Archive

Archive for January, 2010

FORECLOSURE PLAGUE

January 28, 2010 Leave a comment

Cities in the so-called Sand States dominated the foreclosure rankings in 2009, with the 20 worst-hit metro areas residing in Nevada, Florida, California and Arizona.

Las Vegas had the largest number of foreclosure filings of any city last year, with 12% of its households receiving at least one during the year, according to RealtyTrac, the online marketer of foreclosed homes. That was more than five times the national average.

Cape Coral, Fla., was a close second with 11.9% of its households; Merced, Calif., was third with 10.1%.

The good news is that all top 20 cities recorded declines in foreclosure filings in the last three months of the year.

The bad news is that the foreclosure plague is spreading beyond these usual trouble spots, according to RealtyTrac’s CEO, James Saccacio. And, nationwide, foreclosures grew 21.2% during the year.

“Areas like Provo, Utah, Fayetteville, Ark., Portland, Ore., and Rockford, Ill., all posted foreclosure rates above the U.S. average in 2009,” he said. “And markets like Honolulu, Minneapolis and Seattle saw foreclosure activity increase at more than twice the national pace over the past 12 months.”

He added that the new foreclosure wave seems more grounded in traditional foreclosure causes, such as job losses, than those recorded in the Sand States, where they were much more “bubble related.”

In cities such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami and Bakersfield, Calif., soaring home prices of the mid 2000s drove homebuyers to desperate measures, such as taking on hybrid adjustable rate mortgages, also called toxic ARMS. These products only remained affordable as long as home prices grew; once prices stopped rising, borrowers began to default.

New hotspots

Some cites that had escaped the worst of the default demon in prior years saw foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sales and bank repossessions — soar. The Gulfport area of Mississippi recorded a year-over-year spike of 784%. Houma, La., recorded a 379% gain, and Roanoke, Va., filings jumped 352%.

Despite the big increases, however, the foreclosure rates for those cities ranked in the bottom third of the nation. For example, Gulfport was number 180 out of 203 metro areas listed.

Filings in Boise, Idaho, on the other hand, grew 103% but that was enough to put it 24th among cites, the highest ranking of any place outside the Sand States.

In contrast to the boom areas, cities where home prices never soared have endured far fewer foreclosures. The lowest rate of filings for any of the cities covered in the RealtyTrac report were found in Burlington, Vt., and Utica, N.Y, each of which had a miniscule 0.05% filing rate.

The housing boom, with its annual double-digit price increases, mostly bypassed areas like those, enabling buyers to escape the necessity of stretching their incomes to cover high housing costs.

In Burlington, the median home price has stayed under $230,000, and median home prices in Utica have been very cheap, not more than $120,000 at any time.

For cities like that, few foreclosures are caused by mortgage related issues and, as long as the local economies don’t crash, defaults should remain well under national averages.

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

NEW FIXES FOR THE FORECLOSURE PROBLEM

January 22, 2010 Leave a comment

The Obama administration plans next week to revamp its $75 billion program aimed at sparing homeowners from foreclosure, streamlining the documents required of borrowers seeking lowered payments, according to financial industry executives and others who have met in recent days with Treasury officials.

Homeowners looking for help with loan modifications flocked to an assistance program last month at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan.

Those seeking help with their mortgages had to wait for hours to see a counselor at the Javits Convention Center last month.

The latest effort to accelerate the Making Home Affordable program — now widely viewed as a disappointment — comes as the administration faces growing pressure to do less for banks and more for households struggling with double-digit unemployment.

The changes by the Treasury Department are expected to include greater assistance for homeowners no longer able to make mortgage payments because their paychecks have shrunk, said banking industry representatives privy to the department’s deliberations who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating government officials.

The Treasury was still debating the method, these banking representatives said, looking at either direct cash assistance or a grace period in which borrowers could postpone payments. That component may not be announced next week, but would follow soon after.

Housing experts said the anticipated changes would probably cause mortgage companies to move more quickly to lower payments for borrowers, though perhaps at the cost of prolonging the foreclosure crisis. Requiring less documentation of borrowers’ incomes carries a risk of lending to people who simply cannot afford their homes, increasing the likelihood of subsequent delinquency.

“They are turning this from a legitimate program to try to save people who have the ability to hang on their homes into one that says, forget the willingness and ability to pay, let’s just postpone foreclosures,” said Edward Pinto, a mortgage industry consultant who served as chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the late 1980s.

While declining to provide details, the Treasury confirmed its plans to alter the program at a meeting next week with mortgage companies — servicers, in industry parlance.

“We expect to issue guidance to servicers next week to expedite conversions of current trial modifications and provide guidance on documentation,” the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial institutions, Michael S. Barr, wrote in response to a reporter’s questions. “We are continually reviewing our housing plan to ensure that it promotes stability.”

The changes to be introduced next week are unlikely to address what has emerged as a potent factor propelling a wave of foreclosures: the roughly 15 million borrowers who are said to be underwater, meaning that they owe more than their homes are worth. But the Treasury is actively considering ways to attack this problem, financial industry representatives said.

Many economists and mortgage experts have concluded that banks must ultimately forgive loan balances to restore equity to underwater borrowers. Otherwise, growing numbers will walk away from their homes and accept foreclosure rather than make payments on properties in which they no longer own a stake.

The Treasury has resisted calls to push lenders to write off loan balances, concerned that such a course would either threaten the health of banks by forcing them to swallow billions of dollars in write-offs or cost taxpayers additional money.

The administration has instead focused on ramping up its existing program, which pays mortgage companies that lower mortgage payments. The vast majority of loan modifications to date have lowered payments by dropping interest rates while leaving balances untouched.

When President Obama outlined the program nearly a year ago, he said it would prevent three million to four million foreclosures by 2012. As of December, mortgage companies had modified 759,000 loans on a trial basis, typically lasting three to five months. But only about 31,000 homeowners had received so-called permanent loan modifications, which lower payments for five years.

“There’s a great degree of frustration about how this has been going,” said Alan M. White, a professor at Valparaiso University Law School.

The changes expected next week are intended to alleviate one roadblock: the voluminous paperwork mortgage companies must process to qualify borrowers for lower payments.

