Lender Processing Services LPS and ProVest: Resemblance is uncanny

We all have all got acquainted with LPS and have read about ProVest in connection with Law Offices of David J. Stern. If you take a close look at the two logo’s, don’t they have a resemblance? Look at the colors as well…Hmm are we unlocking another possible link?

 House Flipping Makes A Comeback In Florida Foreclosed Homes Sold On Court House Steps for Cash, David J. Stern Law Office Forecloses Buys and Flips for Profit, FBI Needs to Investigate.

Advertisements

National foreclosure auctions go online via LPS: “CAVEAT EMPTOR”

Submitted by Kevin Turner on April 16, 2010 – 4:56pm Market Value

The Duval County Clerk’s Office has offered online bidding for foreclosed properties for some time, and now Jacksonville-based Lender Processing Services is bringing bank-foreclosures all over the U.S. online.

Through its LPSAuctions.com Web site, LPS is to open bidding on single-family homes, condominiums and town homes from Coral Springs to Tacoma, Wash. The bid deadline for the homes listed in the “Spring Clearance” auction on the site is May 10.

So now it’s official they have they’re hands in all Real Estate! My question is how…why would any state permit them to sell anything if they are under the scope of the FEDS?? Take a look below.

RELATED ARTICLES:

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION

LPS Asset Management Launches Short-Sale Service: “CAVEAT EMPTOR”

LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) Hits Local NEWS!

After ongoing INVESTIGATIONS: Lender Processing Services (LPS) closed the offices of its subsidiary, Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All about the misconduct of Lender Processing Services f/k/a FIDELITY a/k/a LPS

U.S. Probing LPS Unit Docx LLC: Report REUTERS

U.S. Probes Foreclosure-Data Provider:Lender Processing Services Unit Draws Inquiry Over the Steps That Led to Faulty Bank Paperwork (LPS VIDEOS)

Feds Investigating LPS Subsidiary DOCX: Jacksonville Business Journal

Fidelity’s LPS Secret Deals With Mortgage Companies and Law Firms

TOPAKO LOVE; LAURA HESCOTT; CHRISTINA ALLEN; ERIC TATE …Officers of way, way too many banks Part Deux “The Twilight Zone”

Stopping A Defective Title Wave With A Coupla Outstretched Helping Hands

BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS 2…I’m LOVING this!! LPS DOCx ADMISSIONS SEC 10K ROOFTOP SHOUT OUT!

 

Program Will Pay Homeowners to Sell at a Loss…TIME OUT!! “We need to do a little house cleaning first” Mr. Obama.

WHOA! …before any of this BS happens. Who is going to address the Perpetual Fraud that exist? Is anyone from the government even doing any due diligence on any of the TOP FORECLOSURE HELP sites? WE HAVE DONE MOST OF YOUR WORK FOR YOU. Who is going to rescue the homeowners buying these fraudulent issues encumbered in these homes? In our illegal foreclosures today and yesterday? May I please have 1 day in the White House to fix all this because apparently they are digging all this up, even further. In order to fix this crap this needs to be fixed first. I think the government has learned a thing or 2 from these bankers (a bird in a hand is worth two in a bush). They are running with their heads in the dark! Go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE…you see I did it for you!  For a start…YOU MUST FIX THESE ISSUES BEFORE ANYTHING!

If you feel like this is not enough then go here:
http://www.frauddigest.com
http://www.msfraud.org/
http://www.foreclosurehamle…
http://livinglies.wordpress…
http://4closurefraud.org/
http://stopforeclosurefraud…

Program Will Pay Homeowners to Sell at a Loss

By DAVID STREITFELD Published: March 7, 2010 NYTimes

In an effort to end the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration has been trying to keep defaulting owners in their homes. Now it will take a new approach: paying some of them to leave.

This latest program, which will allow owners to sell for less than they owe and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way, is one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts to grapple with a problem that has defied solutions.

More than five million households are behind on their mortgages and risk foreclosure. The government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan has helped only a small slice of them. Consumer advocates, economists and even some banking industry representatives say much more needs to be done.

