WASHINGTON STATE: ATTENTION IF YOUR MORTGAGE IS SERVICED BY OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC!! (STATEWIDE)
On 12/10/2013, the Washington Attorney General entered into a Consent
Judgment with OCWEN FINANCIAL who owns one of the largest, most abusive
Loan Servicers in the nation, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC. William Erbey
is the CEO of OCWEN. The Consent Agreement was intended to stop mortgage
foreclosure and loan servicing abuses by OCWEN, and OCWEN agreed to
help homeowners with cash payments, modifications, and/or offer
principal reductions. Here are some of the allegations in the
settlement:
Failed to promptly and accurately apply payments made by borrowers or to maintain accurate account statements.
Charged unauthorized fees for default-related services.
Gave false or misleading information to borrowers on loans that had been transferred from other servicers.
On transferred loans with in-process trial and permanent modifications,
deceptively sought to collect payments from consumer under the
mortgage's original unmodified terms.
Failed to provide correct and timely information to borrowers seeking
information about loss mitigation services, including loan
modifications.
Improperly denied loan modification relief to eligible borrowers.
Gave false or misleading reasons for loan modification denials.
Robo-signed affidavits in foreclosure proceedings.
Imposed force-placed insurance when the servicers knew or should have known borrowers had adequate coverage.
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Do not hand over your keys to these scumbag OCWEN Loan Servicers and the
Seattle Attorneys who represent them, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. (RCO,
P.S.) and/or Houser & Allison. OCWEN is a 3rd party debt collector
who simply services your mortgage for the true Note Holder. The
attorneys representing OCWEN and the Bank Trustee are also 3rd party
debt collectors. Your mortgage contract was not with OCWEN or the Bank
Trustee, and likely had a completely different originating Lender. Your
Note cannot be "Assigned" by "MERS" (See your Deed of Trust for MERS
language) or OCWEN LOAN SERVICING as they do not hold or own your
mortgage documents. OCWEN has no rights in your property. In this
mortgage era where your Note has been bought and sold on the open market
an average of 4 - 12 times, no one really knows who owns or holds your
NOTE! Lots of copies of Notes are being floated around but ask for proof
of the ORIGINAL signed Note! Unless someone pops up with the ORIGINAL
wet ink NOTE and says "I hold it", no entity or individual is entitled
by law to foreclose on your home and property! For more information
about this please read the blog articles in the Nationwide Defense
Network website and attorney Jeff Barnes's efforts on behalf of
homeowners. You will learn all there is to know to educate yourself
about mortgage origination, securitization and foreclosure scam by big
banks and loan servicers since about the mid-2000s. You will learn about
all of the important foreclosure legal decisions in the country.
http://www.wzzm13.com/story/news/investigations/13-on-your-side/watchdog/2014/05/05/ocwen-mortgages-foreclosure/8560033/
Also, see the OCWEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT signed around by the 50-state attorney generals and OCWEN at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/235647764/OCWEN-LOAN-SERVICING-CONSENT-ORDER-TO-STOP-MORTGAGE-SERVICING-AND-FORECLOSURE-ABUSES.
If you are experiencing no relief from OCWEN LOAN SERVICING in your
problems with its abusive loan servicing tactics or OCWEN's preposterous
loan modification efforts (!), contact Attorney General Robert Ferguson
or David Huey at the Consumer Complaint portal for the Washington
Attorney General's Office website. FILL OUT A COMPLAINT FORM AND TELL
THEM YOU WANT THE RELIEF THEY BARGAINED FOR ON YOUR BEHALF IN DECEMBER
2013 WITH OCWEN LOAN SERVICING! YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR HOME AND BE FREE
FROM HARASSMENT BY THESE UNPRINCIPLED FIRMS.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Judge Rules Foreclosure Unconstitutional
Judge George N. Bowden of the Superior Court in Washington State ruled against Bank of America (BoA) in a foreclosure battle that ended with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale under the Deed of Trust Act (DTA). The sale was deemed void, and the court is setting the foreclosure aside.
In this case defended by StafneTrumbull law firm in Washington State, the homeowner won his ability to sue BoA for damages for a wrongful freclosure which is another major victory against the unethical and illegal foreclosures industry that has left millions of Americans homeless.
Bowden acknowledged that this case was like most; “convoluted in the minefield” that is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) system.
Bradburn, the homeowner, was told by BoA “that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing.”
BoA ensured that this homeowner was in default of the mortgage by promising to refinance; then initiated litigation against the homeowner to retrieve the property for failure by Bradburn to remain current on his payments.
Bowden pointed out that the DTA “seems to contemplate a borrower and a lender with an independent trustee having the power to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default by the borrower. The lender would normally hold the underlying note and be the beneficiary of it. Here matters have been complicated by the sale of the underlying note from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide, which was later acquired by [BoA].”