Homeowners complain that mortgage companies routinely lose their documents, forcing them to repeatedly resend files. Mortgage companies have acknowledged problems, while also blaming homeowners for failing to provide required documents.

The Treasury is likely to alter the program by making pay stubs an acceptable means of verifying income, rather than requiring tax documents, said the people close to the deliberations.

One reason that mortgage companies are having such difficulty processing paperwork, they acknowledge, is that they lack adequate experience. During the housing boom, major institutions like Countrywide (now part of Bank of America) and Washington Mutual (since folded into JPMorgan Chase) marketed themselves as easy lenders motivated to approve mortgages with little fuss. They specialized in mortgages that required little or no documentation, sometimes called liar loans, which led borrowers and mortgage brokers to exaggerate incomes and assets.

Some experts fear that the Obama administration is now so eager to slow foreclosures that it is willing to employ the same sorts of loose lending standards that delivered the crisis.

“It definitely does lead to the question, are they substituting liar loan modifications for liar loans?” Mr. Pinto said.

Consumer advocates welcomed the prospect of a new effort aimed at accelerating loan modifications, while questioning whether the proposed changes would be significant.

“The results are dismal so far,” said Julia R. Gordon, senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending in Washington. “We need a game changer.”

Throughout the financial system and within government, a sense is taking hold that the only effective way to stem foreclosures is to write off loan balances.

“We realized early on that if we don’t include principal treatment, you just don’t get the buy-in from the borrower to stay with it,” said Paul A. Koches, general counsel for Ocwen Financial, a major mortgage company that claims conspicuous success in converting trial loan modifications to permanent arrangements.

As of mid-December, Ocwen had turned about 40 percent of its trial modifications into permanent arrangements, according to the Treasury. By comparison, JPMorgan Chase had converted only 4 percent of its trial loan modifications into permanent status; the rate was less than 2 percent at Bank of America.

Servicers merely collect mortgage bills for a fee. Most loans are owned by investors. They are increasingly inclined to accept losses by writing down loan balances in exchange for greater assurance that borrowers will be able to make payments.

“Investors are willing to put real money on the table toward refinancing borrowers from bad mortgages into good mortgages,” said Micah S. Green, a partner based in Washington at the law firm Patton Boggs, who represents a consortium of institutional mortgage holders.

The Obama administration has begun to consider a new push to reduce loan balances, while debating the proper mechanism, according to banking officials.

“They are looking at equity forgiveness,” said a financial industry executive who speaks regularly with Treasury officials. “There have been a lot of meetings on that.”

But the details are messy, requiring a complex balancing of competing interests. Not least, the owners of first mortgages are unwilling to accept losses by writing down loan balances unless the pain is shared by the owners of second mortgages.

Many second mortgages, including home equity loans, are owned by the very banks that are in the middle of determining whether and how to modify first mortgages — servicers like Bank of America and Chase. For them, taking losses on second mortgages would entail stripping away billions of dollars in assets from their balance sheets.

“The banks are kind of in denial that second mortgages aren’t going to get paid in full,” said Professor White of Valparaiso. “Treasury has to find a way to compel the banks to take a hit.”

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

Categories: Uncategorized

LAW PROPOSED TO HELP RENTERS OF FORECLOSED PROPERTY

January 15, 2010 Leave a comment

More and more renters across the state of New York are being forced out of foreclosed homes. One of these is Lisa Brown, a 44-year-old single mother of three young girls on Long Island, who has been paying her rent faithfully for the last six months, but who was suddenly given notice to vacate her place within ten days because the property has been foreclosed.

Brown is just one of many low-income renters being given only a few days to vacate foreclosed homes by mortgage lenders. Brown also represents the demography of families caught in the swirl of foreclosed homes nationwide. Many renters of foreclosed homes are single mothers with several very young children, just like Brown.

It is cases like Brown’s that New York State Senator Jeff Klein is trying to address with the law that he has proposed to mitigate the effects of foreclosed homes. Klein proposed that renters caught up in foreclosure filings are given at least another 30 days to find another housing and move their belongings. Current legislation allows lenders to force out renters of foreclosed homes in ten days.

Klein’s proposal requires mortgage banks or homebuyers to notify renters about the foreclosure within 30 days of the foreclosure filing. Moreover, lenders or new owners must also notify renters about any eviction proceeding 30 days before the actual eviction.

Klein argued that tenants should not become victims of the mortgage lending crisis, especially so that most renters of properties that usually become foreclosed homes are low-income families and families consisting of single mothers and very young children. Housing advocates also say that some landlords have not been paying utility bills, putting tenants in difficult situations of either moving out to the streets and shelters or putting up with cold water and lack of heat.

Manhattan real estate lawyer Lisa Urban said more than 500 renters in December 2008 and more renters in January have faced evictions and related difficulties because of the problem of foreclosed homes. Because of the prevalence of the problem, the Legal Aid Society has established a special program in Queens that focus on helping both homeowners and renters affected by foreclosed homes.

According to Urban, renters occupying rent-stabilized homes and rent-controlled apartments are luckier because there is already a law protecting them from the effects of foreclosed homes. But for Brown, the single mother who has no relatives in the community and who has no money to pay the deposit for a new housing if she is lucky to find one, the only alternative aside from the streets is a shelter. Under current law, she has to be out of the foreclosed property within 10 days, not enough time to find another affordable rental property in an area full of renters.

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS ESQ
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

RECORD YEAR FOR FORECLOSURES

January 14, 2010 Leave a comment

In December, more than 349,000 households, or one in 366 homes, were hit with a foreclosure-related notice. That represents a 14 percent spike from November and a 15 percent jump from December 2008.

Banks repossessed more than 92,000 homes, up 19 percent from November. That increase was likely due to lenders working to clear their books at the end of the year, RealtyTrac said.

Stemming the tide of foreclosures is an important step for the real estate market and the economy to recover. Because foreclosures are usually sold at heavy discounts they can lower the value of surrounding properties. Cities lose property tax dollars from empty foreclosures and declining home values, straining local economies. Home prices have stabilized in some cities, but are still down 30 percent nationally from mid-2006.

The foreclosure crisis isn’t letting up. Between 3 and 3.5 million homes are expected to enter some phase of foreclosure this year, said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, which began tracking the data five years ago.