For the administration, there is also the concern that millions of foreclosures could delay or even reverse the economy’s tentative recovery — the last thing it wants in an election year.

Taking effect on April 5, the program could encourage hundreds of thousands of delinquent borrowers who have not been rescued by the loan modification program to shed their houses through a process known as a short sale, in which property is sold for less than the balance of the mortgage. Lenders will be compelled to accept that arrangement, forgiving the difference between the market price of the property and what they are owed.

“We want to streamline and standardize the short sale process to make it much easier on the borrower and much easier on the lender,” said Seth Wheeler, a Treasury senior adviser.

The problem is highlighted by a routine case in Phoenix. Chris Paul, a real estate agent, has a house he is trying to sell on behalf of its owner, who owes $150,000. Mr. Paul has an offer for $48,000, but the bank holding the mortgage says it wants at least $90,000. The frustrated owner is now contemplating foreclosure.

To bring the various parties to the table — the homeowner, the lender that services the loan, the investor that owns the loan, the bank that owns the second mortgage on the property — the government intends to spread its cash around.

Under the new program, the servicing bank, as with all modifications, will get $1,000. Another $1,000 can go toward a second loan, if there is one. And for the first time the government would give money to the distressed homeowners themselves. They will get $1,500 in “relocation assistance.”

Should the incentives prove successful, the short sales program could have multiple benefits. For the investment pools that own many home loans, there is the prospect of getting more money with a sale than with a foreclosure.

For the borrowers, there is the likelihood of suffering less damage to credit ratings. And as part of the transaction, they will get the lender’s assurance that they will not later be sued for an unpaid mortgage balance.

For communities, the plan will mean fewer empty foreclosed houses waiting to be sold by banks. By some estimates, as many as half of all foreclosed properties are ransacked by either the former owners or vandals, which depresses the value of the property further and pulls down the value of neighboring homes.

If short sales are about to have their moment, it has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis, lenders shunned short sales. They were not equipped to deal with the labor-intensive process and were suspicious of it.

The lenders’ thinking, said the economist Thomas Lawler, went like this: “I lend someone $200,000 to buy a house. Then he says, ‘Look, I have someone willing to pay $150,000 for it; otherwise I think I’m going to default.’ Do I really believe the borrower can’t pay it back? And is $150,000 a reasonable offer for the property?”

Short sales are “tailor-made for fraud,” said Mr. Lawler, a former executive at the mortgage finance company Fannie Mae.

Last year, short sales started to increase, although they remain relatively uncommon. Fannie Mae said preforeclosure deals on loans in its portfolio more than tripled in 2009, to 36,968. But real estate agents say many lenders still seem to disapprove of short sales.

Under the new federal program, a lender will use real estate agents to determine the value of a home and thus the minimum to accept. This figure will not be shared with the owner, but if an offer comes in that is equal to or higher than this amount, the lender must take it.

Mr. Paul, the Phoenix agent, was skeptical. “In a perfect world, this would work,” he said. “But because estimates of value are inherently subjective, it won’t. The banks don’t want to sell at a discount.”

There are myriad other potential conflicts over short sales that may not be solved by the program, which was announced on Nov. 30 but whose details are still being fine-tuned. Many would-be short sellers have second and even third mortgages on their houses. Banks that own these loans are in a position to block any sale unless they get a piece of the deal.

“You have one loan, it’s no sweat to get a short sale,” said Howard Chase, a Miami Beach agent who says he does around 20 short sales a month. “But the second mortgage often is the obstacle.”

Major lenders seem to be taking a cautious approach to the new initiative. In many cases, big banks do not actually own the mortgages; they simply administer them and collect payments. J. K. Huey, a Wells Fargo vice president, said a short sale, like a loan modification, would have to meet the requirements of the investor who owns the loan.

“This is not an opportunity for the customer to just walk away,” Ms. Huey said. “If someone doesn’t come to us saying, ‘I’ve done everything I can, I used all my savings, I borrowed money and, by the way, I’m losing my job and moving to another city, and have all the documentation,’ we’re not going to do a short sale.”

