Talk about yet another sell out

Common sense says if you add this up right, it comes to 500- 600 dollars per mortgage . can you say.. screwed again?

 

Bank of America Announces Agreement with Freddie Mac on Mortgage Repurchase Claims

Mon December 2, 2013 7:30 AM  | about: BAC

   

NEWS PROVIDED BY:

Business Wire

Agreement Resolves All Outstanding and Potential Residential Mortgage Representation and Warranties Claims for Loans Sold to Freddie Mac Through the End of 2009
Payments Covered by Existing Reserves as of September 30, 2013
CHARLOTTE, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Bank of America (BAC) today announced an agreement with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) to resolve all remaining representations and warranties claims for residential mortgage loans sold to Freddie Mac through the end of 2009.
Under terms of the agreement, Bank of America will pay Freddie Mac a total of $404 million (less credits of $13 million) to resolve all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims related to loans sold to Freddie Mac from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009, and to compensate Freddie Mac for certain past losses and potential future losses relating to denials, rescissions and cancellations of mortgage insurance. The payments are fully covered by existing reserves as of September 30, 2013.
Previously, Bank of America announced an agreement with Freddie Mac to resolve all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims related to whole loans sold by legacy Countrywide to Freddie Mac through 2008, and a pair of agreements with Fannie Mae that, taken together, resolved all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims related to whole loans sold by legacy Countrywide and legacy Bank of America to Fannie Mae through 2008.
With this settlement, Bank of America has resolved all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims on whole loans sold by legacy Bank of America and Countrywide (CFC) to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the dates outlined above, subject to certain exceptions which Bank of America does not believe are material.
Todays agreement does not cover loan servicing obligations, loans contained in private label securitizations or securities and disclosure claims.
Bank of America
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. We serve approximately 51 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,200 retail banking offices and approximately 16,200 ATMs and award-winning online banking with 30 million active users and more than 14 million mobile users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes, serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to approximately 3 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients through operations in more than 40 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Wamu, Chase and the decision that can change lives

Sadly I have said this all along.

Shack Blasts Chase, Fannie Mae for Bad Faith on Wamu Merger

It is obvious that documents were produced for Shack to issue these rulings. The affidavits to which he refers should be obtained in their entirety. There is lots to take away from this decision, but most important, is that Chase never acquired the loans from WAMU. The loans originated or acquired by WAMU were already sold to investors, trusts and Fannie or Freddie. The issue with Fannie and Freddie of course is that they were merely fronting for "private label" securitizations hiding behind the veil of the GSE's who were mere guarantors and not lenders. I'd like to see any agreement and transactional documents showing the alleged purchase by Fannie, but it is presumed in the Shack Order and Findings.

It is also obvious that the finding that Chase was not the owner of the debt at any time came from an admission from both a Fannie Mae representative in an affidavit from an alleged Fannie Mae representative. We should direct discovery in Chase cases to that person in Fannie Mae who says they acquired the subject debt and that Chase merely received the servicing rights in the Chase-WAMU merger.

Note that Fannie Mae is considered by Shack to have acted in bad faith, and that Fannie was less than forthcoming in its description of itself stating that they might be the owner or they might be the trustee (pursuant to the Master Trustee Agreement published in 2007) for a securitized trust. Note also that Fannie at no time was chartered as a lender. Thus it could not originate any loans and never did so. The vagueness with which Fannie Mae addresses the issue of ownership shows that the hiding and non-disclosure in bankruptcy courts and state courts continues across the country.

The admission from Fannie that they "might" be the Master trustee for allegedly securitized assets (debts arising out of fictitious transactions on paper that looked like mortgage loans) is both alarming and encouraging. The rush to foreclosure is partially explained by this chaotic pile of fraudulent paper trails.

