Opinion

Felix Salmon

When banks burglarize

By Felix Salmon
December 22, 2010

When Bank of America bought Countrywide, did it know that as a consequence it would start being associated in the public mind with meltwater reeking of rotten halibut?

In Texas, Bank of America had the locks changed and the electricity shut off last year at Alan Schroit’s second home in Galveston, according to court papers. Mr. Schroit, who had paid off the house, had stored 75 pounds of salmon and halibut in his refrigerator and freezer, caught during a recent Alaskan fishing vacation.

“Lacking power, the freezer’s contents melted, spoiled and reeking melt water spread through the property and leaked through the flooring into joists and lower areas,” the lawsuit says.

The NYT‘s Andrew Martin does a good job of presenting four cases where houses were improperly raided by bungling banks. But of course this is the NYT, where there always has to be a broader national significance:

In an era when millions of homes have received foreclosure notices nationwide, lawsuits detailing bank break-ins like the one at Ms. Ash’s house keep surfacing. And in the wake of the scandal involving shoddy, sometimes illegal paperwork that has buffeted the nation’s biggest banks in recent months, critics say these situations reinforce their claims that the foreclosure process is fundamentally flawed.

It’s pretty much impossible to feel sorry for the banks here, especially when they throw out a woman’s family photos, ski medals, and husband’s ashes. (Yeah, that was BofA too.) But that said, the story does carry a faint whiff of bogus trend, when Martin concedes that “Identifying the number of homeowners who were locked out illegally is difficult.”

The curious thing is that the banks seem to be able to overcome that difficulty:

Banks and their representatives insist that situations like Ms. Ash’s represent just a tiny percentage of foreclosures…

Banks and their contractors insist that the number of mistakes is minuscule given the hundreds of thousands of new foreclosure cases filed each month.

In order to know that cases like these are “a tiny percentage of foreclosures,” you need to know what that percentage is, n’est-ce pas? So this defense is not particularly convincing, unless and until we can see some numbers. Surely, mistakes like these would happen occasionally even during the boom years. But if the percentages are rising, that’s clear empirical evidence that overwhelmed servicers are doing an increasingly shoddy job.

Next time a newspaper wants to write about this particular trend, then, let’s get the names of those bank representatives on the record, let’s ask them how they know that the proportion of dreadful mistakes they make is “tiny” or “minuscule,” and let’s be a bit more determined that we should be the ones making the determination as to how small the percentage is, rather than the bank’s own flacks.

It’s sad that the settlements in these cases are invariably kept confidential. Obviously, any given case is bad for the bank, which would have been better off not illegally breaking into someone’s private property. But it’s easy to guess that the cost of preventing such break-ins is larger than the cost of settling with enraged homeowners, and that the banks consider that settling such suits is a natural cost of doing business, rather than something which they should try to bring down to zero. Getting numbers on percentages and settlements would surely help in determining whether the banks are cynically allowing this to happen because doing so means that their overall costs are lower.

Comments
135 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Danny Black,

Sinbad1 and neeros, it must be tough going through life being the only two perfect beings on the planet. Never ever, even with 20-20 hindsight, making something even close to an error.”

The problem is not making mistakes, it is learning from them and correcting them. The banks have failed to do that. And worse, when they do make one, they don’t want to admit their error, or correct it. When a person enters your home, and changes the locks, that is a violation of property rights. No court order makes that OK. And when the bank does not even have a legal lein, and the home owner has a clear deed to the home, that is even worse. Unforgiveable, in this case yes, because it is a bank, a souless being, incapable of appoligizing, or being prosecuted and sent to jail. If it were a human error, that would be forgiveable. But this is a crime of greed.

Posted by neeros | Report as abusive
 

neeros, erm in this case they are making good the damage. Ditto the previous two cases where they foreclosed on the wrong guy.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

neeros, I will happily admit to know sweet FA about agriculture.