But even if lenders want to treat short sales as a last resort for desperate borrowers, in reality the standards seem to be looser.

Sree Reddy, a lawyer and commercial real estate investor who lives in Miami Beach, bought a one-bedroom condominium in 2005, spent about $30,000 on improvements and ended up owing $540,000. Three years later, the value had fallen by 40 percent.

Mr. Reddy wanted to get out from under his crushing monthly payments. He lost a lot of money in the crash but was not in default. Nevertheless, his bank let him sell the place for $360,000 last summer.

“A short sale provides peace of mind,” said Mr. Reddy, 32. “If you’re in foreclosure, you don’t know when they’re ultimately going to take the place away from you.”

Mr. Reddy still lives in the apartment complex where he bought that condo, but is now a renter paying about half of his old mortgage payment. Another benefit, he said: “The place I’m in now is nicer and a little bigger.”

The Great Highway Robbery Continues: How The FDIC Is Legally Transferring Billions In Taxpayer Money To Hedge Funds

by Tyler Durden on 02/10/2010

It is not a secret to anyone who has been closely following the FDIC’s quasi criminal bank takeover practices over the past year, that acquirors of failed banks end up receiving a massive and risk-free gift in the form of taxpayer benefits via the FDIC when it comes to funding losses on a given bank acquisition. Should there be a short sale resulting in a loss to the full principal (not the cost basis mind you)? Not to worry, Sheila Bair is there to hand out taxpayer money to the hedge funds/banks owning the newly transferred assets. A recent example of this was the glaring insider trading which preceded the acquisition of failed AmTrust Bank by New York Community Bancorp, in which both NYB and those who bought calls in advance of information being made public, made massive illegal profits. And as the SEC continues to pretend like this episode never happened, we remind the intellectually subprime Mary Schapiro to finally pursue those involved, and will continue doing so for as long as it takes. But back to the FDIC: the folks at Think Big Work Small have compiled a terrific video detailing exactly how several hedge funds, currently owners of recently created shell holding company OneWest Bank, are picking apart the carcass of failed IndyMac, all the while encouraging short sales (instead of loan mods) as only that way do they get to benefit fully from the taxpayer funded FDIC loss-share arrangements which makes the IndyMac transaction an immediate slam dunk for everyone involved…except America’s taxpayers, and the FDIC’s ever depleting DIF reserve.

As the authors appropriately title the video, this is indeed a slap in our face. And this goes on every single bailout Friday when the FDIC continues handing out billions of dollars under the guise of “loss sharing” arrangements, which is simply a guaranteed profit from the acquirors’ cost basis to 90% of the original loan value: an instantaneous 30% risk free IRR.

Full must watch video after the link (click on the icon below).

Click Here for NY Times article.


Other articles and posts about the FDIC-OneWest agreement.
Click Here for actual consumer story.
Click Here for other consumer insights.
Why OneWest Always Forecloses
FDIC Pays Bank to Foreclose
The Great Highway Robbery

Document Downloads

Foreclosure Case Law Update: Matthew Weidner Law

By: Matthew Weidner P.A.

For a short period of time in Florida, pretender lenders and their attorneys had a field day in Florida courts, obtaining foreclosure judgments and title to property based on the flimsiest of evidence.  Now courts are aware of many of the problems with these files and lenders can no longer count on a free ride to the foreclosure auction.  Below is a sampling of case headnotes from recent circuit court opinions that denied foreclosure.  Judges in circuits across the state are now standing up for consumers (or at least for the rule of law) and requiring lenders to prove their right to claim the relief they seek.  A sampling of the headnotes follows:

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Stay — Foreclosure action is stayed until mortgagor has been afforded mitigation and modification opportunities of home affordable modification program

