Ocwen Leads Mortgage Servicers in Converting Federal HAMP Trial Loan Modifications to Permanent Status

May 18, 2010, 1:01 p.m. EDT

83% of Ocwen’s Trial Modifications are Now Permanent Ones, According to Report From Treasury Department’s Home Affordable Modification Program

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Ocwen Financial Corporation(OCN 11.83, -0.21, -1.74%), servicer of subprime mortgages, has converted the highest percentage of trial loan modifications for distressed homeowners to permanent status, when compared with the other servicers participating in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

According to a just-released HAMP report on servicer performance through April 2010, 83% of Ocwen’s customers who had trial modifications under HAMP now have permanent modifications, meaning their home loan payments have been reduced to a level that should be affordable and sustainable. (Borrowers in permanent HAMP reductions are receiving median payment reductions of 36%, more than $500 per month, the report said.) One other servicer converted 83% of eligible borrowers, and the four largest servicers in HAMP — including big banks — have conversion rates below 30%.

Ocwen attributes its conversion success in part to its established practice of requiring verified documentation from borrowers before putting them in trial modifications. Many servicers have relied simply on stated income for trial modifications. Treasury is now requiring all HAMP servicers, as of June 1, 2010, to require upfront documentation prior to initiating new trial modifications.

Said Ronald M. Faris, Ocwen’s President, “We are doing everything we can to help make the HAMP program a success. Loan modifications are the best solution for helping American families avoid foreclosure, but modifications have to be sustainable, rigorously formulated and effected on a meaningful scale. We’re gratified that the Treasury has recognized that our upfront documentation approach, while process-intensive, benefits homeowners and the program — and that approach is now required of all HAMP servicers.”

Mr. Faris said Ocwen’s success with modifications also stems from its 30-year track record servicing high-risk loans, as well as the firm’s proprietary technology that allows it to modify mortgages for distressed homeowners so they’re affordable on a sustainable basis and also deliver more cash flow to investors than they would get from a foreclosure. Ocwen has invested over $100 million in R&D to build loan servicing technology that is scalable for high volumes. The firm also cites its reliance on consumer behavioral science research and long-standing partnerships with grass roots consumer advocacy groups as instrumental in enhancing borrower outreach and effective communications.

In testimony before Congress in March, Mr. Faris voiced Ocwen’s support for HAMP and recommended several program enhancements, including:

  --  Lowering the borrower debt-to-income ratio for modifications -- i.e.,
      allowing for lower monthly payments on modifications.
  --  Allowing for principal reductions on modified loans. (Approximately 15%
      of Ocwen modifications, including those outside HAMP, involve principal
      reductions.)
  --  Making additional funding available for housing counseling groups.
  --  Requiring underperforming servicers in HAMP to outsource to servicers
      that perform.

Since the onset of the mortgage crisis, Ocwen has saved more than 100,000 homes from foreclosure. In doing this, Ocwen has partnered with community groups around the country to reach out to, educate and provide services for customers in distress and at foreclosure risk.

“Our message to homeowners facing difficulty paying their mortgages is to work with their servicer. Modifications represent a very promising solution. They also require proactive communications with the servicer and a real investment of time. But it’s worth it. We urge patience and persistence,” Mr. Faris said.

About Ocwen

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a leading provider of residential and commercial loan servicing, special servicing and asset management services. Ocwen is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida with offices in California, the District of Columbia and Georgia and support operations in India and Uruguay. Utilizing proprietary technology and world-class training and processes, we provide solutions that make our clients’ loans worth more. Additional information is available at www.ocwen.com.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: Ocwen Financial Corp.

CONTACT:  Sommerfield Communications
Itay Engelman
(212) 255-8386
itay@sommerfield.com


(C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advertisements

JUAN PARDO…”I wear many hats (too)” MERS/ OCWEN/ Union Capital/ Berkeley

Livinglies blog:

Juan Pardo MERS/Ocwen cross employment. Have a dozen docs confirming this from NH/MA registries of deeds. Notarized in one place, executed in another, prepared in another.