OK I was obviously being too subtle before. The people who got a home on a wish and a dream with no way or desire to pay for them are virtually all out of them by now. The people we are generally talking about now are people who circumstances changed. That includes but is not limited to one of the deepest recession the US had since the 30s, the almost total freezing of the secondary market causing a shortage of mortgage credit and an unprecedented – since the 30s – national decline in house prices. Just a couple of examples from the other thread show people’s homes dropping over 60%. Despite hsvkitty’s insistence that such people must be deadbeats unless the bank is perpetrating some wicked fraud, most of these people could and would have kept their homes if it was physically possible to pay. This is widely recognised which is why homes are usually considered such good collateral because people will usually walk away from loans on them last.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

Also in the 70s Citi was one of the largest banks in the world by assets, a large portion being dodgy third world loans. Check the number of banks that the FDIC has seized for small vs large.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

TFF you have your head in the sand. Foreclosure is a process and once it begins it is difficukt to unwind, whether there are errors or not. I am well aware the person doesn’t lose the home when the notice is given. I am also aware that each state has it own laws, procedures. I would l9ove to post them but my word is down and I can’t find it again, sadly. I will post it when I find it again.

And you are right I have read a hell of a lot more then you have have. Repossession is the final step of the foreclosure procedure… it is not in and of itself the foreclosure… it is the END

Now what YOU do not understand is that people who have modified loans are NOT in arrears and are not to be foreclosed upon. yet it is still happening.

The foreclosure process is a legal one and although that seems to no longer be the case as bogus documents are the order of the day, notes aren’t required, MERS is foreclosing on people as though it was an entity…I guess we will have to leave it to the AG’s to iron out because the American people don;t give a flying donut until it happens to them. And I do know you were one, as I read all your comments .. not just those on this blog.

I am well aware that you think anyone who doesn’t pay in full, Regardless of the reason should be foreclosed upon… you have said it time and again… and yes we know you are a good boy and pay your mortgage. May you not lose your job, your savings, your health, or your families health.

You aren’t going to make me feel badly by calling me clueless TFF. Go on then. Join the ranks of the Danny Black’s who are here to protect the banks and quash others who comment because they don’t like your answer.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

“hsvkitty’s insistence that such people must be deadbeats unless the bank is perpetrating some wicked fraud, most of these people could and would have kept their homes if it was physically possible to pay. This is widely recognised which is why homes are usually considered such good collateral because people will usually walk away from loans on them last.”

WTF? HUh? Don’t include my name when you spew your claptrap. Ok you are not just a bank apologist, you are a loathesome jerk.

And of course those who really wanted a home want to stay and are paying to stay, which is why the banks are taking advantage of them. Someone has to pay for all those walkers.

Neeros you are arguing with a guy who happily sold the derivatives that were the heart of the financial crisis … he could give a crap about homeowners.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

hsvkitty, this really isn’t that hard to understand. Applying for a loan mod is simply not the same as having a loan mod. Just like when someone offers to buy your house it is not the same as you having sold your house. If the owner actually has a loan mod then they have a NEW contract with new obligations but until they have that signed agreement they have to abide by the old one.

Again, here is a very very simple definition of default – the borrower has not met his legal obligation to pay the correct amount at the correct time under the EXISTING contract. It is really that simple and I find it hard to see how you don’t understand this.

If they are in default for 90 days then they can be foreclosed on. As you finally seem to have noticed foreclosure does not equal losing your home and even in non-judicial states it is averaging over a year long.

I have to say I always love how people like you always wrap themselves up as somehow courageous in standing up to The Man in a free democracy. No one is trying to “quash” your anon posting on random site and I suspect no one cares about your opinion – or mine or TFF – but at the end of the day facts are facts.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

Danny Black,

“Also in the 70s Citi was one of the largest banks in the world by assets, a large portion being dodgy third world loans. Check the number of banks that the FDIC has seized for small vs large.”

The numbers would be disparaged by the simple numbers of large verses small. I know what your point is, and in the arguement you are making, you are correct on a numbers measure. Your trying to claim that larger banks are safer. But with the FDIC, all banks are safe. But that is not your point. So your right, larger banks are safer, but I would claim the statistice are skewed simply because there are way more small banks than large.

But your missing my point here. Smaller banks are more nimble and customer friendly. No buecratic mess to go through. I bank with my local credit union. Their national call center is in my small local branch, as well as their HQ. And yes, I understand this is a CU, but banks are just the same. The small towns that I grew up in were just the same. I knew the bank owners, went to school with their kids. Those banks never failed, people never had problems with them. That is what I am talking about. Where is that level of service, concern, and well being these days? They made tons of money.