When you take into account the non stop servicer advances, you can see what the parties are hiding --- that the real creditor on those debts, has been paid all the interest they were expecting, that the principal is being paid in settlements with pennies on the dollar, and that the default alleged in notices from servicers and informing the borrower of the right to reinstate were defective, to wit: that the amount stated as required to cure the alleged default was and remains incorrect. The amount should have been reduced by third party payments including but not limited to the servicer advances which were not loans, and thus could only be characterized as PAYMENT, which is the ultimate defense against a lawsuit or any enforcement mechanism designed to collect a debt.

The dirty little secret is that they diverted title and money from the investors and converted what could have been a secured loan into an unsecured loan. The advances and payments by third parties satisfied the debt that arose when the borrower took the loan. They in turn MIGHT have claims for contribution or unjust enrichment but they are most certainly not protected by a pledge of collateral either as mortgage or assignment of rents or anything else.

Note that it could not have acquired loans except with money from what were represented as securitized trusts with Fannie as master Trustee. Therefore there are no circumstances under which Fannie or Freddie could be owners of the the debt with rights to enforce except upon the only event in which money is paid by Fannie for the loan --- a guarantee payment AFTER FORECLOSURE) that is the only transaction permitted under its charter. This point was missed by Shack or ignored by him, because he had bigger fish to fry --- the lawyers for Chase itself with a copy of the order to be served upon Jamie Dimon, the head of Chase.
The fact is that with the WAMU bankruptcy, seizure by OTS and appointment of FDIC, there were no assignments, agreements of sale or even a permission slip under which Chase could or did acquire loans from WAMU. But that didn't stop Chase from claiming exactly that in tens of thousands of foreclosures.
In cases where Chase is allegedly at the root of title through the merger with WAMU, it would be appropriate to site to the Shack case, get the case documents, get a Title and Securitization report (see http://www.livingliesstore.com) and lawyers should look into a motion for summary judgment, or a motion for involuntary dismissal with prejudice. Even where Chase might allege that it is filing the foreclosure as a representative of Fannie or Freddie, the basis for that allegation needs to be in their pleading or it is not an ULTIMATE fact upon which relief could be granted. Discovery should be aimed at getting the documents upon which Chase allegedly relies in showing that it has the authority to represent Fannie --- and don't stop there. The truth is that nearly all the so-called Fannie and Freddie loans were veils for the private label securitization in which the money was diverted from the trust, as was the title, leaving Fannie and Freddie as well as the investors and the buyers holding nothing.

In cases where the statute of limitations has already run, the dismissal of the foreclosure action, is barred in most cases from ever being brought again by anyone. But the dismissal against Chase should be with prejudice in all events because it isn't the creditor and therefore does not satisfy the statutory requirements in Florida, and I presume all other states, to submit a credit bid at auction in lieu of cash.
The Judges are beginning to understand that by applying basic contract law, they can clear their dockets. It is up to us to help them. The offer of a loan was met with acceptance by the borrower but the loan never occurred. The transfers also had offer and acceptance but again no money because the investors' money was used (outside the trust) directly to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan. This was part of a larger scheme to defraud to investors whose money was to have been deposited into the trust and then used to fund origination or acquisition of the he loans within 90 days (the cutoff).

The investment bank fraudulently induced (see complaints filed by investors, insurers, government guarantee entities etc.) the investors to give them money for an investment into a controlled trust when in fact they diverted the money for their own purposes, taking outsized fees for themselves as the toxic loans materialized to "support" the alleged investment into loans. That is the "mismanagement" part of investors' allegations --- diversion of money into a PONZI scheme.

The investment bank fraudulently diverted title to the loans to strawman entities or were --- sometimes even by name (see American Brokers Conduit) --- mere conduits for undisclosed third party lenders. The argument that the parties managed to hide this from the borrower long enough for the statute of limitations to run out on TILA claims is an affront to the court system and to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress to protect borrowers from predatory lenders and "steal" deals where huge fees were taken, rather than earned, without disclosure to the Borrower.

So the first element of fraud alleged by investors is diversion of the the money. The second is diversion of the paperwork that would have protected the investors at least to some extent. In this scheme title to the loan papers was intentionally diverted from the owners of the the debt, thus rendering the so-called mortgage documents unenforceable --- all alleged by investors, insurers and other co-obligors who have discovered to their chagrin that each of them paid the investment bank 100 cents on the the dollar on each loan multiple times.

And yet borrowers continue to seek modifications, which means they are not looking for free houses. Even knowing they are dealing with criminals the borrowers are willing to start paying these thieves if the terms can be adjusted to give them the benefit of the bargain that was intended at origination of the purchase money mortgage or refinancing or second mortgage or HELOC.

That leaves the servicers and their lawyers being the only ones who want Foreclosures because they want a free house and/or they want the foreclosure to recapture Servicer advances to the creditors --- advances that vastly reduce the amount owed and which cure the alleged borrower default. That has now become a foreclosure folly in which the servicers and their lawyers are the only parties who want it. The investors don't care because they are getting settlements for the fraud of the investment banks for creating unenforceable loan documents (that are frequently enforced anyway because of judicial ignorance) and diversion of investor money.

In the end, the "clean hands" that Shack talks about are clearly absent from both Servicer and government sponsored entities and as judge Shack states in his decision, wrongdoers should not be permitted to profitf or their wrongdoing. If that means a windfall to the borrower, so be it. It can be likened to the old usury laws and the current usury laws where the principal of the debt is wiped out and the fraudster is hit with a judgment for three times the principal, three times the interest or both.

Again, you need to dig  deeper, JP/Chase had a number of Washington Mutual loans given to them by the FDIC, and were charged off by JP/Chase. Than Chase made deals after claiming to own these loans with hedge funds selling them at pennies on the dollar and writing off second loans as paid and satisfied as part of the deal , so hedge funds could foreclose, and than JP/Chase turned around and later said to the homeowner, ( who they already told them they owned the loans) were sorry we made a mistake. NO !! Its time the banks and CEO start paying for this abuse, and its stop being the homeowner who is the one losing for a crime they didn't commit!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT OVER till all the truth comes out.

JPMorgan Chase Discussing $11 Billion Settlement To End Crisis-Era Mortgage Probes

Posted: 09/25/2013 6:46 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Federal and state authorities are discussing an $11 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase that would resolve numerous allegations of mortgage-related improprieties in the years before the financial crisis, according to people familiar with the ongoing negotiations.
The deal, if struck, would settle claims brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the New York attorney general and end at least three separate investigations by U.S. attorneys' offices in New York, California and Pennsylvania. The potential deal would involve a $7 billion cash payment and $4 billion in mortgage modifications for troubled borrowers.
The negotiations are “developing by the hour," one person familiar with the talks said. It’s possible no deal will be struck, or that it could be much more limited and resolve only one or a few of the various probes.
The bulk of the $7 billion cash payment being discussed would go to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage giants regulated by FHFA. The agency, led by Edward DeMarco, claims Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were duped into buying junk mortgage-backed securities issued by JPMorgan and the financial companies it purchased in 2008, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.
FHFA filed its lawsuit against JPMorgan and separately sued more than a dozen other leading financial institutions in September 2011. The agency is trying to reclaim billions of dollars in losses sustained by the two mortgage giants, which were rescued by taxpayers at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
The rest of the funds would be split between shoring up the Federal Housing Administration, which has claims against the bank for allegedly defrauding taxpayers on FHA loans; New York state; the U.S. government; and distressed homeowners, who could apply for mortgage assistance.
FHA, a government agency inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development that insures loans traditionally made to first-time home buyers and others unable to stump up big down payments, is likely to tap the U.S. Treasury for a bailout as a result of depleted reserves caused by soured loans.