High foreclosures forced the federal government and several states to come up with plans to prevent or delay foreclosures to help troubled borrowers.

“It was bad, but it could have been much worse, and it probably should have been worse,” Sharga said.

One plan intended to help homeowners is the Obama administration’s loan modification program known as Making Home Affordable. Lenders participating in the program have offered trial loan modifications to 760,000 eligible borrowers since it was launched in March. A loan modification changes the terms of the loan, such as lowering the interest rate, to make the monthly payments more affordable.

As of November, just 31,000 of them had been made permanent. Nearly the same number had dropped out of the program or were found to be ineligible. The Treasury Department will release updated figures Friday.

Economic issues, such as unemployment or reduced income, are expected to be the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

The Mortgage Bankers Association on Wednesday recommended changes to the government’s program to account for borrowers who’ve lost their jobs. The program, for example, should include a suspension of payments as the first step for borrowers with a temporary loss of income.

The government also should refrain from “endless incremental program changes,” the trade association said.

Since April 2009, there have been nine instances where new program requirements were released, and more than 90 clarifications for new or revised forms, reporting changes and policies. The changes forced mortgage companies to implement new procedures and retrain employees, taking away time that could be spent helping borrowers.

The same three states that led the nation in foreclosure rate in December also posted the highest rates for the entire year: Nevada, Arizona and Florida. More than 10 percent of Nevada housing units received at least one foreclosure filing in 2009, with Florida and Arizona following with about 6 percent each.

The other states ranked in the top 10 for the year were California, Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, and Colorado.

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

RECORD YEAR FOR FORECLOSURES

January 14, 2010 Leave a comment

In December, more than 349,000 households, or one in 366 homes, were hit with a foreclosure-related notice. That represents a 14 percent spike from November and a 15 percent jump from December 2008.

Banks repossessed more than 92,000 homes, up 19 percent from November. That increase was likely due to lenders working to clear their books at the end of the year, RealtyTrac said.

Stemming the tide of foreclosures is an important step for the real estate market and the economy to recover. Because foreclosures are usually sold at heavy discounts they can lower the value of surrounding properties. Cities lose property tax dollars from empty foreclosures and declining home values, straining local economies. Home prices have stabilized in some cities, but are still down 30 percent nationally from mid-2006.

The foreclosure crisis isn’t letting up. Between 3 and 3.5 million homes are expected to enter some phase of foreclosure this year, said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, which began tracking the data five years ago.

High foreclosures forced the federal government and several states to come up with plans to prevent or delay foreclosures to help troubled borrowers.

“It was bad, but it could have been much worse, and it probably should have been worse,” Sharga said.

One plan intended to help homeowners is the Obama administration’s loan modification program known as Making Home Affordable. Lenders participating in the program have offered trial loan modifications to 760,000 eligible borrowers since it was launched in March. A loan modification changes the terms of the loan, such as lowering the interest rate, to make the monthly payments more affordable.

As of November, just 31,000 of them had been made permanent. Nearly the same number had dropped out of the program or were found to be ineligible. The Treasury Department will release updated figures Friday.

Economic issues, such as unemployment or reduced income, are expected to be the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

The Mortgage Bankers Association on Wednesday recommended changes to the government’s program to account for borrowers who’ve lost their jobs. The program, for example, should include a suspension of payments as the first step for borrowers with a temporary loss of income.

The government also should refrain from “endless incremental program changes,” the trade association said.

Since April 2009, there have been nine instances where new program requirements were released, and more than 90 clarifications for new or revised forms, reporting changes and policies. The changes forced mortgage companies to implement new procedures and retrain employees, taking away time that could be spent helping borrowers.

The same three states that led the nation in foreclosure rate in December also posted the highest rates for the entire year: Nevada, Arizona and Florida. More than 10 percent of Nevada housing units received at least one foreclosure filing in 2009, with Florida and Arizona following with about 6 percent each.

The other states ranked in the top 10 for the year were California, Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, and Colorado.

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

RECORD YEAR FOR FORECLOSURES

January 14, 2010 Leave a comment

In December, more than 349,000 households, or one in 366 homes, were hit with a foreclosure-related notice. That represents a 14 percent spike from November and a 15 percent jump from December 2008.

Banks repossessed more than 92,000 homes, up 19 percent from November. That increase was likely due to lenders working to clear their books at the end of the year, RealtyTrac said.

Stemming the tide of foreclosures is an important step for the real estate market and the economy to recover. Because foreclosures are usually sold at heavy discounts they can lower the value of surrounding properties. Cities lose property tax dollars from empty foreclosures and declining home values, straining local economies. Home prices have stabilized in some cities, but are still down 30 percent nationally from mid-2006.

The foreclosure crisis isn’t letting up. Between 3 and 3.5 million homes are expected to enter some phase of foreclosure this year, said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of Irvine, Calif.-based RealtyTrac, which began tracking the data five years ago.

High foreclosures forced the federal government and several states to come up with plans to prevent or delay foreclosures to help troubled borrowers.

“It was bad, but it could have been much worse, and it probably should have been worse,” Sharga said.

One plan intended to help homeowners is the Obama administration’s loan modification program known as Making Home Affordable. Lenders participating in the program have offered trial loan modifications to 760,000 eligible borrowers since it was launched in March. A loan modification changes the terms of the loan, such as lowering the interest rate, to make the monthly payments more affordable.

As of November, just 31,000 of them had been made permanent. Nearly the same number had dropped out of the program or were found to be ineligible. The Treasury Department will release updated figures Friday.

Economic issues, such as unemployment or reduced income, are expected to be the main catalysts for foreclosures this year. Homeowners with good credit who took out conventional, fixed-rate loans are the fastest growing group of foreclosures.

The Mortgage Bankers Association on Wednesday recommended changes to the government’s program to account for borrowers who’ve lost their jobs. The program, for example, should include a suspension of payments as the first step for borrowers with a temporary loss of income.

The government also should refrain from “endless incremental program changes,” the trade association said.

Since April 2009, there have been nine instances where new program requirements were released, and more than 90 clarifications for new or revised forms, reporting changes and policies. The changes forced mortgage companies to implement new procedures and retrain employees, taking away time that could be spent helping borrowers.