Big banks today are corporate monsters, looking to cut costs and charge fees. They have no soul, you can’t meet the owner, or the manager. When they make a mistake, no real appology, just a pay off. I can’t trust them, because they are not worthy of my trust. They have lawyers draw up documents that I can’t understand. They draw up sign or leave contracts. These are the reasons no one likes them.

Posted by neeros | Report as abusive
 

Wow, hsvkitty, that reply to me was the best and most carefully written thing I’ve seen from you in WEEKS! And it seems that you have finally gotten over your obsession with the term “deadbeat” that you kept throwing around? At least I hope so, for your sake… It really isn’t healthy to obsess continually over something somebody else said once a MONTH ago.

See the ING thread for a somewhat more careful explanation of what I believe (when I’m not spending 100% of my time correcting your errors and defending myself against your mis-attributions).

You will note that I don’t have any magical solutions that will suddenly make everybody whole. In those common cases where the family has lost income, and the property has declined in value, that is IMPOSSIBLE. What remains is to apportion the losses (and perhaps to attempt to staunch the bleeding).

If I don’t fall over my feet feeling sorry for the borrower, it is because in almost every case the bank will end up losing much more money. I would strongly encourage the bank to consider creative solutions (such as the AHP program), since foreclosure is a hugely inefficient process, but I also believe strongly in “rule of law”. Under that principle, I don’t believe in forcing solutions on either party.

All of this is separate from the problem of lost documentation and kangaroo courts. You keep confusing this issue with the other issues, which doesn’t help the discussion. I’m not going to feel sorry for a borrower in default who gets foreclosed based on improper procedures, but I’m sure as heck not going to feel sorry for a bank that is unable to foreclose (or must pay a settlement) because its paperwork is a mess.

I like the way neeros put it, “Big banks today are corporate monsters, looking to cut costs and charge fees. They have no soul, you can’t meet the owner, or the manager. When they make a mistake, no real apology, just a pay off. I can’t trust them, because they are not worthy of my trust.”

I would encourage people to press for that pay-off in the civil courts whenever appropriate. How else can you influence a soulless corporate monster?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

“Big banks today are corporate monsters, looking to cut costs and charge fees. They have no soul, you can’t meet the owner, or the manager. When they make a mistake, no real apology, just a pay off. I can’t trust them, because they are not worthy of my trust.”

For anyone that feels that way there is a solution… move your money. Open your accounts at a credit union or a community bank where you can meet the decision makers face to face.

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive
 

Of course, y2kurtus! :)

Only problem is that for a while my smaller banks kept on getting bought up by the big boys. Happily my current bank (four branches, though I think that includes a stand-alone ATM) seems to have no intentions to sell itself.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

TFF, one of the reasons they tend to get bought is because however much we may prize the personal touch in banking we also tend not to want to pay for it….

That said I bank with one of the bigger banks in my region and they are superb.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

““Big banks today are corporate monsters, looking to cut costs and charge fees. They have no soul, you can’t meet the owner, or the manager. When they make a mistake, no real apology, just a pay off. I can’t trust them, because they are not worthy of my trust.”

“For anyone that feels that way there is a solution… move your money. Open your accounts at a credit union or a community bank where you can meet the decision makers face to face.”

With one exception, that is exactly what I did.

Posted by neeros | Report as abusive
 

Danny Black,

“TFF, one of the reasons they tend to get bought is because however much we may prize the personal touch in banking we also tend not to want to pay for it….

That said I bank with one of the bigger banks in my region and they are superb.”

What a stupid statment. Small banks are given big offers to sell out. Has little to do with profitablility. The big banks wouldn’t buy them if they weren’t profitable though. With the big banks, we pay for it, but don’t get it.

Posted by neeros | Report as abusive
 

neeros, really? Care to back that up with some data? Margins for small banks vs large banks for similar products?

