securities were sold by Wells Fargo in 2005 and 2006. The investors said in their complaint that in its bid to collect fees, the bank misstated and omitted details that show the securities were backed by poor quality mortgages sold to people without proper documentation. The bank denied any wrongdoing.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/08/3756889/wells-fargo-to-pay-125-million.html#ixzz1RhTjxiyd

Enhanced by Zemanta