The same three states that led the nation in foreclosure rate in December also posted the highest rates for the entire year: Nevada, Arizona and Florida. More than 10 percent of Nevada housing units received at least one foreclosure filing in 2009, with Florida and Arizona following with about 6 percent each.

The other states ranked in the top 10 for the year were California, Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, and Colorado.

POSTED BY GEORGE BECKUS
THE GOLIK LAW FIRM
904-448-5335

FORECLOSURE USA

January 10, 2010 Leave a comment

STOCKTON, Calif. — Stockton hardly looks like the most miserable city in the country.

But the statistics and stories over the last two years make a case that it is: Since the housing crisis began, this inland port city 80 miles east of San Francisco has had one of the worst foreclosure rates in the country – for most of the time, the worst.

At the height of it, about 1 in 10 houses fell to foreclosure. Houses that sold for more than $500,000 before the crash now go for $200,000. In some neighborhoods, fixer-uppers cost less than a new Honda Fit – under $20,000.

To spend time in Stockton, a plain-jane city of single-family home neighborhoods edged by freeways and lingering farms, is to begin to understand the calamitous effects of the nation’s foreclosure crisis, which has devastated so many once-booming places.

Stockton is the San Joaquin County seat. And according to the Associated Press Economic Stress Index, a month-by-month scoring of U.S. counties’ rates of unemployment, bankruptcy and foreclosures, San Joaquin had a score of 23.55 in November, making it the fourth-most stressed of counties with a population over 25,000. Its foreclosure rate of 6 percent was exceeded only by metro Las Vegas, metro Fort Myers, Fla., metro Orlando, Merced County, Calif., and Kendall County, Ill.

An outsider might not notice immediately how Stockton has suffered. It boasts a downtown mall, a mix of handsome, century-old and modern architecture, a new sports stadium, even a promenade overlooking the city’s canal.

But two years into the housing crisis, Stockton is a changed place. Whole neighborhoods have been decimated by the mortgage disaster. The tax base has shrunken. City services and municipal jobs have been cut. Unemployment hovers at about 16 percent. Economists predict it will take years for Stockton to recover from the housing bust.

Locals say the same about the city’s reputation.

Since the housing meltdown began, journalists from around the world have parachuted in to see the city felled by sub-prime mortgages, which enticed new homeowners priced out of the San Francisco Bay area with low interest rates that reset to levels they could not afford.

“Welcome to Foreclosureville, U.S.A.” wrote the Los Angeles Times. “America’s Most Miserable City,” declared the London Independent. That headline was inspired by Forbes’ “most miserable cities” index, which ranked Stockton No. 1.

City officials say they fully expect Stockton to shake the title in 2010 (it’s recently dropped to No. 4 or 5). But how far away from the top can it go? The population of 290,400 is strapped. Up to two-thirds of homeowners owe more on their properties than the houses are now worth. Housing values have dropped more than 60 percent since the height of the boom four years ago, more than any other city.

Housing developments built for commuters have been hit the hardest, since they were the ones to attract newcomers fleeing the huge spike in prices closer to the Bay area. Those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy housing environment – real estate brokers, contractors, day laborers – are barely holding on here.

Probably the happiest people are the ones scooping up foreclosures. Speculators are back, of course, but the other bargain hunters include people who only dreamed of being able to afford a house. They’re now living the dream in Stockton.

By the time the whole foreclosure phenomenon is done, Stockton may well look less like the bedroom community for commuters to the Bay Area that it was becoming and more like the working-class, immigrant community ringed by Central Valley farm country that it was before.

For now, residents just hope the worst is over.

The heart of Foreclosureville, U.S.A. – the Stockton subdivision that had more bank repossessions than any other place in the country for much of the last two years – is starting to look like its old self again.

The “For Sale” signs that overwhelmed Weston Ranch are mostly gone, and the lawns where weeds grew like corn stalks are shorn.

Foreclosure businesses that sprang up, including one that spray-painted brown lawns green and another that offered a foreclosure bus tour, have folded. Every time a foreclosure hits the market, bargain hunters snap it up.

But looks are deceiving. In Weston Ranch, financial devastation struck like a natural disaster and the ground has not yet settled. Speculators are buying houses to rent out. On streets where everyone knew everyone, no one knows anyone.

Orlando Mixon and his family – wife, son and daughter – are typical Weston Ranch settlers. They moved here eight years ago from Union City, east of San Francisco, after a search for an affordable house sent them farther and farther down the freeway.

In those boom times, the Mixons paid $175,000 for a new four-bedroom, three bath split-level, more than they would have paid just five days earlier. But they were excited. They didn’t know Stockton, but the subdivision of 5,000 homes was like a town unto itself, built for easy access to and from a long commute. Beige and boxy, the houses made up in size what they lacked in style.

Now, the Mixons are hanging on by their fingers. Their house, they think, is worth just over $200,000, though some on the next street sold recently for $150,000. Still, with two mortgages, they owe more than that (they won’t say how much). Until last month, Mixon spent four months out of work, pushing the family toward financial ruin.

“I try not to think about that,” Mixon said. He spoke while washing his blackened work clothes in the driveway: He now works on an oil rig in Los Angeles when there is work, drives the 340 miles every other week to his job, seven days on, seven off. His wife Sharon’s commute is 60 miles each way, five days a week in rush hour traffic, for her job as a manager in a hospital in Hayward.

Stockton residents on average commute 46 miles each way.

The biggest bargain in Stockton stands on a street most people would choose to avoid. Old men drinking from bottles in brown paper bags lean against an empty brick building. Younger ones loiter on the corners, wearing puffy parkas, selling … something.

Rudy Willey, a real estate broker who knows his turf, had had no great expectations for the house. But the property was worse than he had imagined: more like a package store than a single-family home. It had no land, no porch, no stoop.

Squatters had had their way with the place. Its small, low-ceilinged rooms looked lopsided. All the fixtures were gone. The bathroom, the kitchen – the whole place – needed a do-over.

“$15,000?” Willey said, locking the front door. “I think they’re asking too much.”

He smiled at the irony of it. Twenty-seven years of selling real estate in Stockton had not fully prepared him for what has happened to his city, his vocation and his livelihood.