Also, have confirmation of one Carla Tinoco, witnessing and notarizing Pardo’s MERS docs. Ms. Tinoco is also a confirmed Ocwen employee as she has appeared as Doc prep for Ocwen. Ms. Tinoco’s FL Notary registration also confirms business address of Ocwen:

http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=1264522

Commission Detail
Notary ID:1264522
Last Name:Tinoco
First Name:Carla
Middle Name:
Birth Date:07/30/75
Transaction Type:NEW
Certificate:DD 912557
Status:ACT
Issue Date:07/31/09
Expire Date:07/30/13
Bonding Agency:Atlantic Bonding Company
Mailing Address:1661 Worthington Rd.
Ste. #100
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409-0000

Source: Juan Pardo MERS/Ocwen cross employment

Follow the Trail —Don’t get lost in the documents

Posted on March 25, 2010 by Neil Garfield

I THOUGHT THIS COMMENT WAS WORTHY OF MAKING INTO A POST.

See for Deutsch bank references Prospectus offered all over the world: Anyone who had a Deed of Trust with: Indymac, Wells Fargo, Countrywide, GMAC, Ocwen, American Home, Residential Funding Company, Washington Mutual Bank, BofA, and many others you might want to check this link out.

Editor’s Note: The only thing I would add is that the obligation arose when the borrower executed a note, but the creditor got a securitized bond with different terms, deriving its value from your note and thousands of others. Once you realize that the obligation is NOT the same as the Note, which is only EVIDENCE of the obligation, and that the MORTGAGE is NOT the obligation, it is only incident to the note, THEN you will understand that following the money means following the obligation, not the note or the mortgage. And figuring out what effect there was on the obligation at each step that the note was transferred, bought or paid, is the key to understanding whether the note became a negotiable instrument, and if it did, if it retained that status as a negotiable instrument.

FROM Jan van Eck
dutchman4753@gmail.com

to foreclosurefight:

What you are missing in your attempt to analyze this is that you are trying to follow the “mortgage,” not the Note. the reason you are doing this is that only the “mortgage,” as the Security Instrument, is being recorded on the land records – so it is all you get to see.

the reason your adversaries, whoever they really are, “withdrew” from the relief from Stay Motion in the BK Court is that they do not have the Note. Somebody else does. And you have no clue as to who that is.

You have to start by determining what has happened to the Note, and how the Indorsements on the Note flow. And you have not seen the Note, not in years, so the raw truth is that you have no clue.

the “mortgage” never went into any “Trust.” Mortgages do not go into trusts. Only the Note (“maybe”) went into a trust – and only if it had proper Indorsement. Since Deutsche is involved, you can safely bet that it did not. Deutsche is NOTORIOUS for perpetrating fraud on the Courts and by fabricating documents. You may assume that EVERYTHING that Deutsche shows up with is a fraud, and has been fraudulently fabricated, typically in their offices on Liberty Street in Downtown Manhattan NY.

What is missing in your convoluted chain of title is that there was a ton of other parties involved in setting up that “Trust”, including some Delaware sham entity known as the “Depositor,” and then another sham known as the “Seller,” and more. When you burrow through that Prospectus you will find those entities listed. Now you have to dig out the Note, and find if those entities are individually and sequentially listed on the Note by consecutive Indorsements. Since Deutsche had their sticky fingers in the pie, you already know that they did not.

What State are you in? Yes, you need new counsel. You should never have gotten into this with old counsel.

You can still defeat them, but you probably will have to go file in District (Federal ) Court. You will have to sue Deutsche. Think in terms of suing them in the USDC for the Sou.Distr. NY, in White Plains, NY. Now you are not tangled up in the State-Fed politics of your local judges.

You cannot ask for Quiet title as you are asking for that in the State Court. You have to go in with entirely new grounds or they will not hear your case. So you sue them for fraud in interstate commerce. Try the “Commerce Clause” in the US Constitution (Amendment 16? I forget), to try to get “jurisdiction.” You get “venue” easily as Deutsche Bank is in NY. You do not need to show up; you just file and do your papers by mail. If yo ask for enough money, e.g. 40 million, then DB has something to start worrying about.

Right now, DB has no downside. If they lose, all they lose is some paper on some worthless piece of property in some state that is flooded with empty foreclosed houses that nobody can sell. So what do they care? DB probably does not even know or care that your lawsuit is going on; you are just dealing with lawyers that are running up their tab with DB, and DB has so many tabs that they do not try to keep track of it all. So you have to expose them to some serious hurt. A gigantic lawsuit is a good place to start.

You may assume that everything DB and those attys produce is utterly fraudulent. I have seen documents produced where the entire Trust Agreement was fabricated, and notarized by a notary who did not even get his first commission until two years after he swore that the parties were standing in front of him. Welcome to Wall Street banks – the international predator banks.

Besides Deutsche, Credit Suisse is also notorious for this type of flagrant fraud upon our Courts.