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion for final judgment of foreclosure denied — Plaintiff that did not become holder of note until after suit was filed did not have standing to bring action — Even if assignment could confer standing retroactively, assignment is deficient where jurat does not indicate that it was signed in presence of notary, and assignor does not have documented authority to assign mortgage — Further, motion for summary judgment is deficient where supporting affidavit was signed by person whose only demonstrated authority is to assign and release liens, not by individual with corporate authority and demonstrated knowledge.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Complaint — Plaintiff has failed to state cause of action where partial terms sheet attached to foreclosure complaint omits details as to who gets paid, when and where payment is due, and amount of payment — Further, assignment that is dated after filing of suit is at variance with complaint — Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion to dismiss is granted with leave to file new or amended complaint to allege that plaintiff is owner and holder of note and mortgage and to allege additional facts that support that allegation.

Mortgages — Foreclosure — Where note filed by plaintiff is endorsed but does not name entity to which it is made payable, plaintiff failed to plead in complaint that it is owner of note or mortgage, mortgage names entity other than plaintiff as mortgagee, plaintiff has filed assignment of mortgage executed and recorded after complaint was filed, and complaint does not demonstrate equitable assignment of mortgage to plaintiff before complaint was filed, plaintiff must amend complaint to allege that it is owner and holder of note and mortgage and identify documents upon which it relies to establish that it holds and owns note and mortgage

Siurce: Matthew Weidner Law Blog

Deposition transcript of Angela Melissa Nolan, a Robo Signer at Chase Home Finance…”Assignment Of Mortgage FRAUD”

I swear each time I hear about these ROBO-SIGNERS I immediately get this vision of the TRANSFORMER’s…more than decieves the mind!

from Matthew Weidner’s Blog

When speaking in generalities, it’s difficult for folks to understand what lawyer, judges and informed consumers are ranting about when we scream, “THE BANKS, LENDERS AND FORECLOSURE MILLS ARE COMMITTING FRAUD!”

I attach here a deposition transcript of Angela Melissa Nolan, a robo signer at Chase Home Finance.  In the deposition, she describes in detail some of the corporate processes in place that purport to give pretender lenders the evidentiary basis to pursue foreclosure cases….I’ve called these people “Robo Signers” because prior depositions indicated they don’t read anything…they just sign.  This deposition reveals another form of “Robo Signer”, a computer generated document, complete with a “real” signature scanned in…..and the rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper.

C’mon take a few minutes to watch the video…I tell you it’s exactly what’s  happening here!

MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, by Lynn Szymoniak, ESQ.

 MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD 

Lynn Szymoniak, Esq., Editor, Fraud Digest, February 9, 2010 (szymoniak@mac.com

In the past ten years, hundreds of thousands of residential mortgages were bundled together (often in groups of about 5,000 mortgages), and investors were offered the opportunity to buy shares of each bundle. This process is called securitization. 

Each such bundle of residential mortgages was given a name, such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 OPT-2.” The name indicates information about the particular trust such as the year it was created (2006) and its contents (with OPT indicating that the loans in that particular trust were originally made by Option One Mortgage). Each such bundle/trust has a Cut Off Date identified in the trust documents (specifically, in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement). The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the trust must be identified. In short, a final list of all of the mortgages in the bundle is set out. Each trust also has a Closing Date which is the date that the individual mortgages are transferred to the Trust Custodian, who must certify that for each mortgage, the custodian has a mortgage note endorsed in blank and proof that the ownership of the note has been transferred. This proof is most often an Assignment of Mortgage. Most trusts included the following or equivalent language regarding the Assignments: “Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan.” 

 Title insurance companies issued policies guaranteeing that the trust had clear title to the mortgages. 

When widespread defaults occurred, Trustees discovered that the laws regarding Mortgage Assignments varied significantly from state to state. Many issues regarding such Assignments were simply unresolved. One of the most significant issues was whether Mortgage Assignments could be back-dated or have retroactive effective dates. This issue arose because Trustees and their lawyers discovered in the foreclosure process that the Assignments could not actually be located, or that certain states did not allow blank Assignments. 

To solve the problem of the missing Assignments, new Assignments were made and recorded. Because the question of retroactive Assignments had not been 2 resolved, most of these Assignments did not set forth the actual date that the Assignment took place. The Assignments were signed and notarized as if the transfer took place many years after the actual transfer date. 