Interestingly, Bowden stated that “Fidelity Title was identified as the trustee but then MERS was characterized as the beneficiary ‘as the nominee’ of the lender and their assigns. At summary judgment it was claimed that the note was ‘owned’ by Fannie Mae although it was ‘held’ by [BoA], which was then described as the ‘servicer’ of the note at the behest of Fannie Mae.”
The evidence presented by the homeowner showed that “MERS was never the owner or holder of the note.”
In 2013, Bain v. MERS held that this system “is not and cannot be a legal beneficiary under Washington State law. Only the legal holder of the note, the real creditor, has the power to appoint the substitute trustee in order to transact such legal actions as a foreclosure.”
Neil Garfield, property right attorney commented that MERS “is the electronic smokescreen that allowed banks to build their securitization Ponzi scheme without worrying about details like ownership and chain of title.”
Garfield said: “Properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A, and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.”
Bowden cited that there were “contradictory statements that were filed. [BoA] filed a declaration with ReconTrust which identified Fannie Mae as the owner and beneficiary of the deed of trust, yet ReconTrust later identified [BoA] as the beneficiary.”
This shows the scheme enacted by BoA to sanction this illegal and unconstitutional foreclosure which was proven because the DTA was not adhered to; as well as “failure to materially comply with that statute renders a foreclosure sale pursuant to it invalid.”
Therefore the foreclosure implemented against the homeowner was illegal because there was a failure to appoint “a trustee that was independent.”
Bowden clearly stated “I could not find that Fannie Mae as the claimed owner of the underlying note was a bona fide purchaser for value, even if it was not complicit in the violations of the DTA.”
It was concluded that BoA and MERS action were “unfair [and] deceptive” in nature and the homeowner was “injured” because of this foreclosure.
In this case defended by StafneTrumbull law firm in Washington State, the homeowner won his ability to sue BoA for damages for a wrongful freclosure which is another major victory against the unethical and illegal foreclosures industry that has left millions of Americans homeless.
Bowden acknowledged that this case was like most; “convoluted in the minefield” that is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) system.
Bradburn, the homeowner, was told by BoA “that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing.”
BoA ensured that this homeowner was in default of the mortgage by promising to refinance; then initiated litigation against the homeowner to retrieve the property for failure by Bradburn to remain current on his payments.
Bowden pointed out that the DTA “seems to contemplate a borrower and a lender with an independent trustee having the power to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default by the borrower. The lender would normally hold the underlying note and be the beneficiary of it. Here matters have been complicated by the sale of the underlying note from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide, which was later acquired by [BoA].”
Interestingly, Bowden stated that “Fidelity Title was identified as the trustee but then MERS was characterized as the beneficiary ‘as the nominee’ of the lender and their assigns. At summary judgment it was claimed that the note was ‘owned’ by Fannie Mae although it was ‘held’ by [BoA], which was then described as the ‘servicer’ of the note at the behest of Fannie Mae.”
The evidence presented by the homeowner showed that “MERS was never the owner or holder of the note.”
In 2013, Bain v. MERS held that this system “is not and cannot be a legal beneficiary under Washington State law. Only the legal holder of the note, the real creditor, has the power to appoint the substitute trustee in order to transact such legal actions as a foreclosure.”
Neil Garfield, property right attorney commented that MERS “is the electronic smokescreen that allowed banks to build their securitization Ponzi scheme without worrying about details like ownership and chain of title.”
Garfield said: “Properties were sold to multiple investors or conveyed to empty trusts, subprime securities were endorsed as triple A, and banks earned up to 40 times what they could earn on a paying loan, using credit default swaps in which they bet the loan would go into default. As the dust settles from collapse of the scheme, homeowners are left with underwater mortgages with no legitimate owners to negotiate with. The solution now being considered is for municipalities to simply take ownership of the mortgages through eminent domain. This would allow them to clear title and start fresh, along with some other lucrative dividends.”
Bowden cited that there were “contradictory statements that were filed. [BoA] filed a declaration with ReconTrust which identified Fannie Mae as the owner and beneficiary of the deed of trust, yet ReconTrust later identified [BoA] as the beneficiary.”
This shows the scheme enacted by BoA to sanction this illegal and unconstitutional foreclosure which was proven because the DTA was not adhered to; as well as “failure to materially comply with that statute renders a foreclosure sale pursuant to it invalid.”
Therefore the foreclosure implemented against the homeowner was illegal because there was a failure to appoint “a trustee that was independent.”
Bowden clearly stated “I could not find that Fannie Mae as the claimed owner of the underlying note was a bona fide purchaser for value, even if it was not complicit in the violations of the DTA.”
It was concluded that BoA and MERS action were “unfair [and] deceptive” in nature and the homeowner was “injured” because of this foreclosure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)