At 58, nearing retirement, or so he thought, Willey is working twice as hard and making half as much as he did two years ago. In two months, he has taken just two days off.

Not three years ago, Willey couldn’t keep up with the demand for half-million-dollar starter homes springing up within a 30-mile radius of Stockton. Commuters were buying in; locals were trading up.

Having seen his share of boom and bust cycles, Willey knew the times were too good to last. A wave of selling in Elk Grove, a town half an hour away that had been the fastest growing in the country in 2007, became a sign.

“When I saw the ‘For Sale’ signs, I thought: ‘Something’s happening,’” Willey said. “I thought we were due for a correction – maybe a 15 percent drop.”

Now, Willey is selling houses for less than half of what they sold for then. Even so, it is harder to close a deal.

A few brokers have acquired most of the foreclosure listings. Most no longer take phone calls to hear offers. Half the time, they don’t return e-mails. In some cases, Willey suspects the broker simply does not want to share a commission.

Time to work on a Plan B: Willey is taking a multimedia course at San Joaquin Delta College, a two-year school where he also teaches real estate classes. He hopes to start a Web site.

At night, he works on a book, a guide for would-be homebuyers.

And each day, he tries to look on the bright side. On an afternoon’s outing to see houses below $35,000, he kept remarking on the “wonderful opportunities” working people have to own a home.

“Not bad, not bad,” he said, going through an $18,000 house that had decent bones. It was in a homely neighborhood of aging bungalows. But there were no drug dealers on the corners. “Redone,” Willey said, “this could be a nice little home.”

Among all the bargains in Stockton, Jason Ramey had his heart set on one.

It was not on the market yet. But on its window and door was the sign of the times: an eviction notice.

This was early 2009, the height of Stockton’s foreclosure boom. More than 90 percent of the houses for sale in the city were foreclosures or short sales – where the lender lets borrowers sell a property for less than they owe on it, forgiving the balance, to avoid foreclosure.

Ramey, a 31-year-old insurance agent, knew what he wanted. He had been looking at real estate listings for years. But when the market was high, he could not afford to buy. Even “shacks,” as he likes to say, cost $300,000 – well above his price range.

Then came the housing disaster, and opportunity.

Ramey began scouting houses on the San Joaquin County foreclosure listings. As soon as he saw The One, a corner property in a coveted new development, he decided to wait for it.

The house had an arched entrance that reminded Ramey of a French chalet. Neighbors showed pride of place – planting rose gardens, flowering fruit trees, dooryard bougainvillea. It wasn’t as big as other foreclosures in the mid-$200,000 range. But Ramey, a local boy, knows Stockton inside and out. This house had location, location, location, besides its four bedrooms, three baths. This was a place where he could see staking roots, growing a family.

Ramey waited four months for the house to come on the market. Meanwhile, he and his girlfriend took a real estate class for first-time homebuyers. Their instructor: Rudy Willey.

He taught them how to research properties, find the right mortgage, make a deal. The very morning the house showed up on the real estate listing site he’d been checking every day, Ramey called Willey.

“We put an offer in that night,” Ramey said, smiling widely, then adding: “Sure enough, our offer was accepted.”

They bought the house, which had sold for more than $500,000 three years earlier, for $233,000.

“Every day, we can’t wait to get home,” Ramey said, while giving a tour of the house. Everything in it, stainless steel appliances, tile floors, paint, looked brand spanking new. A koi pond and above-ground pool shared space in the backyard with magnolia trees and hibiscus plants.

The family that lost that house had put love and money into it. Ramey said the solar panels – which have cut their utility bills to $30 from $250 when they were renting – were appraised at over $100,000.

“You hear all these horrible stories,” Ramey said. “There are so many other aspects to this. This market, the way it is, gave us the opportunity to live the American dream.”

Posted By George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335

Categories: Uncategorized

Nearly One Year Later, Obama Plan To Help 1.5 Million Struggling Homeowners Yet To Launch

January 9, 2010 Leave a comment

An Obama administration plan announced in April to help up to half of all struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure has yet to officially launch, the Treasury Department acknowledged Friday.

The program, a component of the administration’s $75 billion Making Home Affordable effort, was supposed to attack second-lien mortgages, which are additional, second mortgages taken out on a home on top of the initial first mortgage. It’s like taking out two loans to pay the same debt.

The Second Lien Program is supposed to automatically reduce the payments on a second mortgage when the first mortgage is modified under the administration’s loan modification effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program. The administration says that by lowering monthly mortgage payments, HAMP will eventually help up to four million homeowners stay in their homes

Some housing experts say the second-mortgage component of the plan is necessary to effectively tackle the foreclosure mess — 3 million foreclosure notices were sent out in 2009; another 3 million are estimated to go out this year — because so many distressed homeowners have second mortgages. When rolling out the program in April, the administration estimated that “up to 50 percent of at-risk mortgages currently have second liens.” Addressing only the first lien is insufficient, experts say, if no changes are made to seconds.

Per the administration’s fact sheet on the program accompanying its April 28 announcement:

Second liens contribute to the number of American homeowners unable to afford their housing payments. Even where a first mortgage payment may be affordable, the addition of a second mortgage payment can increase monthly payments beyond affordable levels. In addition, second mortgages often complicate or prevent modification or refinancing of a first mortgage.

The Second Lien Program will help create a sustainably affordable mortgage payment for millions of homeowners who qualify for a first mortgage modification, yet still face challenges in affording their monthly payments because of a second mortgage.

Compounding the problem is the fact that millions of homeowners owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth, putting them “underwater.” About a quarter of all homeowners with a mortgage have negative equity, according to real estate research firm First American CoreLogic.

“The single largest problem [with the housing market] is negative equity,” said Laurie S. Goodman, senior managing director at Amherst Securities and one of country’s top mortgage bond analysts according to Institutional Investor magazine, before a Congressional panel last month. “The [government's] current modification program does not address negative equity, and is therefore destined to fail.”

Goodman is right — the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program [HAMP] does not address negative equity. Rather, it reduces monthly payments for struggling borrowers. Housing experts and consumer advocates agree that lowering monthly payments is a good start to reducing foreclosures. For borrowers with negative equity, though, lower monthly payments does not decrease the total debt owed on the house. In fact, under the administration’s plan homeowners end up owing more on their mortgage because mortgage servicers have simply cut interest rates and lengthened the life of the loan, putting them further underwater.