The Assignments were prepared by specially selected law firms and companies that specialized in providing “mortgage default services” to banks and mortgage companies. In jurisdictions with a high rate of mortgage defaults, over 80% of the filed Mortgage Assignments in the last three years were prepared and filed by the same five or six law firms and default processing companies. 

In many states, two such Assignments were prepared and filed. The first was prepared in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as “nominee” for the particular bank or mortgage company. When MERS authority to file foreclosures and Assignments was challenged in most jurisdictions, with varying results, a non-MERS Assignment was prepared as well. 

In all of these cases, the Assignment was prepared to conceal the actual date that the property was acquired by the Trust. An examination of the Assignments filed showing the grantee as the Trust – such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 – OPT 2” – shows that most of these Assignments were prepared and filed in 2008 and 2009, when, in reality, the mortgages and notes were actually assigned – albeit defectively – prior to the closing date of the Trust. While the exact closing date can only be determined by looking at the trust documents, any Trust that includes the year in 2006 in its title most likely closed in 2006. 

If a Mortgage Assignment is dated, notarized and filed in a year after the year set forth in the name of the grantee trust on the Assignment, it is actually an Assignment specially, and in many cases, fraudulently, made to facilitate foreclosures.  

These Specially-Made Assignments have created havoc in the courts. In many cases, the Specially-made Assignments are dated After the foreclosure action has been initiated, making it appear that the Trust somehow magically knew prior to the assignment that it would acquire the defaulting property several months after the foreclosure action was initiated. 

Repeatedly, courts have asked Trustees to explain why they were acquiring nonperforming loans and whether such acquisition was a violation of the trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Trust. No Trustee has ever come forth and explained that the Trust actually acquired the loan years before the Assignment. As a result, there are many decisions with observations similar to this observation made by Judge Arthur M. Schack of Kings County, New York, in HSBC Bank v. Valentin, 21Misc. 3d 1124 [A]:  

Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears? 

And in Deautsche Bank National Trust Co. V. Harris, Judge ARTHUR M. SCHACK Kings, New York, Index No. 39192/2007 (05 FEB 2008): 

Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a non-performing loan from INDYMAC…

 In Massachusetts in October, 2009, Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed a March, 2009, ruling that a lender cannot begin foreclosure proceedings before the lender has filed and recorded the Assignment, stating:

The blank mortgage assignments they possessed transferred nothing…in Massachusetts, a mortgage is a conveyance of land. Nothing is conveyed unless and until it is various agreements between the securitization entities stating that each had a right to an an assignment and they are certainly not in recordable form. U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez, Massachusetts Land Court Misc. Case No. 384283, consolidated with two other cases.

Many authors expect the Massachusetts Supreme Court to reverse the Ibanez decision, but the uncertainty itself, as in the case of the MERS challenges, caused lenders to flood recording offices with new Assignments.

In cases where the Trust failed to get a valid Assignment, the problem is complicated by the bankruptcy of the major loan originators, including American Home Mortgage, Option One Mortgage, and Countrywide Home Loans. 

When these big mortgage companies filed for bankruptcy, they did not disclose the mortgages already sold to the trusts as assets, because the transfers occurred months and years prior to the bankruptcy filing. Years later, when the Assignments were required for foreclosures, a bankruptcy court’s permission was needed to Assign billions of dollars in mortgages. Most likely in fear that a Bankruptcy Judge would not rubber stamp such a request, no such permission has ever been sought. 

In lieu of valid Assignments, Trusts continue to rely on Assignments specially made by their own law firms and mortgage default service companies. Eventually, these fraudulent Assignments are being discovered by Courts, and the foreclosing trusts required to prove that they own the Mortgage and Note in the foreclosure action without reliance on Assignments that misrepresent the date of the actual transfer to the Trust the authority of the signers of the bankrupt original lenders. For thousands of homeowners, this realization has come too late.

 

Source: ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE