PDA

View Full Version : Foreclosure Audits Estimates 84% Are Illegal !



Qtec
02-19-2012, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">San Francisco Foreclosure Audits Estimates 84 Percent Are Illegal.

<span style="color: #000099">San Francisco recently carried out an audit on a number of foreclosures. Their findings were released in a report this week that shows just how rampant mortgage fraud has been. From Reuters:

The audit of almost 400 foreclosures in San Francisco found that 84 percent of them appeared to be illegal, according to the study released by the California city on Wednesday.

Similar studies around the country show comparable results. These numbers are astounding. And worse, they’ve essentially gotten away with it.

In many cases during the housing bubble that burst in 2008, original mortgages were repackaged and sold to so many investors that it is now unclear who actually holds the loans. O’Brien could only find the current owners of the mortgages he studied in 287 out of 473 cases.

In the San Francisco study, which studied properties subject to foreclosure sales between January 2009 to November 2011, 45 per cent were sold to entities improperly claiming to be the owner of the loan.

“It is not impossible that there are homeowners who are alleged to have defaulted on loans to which they never fully agreed to and, further, are being foreclosed upon by lenders that might not even own such loans,” the report stated.
</span>
This should be unimaginable. Instead it is chilling – the story of a largely unregulated financial industry gone amuck. The consequences to homeowners and their families is devastating. Of course the most chilling aspect of the whole mess is that the banks have never admitted to any wrongdoing. There have been no prosecutions. No banksters are wearing orange prison jumpsuits as a result of their role in defrauding millions of US homeowners.

But wait, wait! I'm sure you'll be reassured to know that Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, asking him to look into possible violations of federal law.

I'm sure he'll jump right on it. Just as soon as he gets done busting people for medical marijuana... </div></div>

Has there ever been a clearer example of America having two sets of Laws? One for the elite, one for the rest?

Q

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:32 AM
Who were they making payments to?

eg8r
02-19-2012, 08:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“It is not impossible that there are homeowners who are alleged to have defaulted on loans to which they never fully agreed to and, further, are being foreclosed upon by lenders that might not even own such loans,” the report stated.
</div></div>Well dagum...who was it that signed on the dotted line?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course the most chilling aspect of the whole mess is that the banks have never admitted to any wrongdoing. There have been no prosecutions. No banksters are wearing orange prison jumpsuits as a result of their role in defrauding millions of US homeowners.
</div></div>And that freaking Obama acts like he cares for the little man. Here qtip is telling us he is doing nothing for anyone other than help line the banks pockets by allowing this to continue to happen.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 09:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who were they making payments to? </div></div>

To the loan servicing bank, who previously sold the loan into syndication or securitization, and who then is paid a nominal fee for collecting and sending payments forward to the real owner(s).

The loan servicing bank no longer has any ownership of the loan, or any legal right to the property in lieu of payments should the borrower default, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY GOT ALL THEIR MONEY BACK at the time the mortgage was sold forward.

How can we be sure? Because if the bank held the mortgage itself as part of its own portfolio, no frauds in the foreclosure process would have been necessary.

Qtec
02-20-2012, 01:49 AM
Obama has totally failed in this area. Could he have done more? Who knows.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration, for instance, compelled banks to increase lending to consumers, known as “prime borrowers.” Such a step might have spurred spending and growth, although generating demand for loans may have proved difficult in the downturn.

A recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks did not significantly increase lending after being bailed out. Rather, they used taxpayer money, in part, to invest in risky securities that profited from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their investment returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.

“If the goal was to support lending, it would have been sensible to require a portion of the money to support credit origination,” said Ran Duchin, one of the finance professors who completed the study. “Lending to prime consumers was not the most profitable use of their capital.” </div></div>

Q

Qtec
02-20-2012, 01:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“It is not impossible that there are homeowners who are alleged to have defaulted on loans to which they never fully agreed to and, further, are being foreclosed upon by lenders that might not even own such loans,” the report stated.
Well dagum...who was it that signed on the dotted line? </div></div>

And what was the deal? What was the security for this loan?

Q

eg8r
02-20-2012, 09:18 AM
LOL, the homeowners who are alleged to have defaulted on loans they never fully agreed to????? Did they sign the dotted line?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-20-2012, 02:46 PM
People who paid CASH for their houses have been foreclosed. By banks they never had borrowed from.

You don't remember those stories?

eg8r
02-20-2012, 03:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People who paid CASH for their houses have been foreclosed</div></div>Do you want to focus on the miniscule minority or do you want to join in the discussion that qtip and I are talking about. He said...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">alleged to have defaulted on loans to which they never fully agreed to </div></div>So I ask again, who signed on the dotted line?

eg8r