JPMorgan has been resisting such a large payment, government officials said. But JPMorgan has an incentive to settle as many government probes as possible by Oct. 11, when the bank reports third-quarter earnings. Already, the bank has cautioned investors that it expects to incur a significant cost due to the various government-driven legal claims it faces.
Equity analysts who cover JPMorgan for investors have said the bank’s legal liability could depress its stock price and future earnings.
The various government entities also have an incentive to strike a mass settlement rather than file separate cases in court that could take years to resolve, particularly if the current settlement involves reduced payments or lowered loan balances for troubled borrowers.
Representatives for the Justice Department, FHFA, JPMorgan, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declined to comment.
JPMorgan faces a litany of accusations of mortgage-related misdeeds, according to its securities filings.
U.S. attorneys offices in California and Pennsylvania are investigating the bank’s allegedly misleading sales of mortgage-backed securities, according to securities filings and people familiar with the probes. In one case, federal prosecutors told JPMorgan in May that they had “preliminarily concluded” that the bank violated civil securities laws related to mortgage securities it packaged and sold from 2005 to 2007. A federal criminal investigation related to mortgage securities is pending.
Schneiderman last year sued the bank, alleging it misled investors when they purchased securities issued by Bear Stearns. Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been probing the bank for possibly defrauding taxpayers on FHA loans, securities filings show.
In recent years, federal prosecutors and HUD have struck deals with Bank of America, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank, the German lender, to resolve allegations they defrauded taxpayers on FHA loans.
The current round of talks centered on JPMorgan intensified in recent days after federal prosecutors notified the bank they planned to file a civil lawsuit. The talks are being led by the Obama administration’s Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, the formal name for the federal and state agencies with a stake in investigating mortgage securities-related wrongdoing.
The administration has faced criticism, particularly from federal lawmakers, over the apparent lack of cases it has brought against leading financial institutions for alleged wrongdoing committed in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
Defense lawyers that represent big banks have said in recent months that the Justice Department has ramped up its investigations into their clients.

Help this family from losing their homes to fraud

 Another sad sisuation. We need to show our strengths and voices to stop this abuse.  Sign their petition and help them save their home.

Don't Steal Our Home Freddie Mac

To: Freddie Mac

81
of 100 signatures

---

Campaign created by Marcie Jacobs

---

Freddie Mac prove you own our loan and that you didn't steal 

it out of the Taylor 

Bean & Whitaker Bankruptcy as is 

evidenced by MERS.

Why is this important?

Freddie Mac needs to stop stealing homes and work with homeowners. 

Freddie Mac needs to pay the appropriate transfer taxes 

to counties that are 

bankrupt like Elbert County where I live.  Freddie Mac uses 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, 

LLC, a servicer with a long and vicious record of 

abusing homeowners. 

Get rid of Ocwen Loan Servicing as your servicer, 

Freddie Mac. 

Tax Payers that bailed you out do not deserve to be 

abused by the likes of 

Ocwen on your behalf.

http://start2.occupyourhomes.org/petitions/don-t-steal-our-home-freddie-mac

When is enough enough?

Thanks Mr. Garfield for yet another great article. In the upside down world of the foreclosure of mortgages that are neither in default nor owned by the parties initiating foreclosure, and where applications for modification are submitted that clearly exceed federal standards for approval (and are denied) and should come as no surprise that the government sponsored entities, Fannie and Freddie, canceled their appearance at a Metro Detroit foreclosure hearing which they had scheduled. These are essentially federal agencies. Their first duty is to serve the country and its citizens. But they canceled their appearance because of pending litigation against them. Here was an opportunity for them to understand the impact of foreclosure on families, businesses, investors and the government. Here was an opportunity for them to utilize information provided to them by people on the ground to fashion remedies that are appropriate and legal. This is all part of state and federal government policy to sweep the mortgaged tragedies under the rug. Despite the fact that we know that most of the foreclosures that have already been deemed completed were in fact illegal, we have had millions of "auction sales" in which strangers to the transaction were awarded title to the house without ever having made a single payment of any amount of money to originate or acquire the loan that was allegedly in default but which was fatally defective and certainly not in default despite the illusions created by Wall Street banks. I am leading the charge on this one. It is my intention to file suit against the Wall Street banks who have accepted monthly payments, short sale payments, and full payments on loans that were subject to claims of securitization. In fact, my law firm is offering to represent homeowners who lost or sold their homes on a contingency fee, as long as only economic damages are sought. It is my goal to show payments to the sub servicer or anyone else in the false securitization chain should never have been made and were never due. It is my opinion that these payments are owed back to the homeowner in all events, together with interest, costs of the court action, and attorney fees where those are provided by statute or contract. Each case will be evaluated as to viability utilizing this strategy. If Bank of America or any other bank responds to an estoppel letter for payoff or short sale without knowing or showing that they have paid for the origination or acquisition of the loan, then they have no business providing the estoppel information or approving or denying a request for a short sale. Their acceptance of the money at closing and their execution of a satisfaction of mortgage or release and reconveyance is a sham. In the absence of any other creditor demanding payment and showing that they are in fact a true creditor (having paid actual money for the origination or acquisition of the loan), proceeds of all such closings should, in my opinion, go to the homeowner. The bank got the money, it is my opinion that the bank should be sued for recovery of the entire proceeds of the closing. Each of those closings described above represents a gift to the banks and a horror show for the homeowner and many attorneys for homeowners. The spin machine for the banks has created the illusion that homeowners are seeking a free home when in fact it is the banks that are seeking and getting free money and free homes. In auction sales where the banks are submitting a credit bid, they do not qualify as a creditor who can submit a credit bid. But the credit bid is accepted anyway and the bank gets the house for free despite the fact that the bank has no status as a creditor or even the authorized representative of a creditor. Fannie and Freddie are colluding with the banks and the federal reserve to maintain the illusion that the notes and mortgages are in proper form, were properly executed, and contain true representations concerning the real parties in interest. Many theories have been advanced as to why the Federal Reserve and other agencies are colluding with the banks. I think the reason is because many layers of policies are based upon the false assumption that the origination of the loans complied with existing laws, rules and regulations. The federal reserve and other federal agencies would look pretty stupid if they had paid or advanced trillions of dollars for worthless notes and mortgages and worthless mortgage bonds. It is highly probable that the reason why the real lenders (investors) have not pursued loss mitigation with homeowners directly is that they know the note and mortgage is unenforceable and they have said so in their lawsuits against the investment banks that sold them the bogus mortgage bonds. What they don't fully appreciate is the fact that most homeowners would willingly give them a valid mortgage and note based upon the reality of the current market. But the intermediaries (servicers) are doing everything possible to prevent modification or successful mediation of claims; which of course results from those intermediaries falsely claiming to be owners of loans that were funded by investors and falsely claiming losses on those loans that were paid by insurance and credit defaults swaps. Those intermediaries are the leading Wall Street banks in this mortgage mess. As long as we include them in the process of resolving the mortgage meltdown, the problems will be compounded rather than cured. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/18/detroit-foreclosure-hearing-fannie-mae-freddie-mac_n_3293854.html Fed Pours Huge Sums Into Foreign Bank Coffers http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/05/fed-pours-huge-sums-into-foreign-bank-coffers/ Nearly half of all US homeowners with a mortgage still ‘underwater’ in Q1 http://www.inman.com/2013/05/22/nearly-half-of-all-us-homeowners-with-a-mortgage-still-underwater-in-q1/ Foreclosure Victims Protesting Wall Street Impunity Outside DOJ Arrested, Tasered http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16527-victims-of-foreclosure-arrested-tasered-protesting-wall-street-impunity-outside-doj Foreclosure Fraud Failures Come To A Head In Justice Dept. Protest http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2013/05/foreclosure-fraud-failures-come-to-a-head-in-justice-dept-protest.html Bank of America Zombie Foreclosure Protest (VIDEO) http://4closurefraud.org/2013/05/22/bank-of-america-zombie-foreclosure-protest-video/ This is what it looks like when foreclosure fighters demand Wall Street criminals be prosecuted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwaFJdr13Q Chasing The Shadow Of Money http://zerohedge.blogspot.ca/2009/05/chasing-shadow-of-money.html