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

just did a quick flick through for Citi which I think is generally considered to have pretty much the worst service amongst the large banks. income/revenue on NA retail are around 5% for 2009. Shouldn’t be hard to find a few small banks doing better…. Looks like I’ll lose this one to Neeros…

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

neeros, by the way I didn’t read what you wrote “Dec 30, 2010 5:55 am EST”. My bad. All the best for 2011.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

“hsvkitty, your ex really can’t have given a toss about his kids. Leaving them with you really have to be some form of child abuse.”

That is a sweet thing for an elitist bankster to say. Lovely! I don’t give a toss about your abusive mouth, but you really should try to back up what you say as well. Although you have a definite advantage in knowing bankster jargon, your lack of knowledge in other areas shows. (and I am not like others and in awe of your spewing of said jargon…)

I am well aware what a loan mod is and how it works. You and TFF seem to have a problem with understanding that HAMP and other mods were giving a home owner false hope for their loan mod, stating they qualified and then foreclosing, being they started the process both at the same freaking time. But then that would ask for a minute amount of thought on your part Danny Black. (and TFF, damn you seemed like a decent human at one point…what happened? I was sick with flu for the past month… what the hell is your excuse…)

I guess Danny, once a a-hole banker, always an a-hole banker. You suit the part, I have to say! Felix has already written several times that HAMP wasn’t designed to help homeowners and it shows, but sure as hell helped the banks and the servicers slow down the mess they made … but who cares if the homeowners are duped? Not you surely, Danny Black…

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/20 10/09/10/hamp-failure-of-the-day/

And TFF the whole point here is that the proper procedure for modifications are not being adhered to… They were to be given a 3 month trail and then told whether or not they qualified… NOT foreclosed upon as they made the payments and adhered to the program! NOT to leave them in a loan mod for way past the trial time, take their money and not apply it to the mortgage, take huge fees and then still foreclose…and the many other problems with modifications I gave you URLs for but you ignored.

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaint s/wells-fargo-c270080.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27  /bank-of-america-stands-ou_n_740223.htm l

I would add a hundred more but then you never read them anyway… (or read one part, cherry pick and disagree… as always.)

Sincerely wishing you Karma for the New Year!!

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

hsvkitty, I know understanding simple english is hard for you but this one even has it in the first sentence:

“had fallen about $8,000 behind on their mortgage payments”, ie they were not up to date, ie they were in default. If mis-representing simple black and white english doesn’t faze you then why would the super complex “bankster jargon”?

Finally, weirdly for someone who makes such a big deal of spelling – trial isn’t spelt “trail “

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

and here is wishing you some free remedial reading lessons

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

hsvkitty, the discussion fell apart when you misrepresented certain points, I objected to those points, and you assumed that I must be objecting to everything you believe in.

And don’t pretend that “wishing somebody karma” is a friendly gesture. You’ve made it amply clear what “karma” you believe I deserve. That ain’t cool.

Is the flu an excuse for being nasty to others? If so, can I bring up my own bout with a bad cold last month? Following two overnight trips to the hospital with kids? We’ve all got our problems, but I do my best not to take them out on you and others.

Or maybe that is the karma you wished me?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

@DanyyBlack
Spelling and typos are 2 different things and I am willing to admit my grammar and spelling are not perfect.

As I said, I was adding the improper procedure of offering HAMP even to those who don’t qualify so they will default and start foreclosure at the same time HAMP is offered. In the case you are referring to, the homeowner wasn’t notified of the foreclosure … but then why would you read about that… when all you care about is they were in default?

What would we expect from a former ‘wallstreet-like banker from the UK’ but to cherry pick so you can keep your new job … the ‘Wallstreet /bankster apologist in residence.’ Karma and the Wikileaks New Year’s present are much looked forward to!

The rest is for those who are interested in reading about servicer fraud…

Servicers/banks get the added/illegal fees, HAMP incentive fees even though the mod didn’t go through, the loan payments that didn’t go towards the loan (where did they go?) and the banker gets his insurance.

The Government knows there is a problem, but could give a crap:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21  /federal-blocks-new-forecl_n_800010.htm l

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/e merging-battleground-on-mortgage-abuses- foreclosure-mills.html

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

“You and TFF seem to have a problem with understanding that HAMP and other mods were giving a home owner false hope for their loan mod, stating they qualified and then foreclosing, being they started the process both at the same freaking time.”