Goodman added: “Any principal reduction program requires the [Obama] administration to address the second lien problem head on…It should be noted that second liens have thus far, under HAMP, been treated with kid gloves.”

In an e-mail to the Huffington Post, a Treasury Department spokeswoman confirmed that the eight-month-old program has yet to get off the ground as not a single mortgage servicer has signed a contract with the federal government for this particular effort.

“We don’t have any official contracts signed yet, but servicers are committing to the program,” Meg Reilly wrote. “We have made enormous progress and continue to move forward with innovative technological development and program implementation and expect to finalize servicer contracts soon.”

The hang-up was first discovered by Thomas A. Lawler, a former top official at Fannie Mae and an expert on housing and mortgage matters, who runs Lawler Economic & Housing Consulting.

Part of the reason why it’s taken so long for the program to start is due to the complex nature of mortgages, the Treasury Department argues. Mortgages are owned not just by the lenders themselves, but also by investors, who could be anyone from hedge funds to Wall Street banks to municipal pension funds.

“Because there has not been a systematic method of notification to second lien holders when a first lien on the same property is modified, ramp up has taken some time,” Reilly said.

Some, like influential New York Times columnist Gretchen Morgenson, have pointed their fingers squarely at four specific culprits — the four biggest banks in the country.

As of Sept. 30, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo were carrying a combined $452.4 billion worth of second mortgages on their balance sheets, according to the most recent quarterly data filed with the Federal Reserve. That’s $92.1 billion in junior-lien mortgages (mostly second liens) and $360.1 billion in home equity lines of credit.

While the Big Four — which are also the nation’s four biggest mortgage servicers — may be willing to cut borrowers’ payments on mortgages owned by investors, doing so for mortgages carried on the Big Four’s books would immediately impact their income; after all, less money would be coming in.

But the country’s biggest bank may be poised to finally sign onto the program. A Treasury official told the Huffington Post that Bank of America’s new CEO, Brian Moynihan, re-committed to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this week the bank’s intent to join the administration’s second lien effort.

But for now, eight months after the plan’s announcement, up to 1.5 million struggling homeowners are waiting for a program that’s, thus far, stuck in the mud.

Posted By George Beckus Esq.
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335

Categories: Uncategorized

NO LET UP FOR THE DISTRESSED HOUSING MARKET

January 8, 2010 Leave a comment

The decimated housing market may get considerably worse before it gets better, according to housing-industry professionals, who expect foreclosures and home-price declines to continue pressuring the sector through at least the first half of 2010.

The biggest problem will likely be a flood of inventory hitting the market from rising foreclosures, says Bob Curran, a managing director at Fitch Ratings. With a mountain of specialized adjustable-rate mortgages, known as option ARMs and certain Alt-A mortgages, slated to reset over the next 12 to 18 months and unemployment projected to hit 10.5% this year, the number of homeowners defaulting on their mortgages is expected to surge. At least $64 billion in option ARMs will reset in 2010 and another $68 billion in 2011, according to First American CoreLogic, a real estate and mortgage-data company.

At the same time, the government’s loan-modification program has been disappointing: the default rate on loans modified after the third quarter of 2008 was 61%, according to a report issued in December by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. All of this is expected to trigger another wave of potential home foreclosures in 2010 and could cause home prices to fall another 5% to 10% before the market stabilizes, according to analysts and economists.

A record 3 million homes received foreclosure notices in 2009, according to Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors (NAR). He expects a similar number this year.

John Burns, president of John Burns Real Estate Consulting, is a bit more bearish, predicting foreclosure notices will rise to 3.1 million this year. Foreclosure notices include default notices, auction-sale letters and bank-repossession notices. But those notices may produce a far more damaging result than last year’s. “I think 50% more people will lose their homes to a bank this year than they did last year,” predicts Burns.

One reason for the expected jump, he says, is that in 2009 many lenders were under pressure from the Obama Administration to postpone repossessions until loan modifications could be made. However, many banks didn’t have the staff to assess all their defaulted loans at the time, and he believes many of those will ultimately go into foreclosure in 2010.

Adding to the sector’s woes — the Federal Reserve has indicated it plans to end a program that’s helped keep mortgage rates at attractive levels for home buyers. The Fed program, which involved purchasing up to $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities backed by Fannie and Freddie, will expire on March 31. Rates have already started to inch up in anticipation of the change, with the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage surpassing the 5% mark in December.

Since the housing market’s peak in July 2006, home prices have plunged 30% on average, with prices in some markets, such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and parts of Florida, falling more than 60%. NAR’s Yun estimates home-equity losses from the housing meltdown totaled $7 trillion at the end of 2009.

Many housing-industry experts believe pricing will bottom soon, but the bears warn that it will probably be 2013 before the market noticeably rebounds. “The improvement that we’re going to see off the bottom will be anemic” for quite some time, says Curran.

“Some markets still have further [down] to go, but we’re definitely in the latter innings of the downturn,” says David Goldberg, an analyst at UBS. “Even if there’s another leg down, we definitely think by [late] 2010 we will have seen the bottom of housing.”

The government’s decision to extend the $8,000 first-time home-buyer tax credit to mid-2010 and expand the program to include a $6,500 credit for non-first-time home buyers will likely help lure home shoppers into the market. Also, the slide in prices is making homes more affordable. Notes Burns: “If you go to Phoenix, it’s $800 a month to buy a brand-new house,” making it more affordable than renting.

There have already been mixed signs of stabilization in price and demand. Home prices rose month over month for six consecutive months through October, according to Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Composite 10 Index, although prices are still down year over year. However, the most recent figures from NAR indicate that pending sales of existing homes fell 16% in November. Such mixed signals, analysts say, will be the housing market’s message for some months to come.

Posted By George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335

FORECLOSURE: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW CAN HURT YOU

January 7, 2010 Leave a comment

picked up on this story is a good question to ask…

I don’t think anyone realizes how big this area of fraud actually is or could believe that it’s truly happening. The biggest reason is probably because the judicial system is a player in this area of fraud. Not as an active participant but more as a guilty bystander. In about half of the states in the Union, foreclosures must be brought in a lawsuit in court, otherwise called judicial states. One would think that in non-judicial states, it would be much easier to get away with the fraud because the courts are not involved usually. Sorry to say but it might even be easier to commit Foreclosure Fraud in judicial states because no one’s really asking any questions in these foreclosure cases as I think that just about anyone would automatically assume that the Judicial System would exert much more quality control to prevent such massive fraud to work its way through the system. Guess again…

Statistically speaking, 98% of all foreclosure cases, judicial or non-judicial, go uncontested by the borrower. In other words, the borrower does nothing whatsoever to defend themselves in the foreclosure process. In a judicial state, an uncontested foreclosure complaint results in a Default Judgment against the borrower/defendant. Essentially, any and all claims made by the Plaintiff is accepted as true and legitimate at face value. The presiding judges, at least here in Florida, are doing practically nothing to inspect the merits of the case based on the documents produced – which, by the way, is very little – or the actual authenticity of the documents that are produced. Yes, they are slammed and overrun with foreclosure cases. No, it’s no excuse to deny citizens due process.

Here in Florida, 80-90% of the cases are being filed without any evidence of the debt, which is the original Promissory Note, not some early copy of it. Take a sampling of any 10 or 100 cases filed in court and you’ll find this to be true. In other words, a company/institution is coming into court, suing a borrower and alleging that the borrower owes them $_______. Yes, really fill in the blank… and they are producing NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that this allegation has any truth to it.

Oh, but it gets better. They are alleging that they lost the Note (or it was destroyed). Hmmm… if I gave you a $1000 check, would you lose it? How about if I gave you a $50,000 check? How would you treat that little piece of paper? But lo and behold, these institutions are saying that in 80-90% of the cases they have Lost the Notes! Now, let’s put this in perspective… in January 2009, Lee County, FL alone had about 2200 foreclosure cases filed. So let’s do the math together, shall we? That would put us at over 1700 cases where the Notes were mysteriously LOST! And that’s just one month’s worth folks. Now anyone with just a bit of common sense would say, something’s fishy with this. No? But most judges seem to have taken no issue with this. I mean, doesn’t this very fact make you, the reader, say to yourself, “this is not right, something’s up here, there should be an investigation into this.” But no, our judicial system seems to have no problem with this or even ask the deeper question as to “why?”

But it gets better… not only have they “lost” the notes, but the mortgages that were “recorded” in public records after closing (to declare to the public of who has a lawful lien on this property) are in someone else’s name. Let’s call them “ABC Lender.” So ABC Lender is the “mortgagee” of record in the public records. But ABC Lender is not the Plaintiff suing for Foreclosure! No, it’s XYZ Lender who is the Plaintiff; and in XYZ Lender’s Foreclosure Complaint, they allege that they are the owner and holder of the Note (that was lost) and the mortgage was assigned to them. Problem is (besides no note of course) is that there’s no Assignment of Mortgage recorded in Public Records; oh and no Lost Note Affidavit either, which by the way is supposed to be required.

Public records still show ABC Lender as the mortgagee. More than that, XYZ Lender/Plaintiff produces that very mortgage (which they can print online from the Clerk of Court’s website) in their Foreclosure Complaint and then simply states, for the record, that the Mortgage (in ABC Lender’s name) was assigned to them. But no assignment is recorded NOR is an assignment even produced in the foreclosure case in at least 50% of the cases. And when we do see an Assignment produced, lo and behold, you know who drafted that Assignment of Mortgage? Allow me to answer that… it’s the law firm that filed the foreclosure complaint for the Plaintiff. How about that, so you’re telling me that now foreclosure law firms are also in the business of transferring mortgages and notes? I think not. But this is exactly what is happening folks. Sure as my fingers are typing this post.

Oh, but I’ll do you one better… but before I do, all of what I just stated above is enough for XYZ Lender to be granted foreclosure in 98% of the cases because these ALLEGATIONS by XYZ Lender are never even challenged by the borrower/defendant. So the court places the proverbial RUBBER STAMP on this fraud and away you go… “NEXT” as most Florida Judges would say… all in about 15 seconds in their self-proclaimed ROCKET DOCKETS. Nice.

So back to doing one better… in these 2% of cases where the borrower does even a little something to defend themselves or better, has a competent attorney represent them against this FRAUD, we would ask the Plaintiff to actually prove their case. You know, “excuse me but I don’t think your claims are true Mr. XYZ Lender. Yes, I borrowed and owe the money to someone, but I have no idea at all who YOU are and I don’t think I owe the money to you and I don’t think that you have any right whatsoever to be here in this court suing me and trying to take my home away from me.” That’s how I would say it at least but attorneys are little more verbose than me…

So guess what these Plaintiff/XYZ Lender’s come back with to that request… you’re going to love this… “If it will please the court, your honor, these requests are out of line and merely meant to ’stall’ the process. The defendant hasn’t paid their mortgage in ____ months your honor; and this request for us to disclose who the real owner of the mortgage and note is proprietary information and we are not required to disclose that information.” Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you alleged in your original complaint that YOU were the owner and holder… now someone else is but you can’t tell us? Hmmm. By the way, 15 U.S.C. 1641(f)(2) says that the Servicers are under federal obligation to disclose the true owner of the obligation. Read the federal law here! Scroll down to paragraph “F” part 2.

Yep, you’re tracking with me now…. it gets even better. Somehow, by some miracle of St. Mary, mother of Jesus, in some of these cases, the Note magically appears! Oh, thank heaven, the Note has appeared. So XYZ Lender puts the court and everyone else on notice with a “Notice of Filing Original Documents” in the court record. To the unsuspecting citizen, this Note, purportedly a copy of the Original Note, sure does look the part. Never mind that one of these Notes can be re-created out of thin air. Have we Alzheimer’s this bad folks? I mean, what gives? Have we not been talking and ranting and raving as a country about all the FRAUD that occurred in the mortgage industry and WALL STREET these past 7-8 years? Does no one think that these Notes aren’t really being re-created. I mean, XYZ Lender did swear before the court that the Note was Lost. Was that a lie or is the Note they are now producing a fraud? I mean, which one is it? Or is our judicial system going to let them do both… Lie and commit Fraud that is.

But you see, I have a little more knowledge about this whole “SECURITIZATION THING” than the unsuspecting homeowner and probably even these foreclosure attorneys representing these financial institutions. You see, since the mid-80’s when the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Reform Act of 1984 was enacted, 99% of all residential mortgages have been securitized. The opposite of a Securitized Loan is what we call a Portfolio Loan. These are our 2 options folks… it’s either a Portfolio Loan or it was a Securitized Loan. Your honor, it’s either Option A or Option B. Not BOTH.

So let me break this down into byte sized pieces. A Portfolio loan is a loan where ABC Lender makes the loan (ie. lends the money) and keeps that loan in their “portfolio” for the life of the loan. ABC Lender is going to keep the loan, service the loan and manage it until it is paid off. This “portfolio lending” thing is a DINOSAUR folks. This is a bona fide fact.

So, Option B, your honor, is this thing we call “Securitization.” And yes, your honor, I expect that we all take the time to UNDERSTAND IT because these thousands of CASES before your court involve PEOPLE, human beings (the same people who elected you by the way) and their lives, and their credit and their liability if this ‘aint done right.

Sorry about that, as you might guess, I am perturbed with the “pleading ignorance” of the courts or worse “I just don’t care” judges who’s pat answer is that “the borrower/defendant hasn’t paid their mortgage in 6 months so throw justice and matters of law aside because they’re all a bunch of deadbeats. I read the Wall Street Journal article on Feb. 18, 2009. We can all read between the lines your honor… Now let me say this real quick before I give a quick overview of securitization and the applicability of it to foreclosure cases… Not all judges are created equal. There are some very good one’s out there who care about the law and due process and making sure that the law is actually followed. For those judges out there who aren’t letting these issues just get swept under the rug because it’s so damn “inconvenient” – all these foreclosure cases, -we thank you and we hope you’ll see to it that more of your peers adopt the same position.

By the way, the question that the judges referred to in the Wall Street Journal story asked, “Are you paying your mortgage and are you living in your home?” – these 2 questions are completely inappropriate and immaterial to the case and matters of law. If I’m a homeowner and I don’t know who the heck owns my mortgage and my inquiries into this fact go unanswered, then I’m not paying ANYONE until I figure this out already! So if I”m before that judge my answer is very clear, “Excuse me your honor but that question is completely immaterial to my case before you. I owe the money to someone but I dispute the assertion by the Plaintiff that I owe the money to them.

I have asked them to provide valid and authentic documentation that I in fact owe them the money and they have failed to provide that documentation. The documentation that they have provided appears to be a complete fraud on this court and therefore I would humbly request your honor look into the material facts in this case, not whether or not I’m paying someone I don’t know even exists or if I’m living in a home that I have valid title to.” – and Judge G. Keith Cary, the Chief Judge in Lee County said, “A guy hasn’t paid his mortgage in a year, what’s there to talk about?” – well your honor, I believe I’ve presented plenty to talk about. If not, let me continue…

Ok, securitization and how it applies to a judicial foreclosure case. In securitization there are specific entities who are the “players” in this process. Not all entities are created the same because they have different ROLES in the securitization process. Roles: Originator, Sponsor, Master Servicer, Depositor, Issuer, Trustee and Custodian are the main ones. We also might see a “Special Servicer” in the mix here and there. The Originator is ABC Lender in the above fictitious case I mentioned. XYZ Lender from above is the Sponsor who usually serves as the Servicer as well.

Folks in 99.9% of these loans, the Trust owns the loan. The Trust is comprised of several to several hundred investors who own a “piece” of the loan. But more than that… EVERY loan including the specific loan in our fictitious case above has been bought and sold NO LESS THAN 3-4 times. When a Note is sold/transferred (and it is a true sale by the way), the Note MUST be endorsed, just like a check. From one payee to the next. IF the loan was securitized and it is very safe to assume that every loan is/was, there will be NO LESS THAN 3 endorsements on the actual, ORIGINAL note which has the borrower/defendant’s wet signature on it.

So when XYZ Lender produces the “Original” Note for the court and it has NO endorsements on it, it’s what we call a FRAUD folks – one way or another, it is NOT the original nor is it a copy of the original note OR, in the alternative, XYZ Lender lied to the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission AND the IRS. You see, in securitization, all of this activity MUST be disclosed. No, it’s not proprietary or confidential, it’s PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. These documents filed with the SEC are very specific. The players involved are all disclosed. Their ROLES are disclosed, the CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP of the loans in the Asset Pool is disclosed. The governing or operative document for this loan pool is the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and it is disclosed. These Trusts are electing to be treated as a REMIC (short for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit), which provides Pass-Through Taxation on the pool cash-flow, so that the Trust avoids double-taxation. That’s disclosed and strict guidelines of the chain of ownership AND timelines of ownership must be adhered to OR the REMIC status will be/can be revoked by the IRS.

So when XYZ Lender comes into a court of law and throws all these allegations of ownership, produces nothing to speak of, and expects to take Mrs. Smith’s home from her, I suggest that our judicial system do something more than turn a blind eye and claim that is their job to “efficiently dispose” of the case – all in about 15 seconds – or worse, ask completely inappropriate questions of that homeowner. I also suggest that Mrs. Smith defend herself and I highly suggest our local and national media do more to expose what you can now call “FORECLOSURE FRAUD” because it’s happening ladies and gentleman. The SAME INSTITUTIONS that created this global meltdown through greed and fraud, who have received hundreds of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to bail them out of their gross (and greedy) mismanagement are NOW stealing citizen’s homes from them like a thief in the night to boot. The FBI should be investigating, prosecuting and sending these fraudsters to jail – both the bank reps/employees AND their law firms colluding with them on this massive fraud!

To conclude: Give me any foreclosure case, any one. 80% or more of the cases filed with these courts, I can/will prove that FRAUD exists in that case. All we have to do is pull the actual SEC documents filed and compare what they disclosed in that documentation to what they’ve stated and alleged in the foreclosure case. This is really quite simple actually.

By Lane Houk

Posted By George Beckus Esq
The Golik Law Firm
904-448-5335

Categories: Uncategorized
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.