Actually, I understand that quite well. However your initial statements were subtly different — which is why I objected to them.

You are more of an expert on this than I, but the impression I’ve received from everything I’ve read is that HAMP was a horrifically ill-conceived and poorly implemented program. Not only did it fail to help the vast majority of homeowners, but it drew resources and attention away from private initiatives that might have been more successful. Fair statement?

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

TFF, she has no expertise. I have no idea what she actually does for a living apart from misreading articles but it certainly does not pertain to this field. It is one thing to rely on dubious links – I would personally discount ANYTHING Yves Smith writes – but she has repeatedly posted links claiming they back up her argument when they clearly not only NOT said what she claims but have contradicted it. Whilst one always wants to give the benefit of the doubt, one has to wonder whether she is simply a pathological liar or just deranged. A clear example is how she is STILL claiming that the link to the Felix Salmon post is about someone who was not in default and got foreclosed on when in the very first sentence in the underlying article it says he was 8k behind and it is clear in the article that the couple in question were in default BEFORE the loan mod procedure started. Someone who is capable of making such patently false statements simply has no integrity.

hsvkitty, I think over a page ago I said loan mods don’t work in general. If you had said that instead of spending reams of virtual ink claiming these people were entirely up to date, never defaulted and were somehow tricked into loan mods and foreclosed on despite being model borrowers then you could have saved everyone alot of effort.

Posted by Danny_Black | Report as abusive
 

“So being the Government is again wasting taxpayer money assisting the banks with Hamp rather then those for whom it was intended, why are people in the USA not upset?”

Maybe we are accustomed to this? Personally, I would like the government to STOP trying to take the lead. Half of their attempts are expensive boondoggles, the other half make things even worse. HAMP was about politics and buying votes, as most political ‘solutions’ are.

“The heads in the sand applies to those people as well, because your economy is too attached to the mortgage industry to settle until it does. The Governemnt lying and saying your recession has ended referred to wallstreet only. There is much more to come. My New Year’s prediction is 8 nore years on the roller coaster.”

I personally believe that is backwards. You CANNOT have a healthy economy driven by the financial sector. Any attempt to do so is essentially a Ponzi scheme. Witness the past decade for a perfect example.

Absolutely agree that there are many more years “on the roller coaster”. The big question, of course, is what effect the trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus will have on the markets. We know they won’t do much to help the real economy — again, you CANNOT have an economy driven by the financial sector. But at this point they seem likely to produce an inflationary recession rather than a deflationary recession. (And even if the actions already taken are insufficient, the people in charge have expressed a willingness to continue new initiatives until they succeed.)

“you make your own fate and luck…”

I try to assume bad luck and prepare for that. If it is likely that our income will drop by 20% in a recession, then I prepare for a 40% drop (with a large margin of safety). The flip side of that is running multiple jobs and businesses in distinct sectors, any one of which can be ramped up if the others run into trouble. A total of ~100 hrs/week employment during the school year, of which we need to maintain about 60 hrs/week to meet our budget.

That’s the way my grandparents (who lived through the Great Depression) lived their lives. I can’t think of any other way to deal with the uncertainty in our economy today.

How many of the people who are in trouble on their mortgages left themselves that kind of leeway? I absolutely sympathize for those who have fought for every inch of progress, emigrating to the US, working their way to solid employment while saving pennies, buying a low-end house or apartment, and then losing income or suffering a medical/financial disaster.

I have far less sympathy for people who had six-figure incomes, who splurged on a 2500+ sq ft McMansion that cost $400k, who borrowed against their equity to fund luxury vacations, and somehow believed that the gravy train would never end. If you’ve chosen to live an above-median lifestyle, then there is no excuse for failing to take precautions to protect yourself against a downturn. Especially since you would think the 2000-2002 recession would have dropped a few hints of how rapidly the outlook can turn from “rosy” to “bleak”. (Except, of course, I forgot. Real estate NEVER declines in value, right?)

From your link:
“You could say the Kaharas have only themselves to blame. They entered into a complex, interest-only loan when they purchased their two-bedroom house for nearly $300,000 in 2004.”

Let’s see… They were 26 and 28 when they leveraged themselves to the hilt to buy an ultra-expensive property in a posh community that I would never be able to afford. The article goes on to explain how their construction business seemed to be doing well at the time, so they figured they could take the risk. They took the risk, they wiped out. That happens. NOTHING you will say is going to make me feel sorry for somebody who takes stupid and unnecessary risks like that.

I don’t want to excuse or justify the bank’s actions, but it is entirely possible to have a conflict with NO sympathetic characters involved. To me, this is one of those times.

I bet they lost less than I did on my first house. Doesn’t sound like they had much of downpayment. The bankruptcy will clear most of their debts and (in time) they can start anew.

“The Kaharas will rebuild their lives.”

Hopefully making more careful spending decisions in the future. Live and learn.

Does that help explain my viewpoint? My seeming lack of sympathy for some of these situations? I believe we have a responsibility to do our best to avoid being a burden to society. Find jobs that contribute (rather than simply scamming money as so many Wall Street traders do). Take responsibility for your own education and personal finances, so the cash flows ONE WAY ONLY from your earnings into the public purse. Make whatever sacrifices needed to plan ahead, so you don’t have to ever ask for financial aid.

Plenty of people live lives like that, not all making high incomes either, and for the most part they don’t end up profiled in foreclosure stories.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

TFF, you said I was rather incoherent for the past few weeks and I was telling you why… not making excuses.

As Danny says, I have no expertise, other then caring anough about my fellow man to stay on top of how badly those homeowners in distress are being treated.

And yes that is a fair statement. So being the Government is again wasting taxpayer money assisting the banks with Hamp rather then those for whom it was intended, why are people in the USA not upset?

The heads in the sand applies to those people as well, because your economy is too attached to the mortgage industry to settle until it does. The Governemnt lying and saying your recession has ended referred to wallstreet only. There is much more to come. My New Year’s prediction is 8 nore years on the roller coaster.

I never said I wished you bad Karma or good Karma as that isn’t how karma works. You get the Karma you deserve. (you make your own fate and luck…even if I did have an evil eye)

PS: Note I said…May you not lose your job, your savings, your health, or your families health.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

@Danny_Black I never professed to have an expertise. it is you who professes expertise, although I am compelled to remind you it is as a Wallstreet (UK version) Bankster, and as such you really need to post back up to your statements, being your ilk are of the least trusted pre and après bubble.

A Wallstreet bankster calling someone else a ‘pathological liar or just deranged’ is a pot/kettle scenario. Your defense of your statements in this commentary has been your word. Your offensive in our banter has been name calling, derision and belittling and with this following statement from you, downright abusive.

“hsvkitty, your ex really can’t have given a toss about his kids. Leaving them with you really have to be some form of child abuse.”

Yet I rarely see you back up your claims. You belittle those who disagree with you, myself especially, but seldom do you back up your claims that someone is wrong, or stupid, or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

The links that I post very much back up my arguments, had you read them. My argument is different then yours of course. You side with the banks as a bank apologist and their servicers regardless of the circumstance, whereas, when the circumstance warrants I side with the homeowner.

I added Felix’s post to remind you we discussed HAMP and how servicers are duping homeowners on the blog several times before and that URL backs what I said.

BUT! not only do you cherry pick, but rather then note the URL states what I said it did, YOU go to the URL that Felix has added and as usual you cherry pick out that they were in default so you can state as a former bankster you can give F all. I think everyone here is well aware of that…

You also put words in my mouth to discredit me again. I did not say:

“STILL claiming that the link to the Felix Salmon post is about someone who was not in default and got foreclosed on when in the very first sentence in the underlying article it says he was 8k behind and it is clear in the article that the couple in question were in default BEFORE the loan mod procedure started. Someone who is capable of making such patently false statements simply has no integrity.”

Your last sentence does indeed apply to yourself. I never said Felix’s blog referred to that and you know it, and it is YOU who is making false statements and has no integrity. You do not back up anything you say other then to use bankster jargon to to show your ‘expertise!’

As for your saying loan mods don’t work, it is because you are a bankster and have sided with servicers and the banks on the issue. It is that banks DO NOT wish to make them work that you are siding with … you could give a rat’s derriere about the homeowners so please…

Continue to be a bank apologist… as it is who/what you are, but don’t think for a moment that your bad mouthing will change my stance or make me feel your lesser or that your cherry picking ignorance will make me less verbose.

I also will continue to add URLs so people can understand how insensitive, manipulative and fraudulent the banks and servicers have been and will continue to be. It isn’t getting better any time soon and it sure as hell isn’t over. This family wasn’t burglarized… no, there home was simply sold from under them, even though they had assurances from the bank in writing they would be given 30 days notice before doing so. Also note they were co-operative and making the trial loan payments well past the 3 month cut off HAMP requires.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/10/ business/la-fi-lazarus-20100910

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

If you understand anything about banks, lenders and servicers is that they are bound to policy and procedure that they themselves set up and HUD demands. To assume where there is smoke there is no fire is a failure to understand this. The rulings just made, the misconception that that there are only a few mistakes is not recognizing just how many mortgages there are out there, how inefficient the system is and just how sloppy the caretaking of the collateral (the signed docs, promissory note, trust deeds etc) are handled, lost or conveyed by and between each other. Stay tuned because if this is a larger issue and I believe it is, then the courts whose role in all this greases the process (foreclosure) will seize up. After that e will see loan documents that will boarder on debtor prison for breech of the underlying note.

Posted by mjfang1 | Report as abusive
 

If you understand anything about banks, lenders and servicers is that they are bound to policy and procedure that they themselves set up and HUD demands. To assume where there is smoke there is no fire is a failure to understand this. The rulings just made, the misconception that that there are only a few mistakes is not recognizing just how many mortgages there are out there, how inefficient the system is and just how sloppy the caretaking of the collateral (the signed docs, promissory note, trust deeds etc) are handled, lost or conveyed by and between each other. Stay tuned because if this is a larger issue and I believe it is, then the courts whose role in all this greases the process (foreclosure) will seize up. After that e will see loan documents that will boarder on debtor prison for breech of the underlying note.

Posted by mjfang1 | Report as abusive
 

If you understand anything about banks, lenders and servicers is that they are bound to policy and procedure that they themselves set up and HUD demands. To assume where there is smoke there is no fire is a failure to understand this. The rulings just made, the misconception that that there are only a few mistakes is not recognizing just how many mortgages there are out there, how inefficient the system is and just how sloppy the caretaking of the collateral (the signed docs, promissory note, trust deeds etc) are handled, lost or conveyed by and between each other. Stay tuned because if this is a larger issue and I believe it is, then the courts whose role in all this greases the process (foreclosure) will seize up. After that e will see loan documents that will boarder on debtor prison for breech of the underlying note.

Posted by mjfang1 | Report as abusive
 

If you understand anything about banks, lenders and servicers is that they are bound to policy and procedure that they themselves set up and HUD demands. To assume where there is smoke there is no fire is a failure to understand this. The rulings just made, the misconception that that there are only a few mistakes is not recognizing just how many mortgages there are out there, how inefficient the system is and just how sloppy the caretaking of the collateral (the signed docs, promissory note, trust deeds etc) are handled, lost or conveyed by and between each other. Stay tuned because if this is a larger issue and I believe it is, then the courts whose role in all this greases the process (foreclosure) will seize up. After that e will see loan documents that will boarder on debtor prison for breech of the underlying note.

Posted by mjfang1 | Report as abusive
 

J P Morgan Chase admits to overcharging military families on their mortgages AND illegal foreclosures. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41043127/ns/ business-real_estate/from/toolbar

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

A call to active duty, followed by an illegal foreclosure while deployed and 4 years of fighting for restitution. Lovely way to treat a serviceman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/busine ss/27foreclose.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=busi ness

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

Banks and servicers … still lying to homeowners, but have even more tricks up their sleeve.

systems.net/2011/03/jp-morgan-chase-mcca rthy-holthus-destroying-america-one-hous e-at-a-time/

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

One way to ensure foreclosures stay in the news is to have journalists picked on by the banks…we can expect better journalism when they are ensconced in the story!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404615. html

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •