It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wow! I guess Bank of America does care.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


The people coming by to photograph are with BOA, not a real estate company. Every time I see them, I make sure to come outside and ask who they are with and they tell me that they are with BOA. When I hear this, I always tell them to make sure to tell them I said Hi. Only once did a photographer tell me they were with the insurance company getting updated photos.

I hope you're right about me keeping the house because of the forgeries. They're really bad, too. A five year old could point them out. Seeing as BOA's rep signed off on the Note tells me that he was extremely stupid or simply didn't care that the woman forged my initials, which can easily be determined as laziness. If she needed me to sign saying I was a single person, then it was her responsibility to come back and have me sign where necessary. Now, she'll have to answer for her laziness and unprofessionalism, then take her medicine.

Attorney? Nope. I've gotten this far by doing my own research, writing letters, and keeping good records. Not to forget that certain ATS members have also provided me with excellent information and leads that have enabled me to get this far. If this goes to court, I'll certainly secure an attorney, which shouldn't be too difficult since Florida has been at the center of the whole robosigning situation. One of the main problems in Florida is our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who fired the investigators who discovered the robosigning. I believe she had to reinstate the agents, but she has not suffered any ramifications for her actions. She's certainly on the take and I'm wondering who's lining her pockets to keep the white collar criminals from being held responsible for their convoluted and criminal actions. Not to mention how many years I was paying on a Note that had no legal standing whatsoever.

I should be hearing soon on what is going to be done, so fingers and toes crossed!


Edit to Add: Rereading my Op, I need to clarify. Yes, I did contact a real estate attorney that day and they were nice enough to offer me some free advice and said they would represent me if it went to court. So, in the meantime, I have managed on my own, but I will contact this attorney if/when things go to the court. So much time has passed that I'm forgetting what I did and when I did it. I am glad that I decided to write this thread, so I can refer to it later if need be. Even though I've kept good documentary evidence, my memory is a bit fuzzy in regards to my actions in relation to a time line.

edit on 1-7-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   


This is after two years of trying in good faith to make good on my mortgage, but they kept sending my money back to me

Due to privacy laws, we never get to hear the bank's side of the story. Banks cannot publicly disclose private financial data, such as mortgage pay history.

Remember, there are two sides to every story. We're only hearing one side.

Regardless, once the loan gets sent over to an attorney to foreclose, the bank can no longer accept payments from you as a borrower.

Why? Because to do so means that they must stop the foreclose process if they accept a payment from you. Banks know that if you are running late on your payments, your risk of default just went through the roof. They don't want to stop, start, stop, restart the foreclosure process over and over again.

Borrowers play games. They run late 2-3 months, then make a payment. The bank has to stop the foreclosure process once they accept the payment. Then the borrower runs 2-3 months behind again. Banks aren't stupid. They know that borrowers play these silly stop, start payments games all the time, so that's why they won't accept your mortgage payment when you are in arrears after so many days.



I finally told them that they can have my house when they peel my cold dead body off the floor!

The bank acted professionally by calling the police. People actually do kill themselves over these issues, and threaten not only their own lives, but the lives of others. It was wrong of you to make a false threat in such a manner.



Is this what it has come down to?

Yes, these matters are quite simple and straightforward. If you make your payments on time, you keep the house. If you don't make the payments, or pay the payments late, you run the risk of foreclosure.

After all, you signed a legal contract with the bank stating that you would repay the loan on time, every time. Your failure to do so is not the bank's fault - It's your responsibility.

Maybe that sounds harsh, but that is now loans operate. To think otherwise, is simple being naive. You can't stop making your car payments and not expect the car to be repossessed. How is a mortgage any different? I mean, honestly, do you really feel like you are entitled to live in a house rent-free?



Simple. They resell your home at a higher value than you originally paid.


Not likely. Market values have dropped considerably since the hey-day of loosey goosey mortgage lending a few years ago. In some parts of the country, market values have dropped as much as 50% or more.



Even more chilling, if our homes are, in fact, the collateral for the government's bailout of these huge banks, then they will be the real owners of all this property.

Get your facts straight. Bank of America and Chase repaid their TARP funds years ago with interest mind you. And both banks were stable enough that they didn't even need TARP funds at the time.

Regardless, the government won't own your house when the loan goes into default. The bank or mortgage lender will, not the government.



They are out nothing.

False. If a bank financed a house for $500,000, and the loan goes into default a year or two later, they haven't recouped their $500,000 investment. Worse yet, that house has dropped in value, and is now worth say $350,000, so the bank takes a mammoth $150,000 loss at the time of resale, if they are even able to resell the house at all.

Even worse than that, these borrowers strip the house before they leave, causing tens of thousands of dollars of property damage, stripping the house of copper wiring, fixtures, plumbing, etc. This only adds to the losses.

Why do you think we have had record bank failures in recent years? Because banks are profiting from the foreclosure mess? Quite the contrary. If you read the FDIC autopsy reports for these failed banks, the scenario I posed above is the reason for their failure -- underwater mortgages and defaulted loans from sub-prime borrowers.



I have a personal friend who used his Chase credit card in D.C. just before a flight to Europe, and then used it when he arrived there about 9 hours later. Chase in their infinite stupidity shut off the card and stranded him for hours while he tried to get it straightened out the excuse being a charge was made in the U.S. and then in Europe in the same 24 hour period.

Chase did the right thing. It's called proactive Risk Management. I guess you haven't been reading about the rapidly growing rate of identity theft and electronic fraud that's all over the press right now.

If your friend had any smarts, he would have called the credit card company in advance of his trip to Europe. Dumb.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Think what you want, but BOA is in the wrong here.
My problems started when BOA took over CONtrywide. I had an agreement with CONtrywide to defer my payments for three months. BOA took over during this time and decided they didn't want to honor this agreement. When a company purchases/acquires another company, they purchase all debts and agreements. The fact they decided not to honor my agreement was criminal. Foreclosure hadn't happened. When I went to pay the amount agreed upon at the end of the deferment period, it was their responsibility to take my money. Corporate Law dictates certain actions and they think they are above the law.

Thanks for your comments though, but I'm telling the complete truth here and did make every good faith effort to honor the agreements set forth. If you choose to not believe this, that's your free will to do so.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Whatever you hope to accomplish, I sincerely hope you do. Their behavior and policies are despicable. I'm appalled by their refusal to accept your payments. Burns me up!

What are they going to do when half the homeowners in the country are living in the street? It's not actually *money* anyway. It's just figures on a computer screen. They would resell the property, plus keep what you have already paid in. They are out nothing.

Good luck to you.



so well said it bears repeating!!!!

They would resell the property, plus keep what you have already paid in. They are out nothing.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Libertygal
 


You better bet your bottom dollar I can!


Just wait 'til I see them in court.


Its a numbers game. Some cant repay in full, others were able to, but did not keep track of the papertrail and cant prove it in court. At the end of the day, they will get some houses on good conditions and people like you will keep their house after settling in court. But you will still have to pay what you owe. So the banks cant lose playing that Spiel.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by infowarrior9970
 


Thanks for repeating that and it's true that they aren't out anything, but I'd like to add that this is true UNTIL their investors pull out and their stock suffers. This is all they care about. As long as their investors are happy and their stock is holding steady, they're happy. When BOA's stock was lowered to $5/share, this was a result of their investors pulling out.

I believe that the end game is about the poor and middle class having to rent from the government. Only the wealthy will own anything at all. The government will end up owning probably 93% of this country.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


But you will still have to pay what you owe.


As we saw in Iceland, how can you owe anything on a fraudulent document/agreement?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   


My problems started when BOA took over CONtrywide. I had an agreement with CONtrywide to defer my payments for three months. BOA took over during this time and decided they didn't want to honor this agreement. When a company purchases/acquires another company, they purchase all debts and agreements.

Not necessarily. The FDIC has the ability to nullify any and all contracts of the failing bank when it takes over a failed bank institution. Bank of America probably had a similar agreement in their takeover of Countrywide that gave them the ability to nullify your (alleged) repayment contract with the failed lender, Countrywide.

Just because you supposedly had a repayment contract with Countrywide doesn't mean that the contract was legal binding at the time of the takeover.

Remember, the Federal Government intervened in Countrywide's failure, and pressured Bank of America to purchase the failed lender, for fear that Countrywide's demise would result in systemic fallout to the overall economy. Some big bank had to take over Countrywide ---- and few banks had the capacity to take on such a huge undertaking to unwind these sub-prime loans.

Countrywide was a loosey-goosey lender, and were notorious for lending to sub-prime borrowers and booking fraudulent loans. Obviously, you could not afford the loan, and got in over your head - job loss or no job loss.

Bank of America has the unfortunate task of cleaning up the mess left behind by Countrywide, and takes the brunt of the fallout from Countrywide's criminal conduct in the press - and its stock price - on a nearly daily basis. They are actually doing the country a national service by cleaning up the mess. They didn't get to reap the benefits of the party, but instead get to be the janitorial staff that cleans up the dirty bottles and mess left behind Countrywide.

I emphasize with your situation, but again, you need to take personal responsibility for your situation. You chose to do business with Countrywide. You signed the contract voluntarily. You were obligated to keep making the payments on time, every time, and you failed to do so. You bear responsibility for your situation.

While I am sorry to hear about your job loss, you should have had sufficient savings in an emergency savings fund to cover mortgage payments during your time of unemployment. Financial Planners recommend 6-12 months of living expenses set aside to cover such loss of income. You failed to plan, which became a plan for failure. Tough lessons, but next time you'll know better.
edit on 1-7-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Whatever. You are assuming facts and I have no respect for that.

For the last time: I DID NOT PURCHASE MORE THAN I COULD AFFORD!!!!!!!
I bought my house for $70,000, which I paid on religiously and never missed a month until I responsibly requested the deferment, but you'll never believe this. You worship a crooked banking cartel.

If the government allowed BOA to disregard client agreements, don't you think I would've received a letter about this? If this is true and did indeed happen, why are they stating that they have no record of a deferment agreement? I do and that's all that matters.

Keep bowing to the banks. If they keep getting their way, you're number will come up soon because nobody will be immune soon except the ultra wealthy. Maybe you're ultra wealthy though so this is why you think people deserve to be stomped on by the banks.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   


Whatever. You are assuming facts and I have no respect for that.

The facts are that you reneged on your mortgage by making late payments. Now you want sympathy from the subscribers to this thread, instead of taking personal responsibility for your failure to adhere to the original terms of the contract.

The facts are that you lost your job, and didn't have an emergency savings fund to cover your mortgage payment. You defaulted on your loan, and now you want to blame the bank for your failure to adhere to the terms of the mortgage. This is the same pervasive entitlement philosophy that permeates our culture - Everyone wants to blame others for their own mistakes instead of taking responsibility for themselves.

Blame the banks all you want. The bottom line is that you broke your contract. The bank has no obligation to give you anything once that happens - They are not required to accept a short sale, or renegotiate terms. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their depositors and shareholders to mitigate risk and to take preventive steps to avoid losses. And that means foreclosing on people that clearly do not have the capacity to repay their loan.



For the last time: I DID NOT PURCHASE MORE THAN I COULD AFFORD!!!!!!!

Yes, you did. Otherwise, you would have been able to keep the mortgage payment current. You may have been able to afford the payment when you were gainfully employed, but you clearly did not have an emergency savings fund to cover the mortgage payment in the event of a job loss or illness.

If you had an emergency savings fund, you could have weathered the storm. Instead, you defaulted. You did a poor job of planning for your financial future, so now you want to blame the bank for your own poor financial planning.



I bought my house for $70,000, which I paid on religiously and never missed a month until I responsibly requested the deferment, but you'll never believe this. You worship a crooked banking cartel.

"Responsibly" requested a deferment? No, you were facing a default because you lost your job. That's hardly responsible. Trying to make the best of a bad situation - perhaps - but that's not being responsible. Being responsible means that you take any job you can to keep your payments current (even a job that is beneath you), and having an emergency savings fund to cover your mortgage payment in the event of job loss or illness.

The bank has no obligation whatsoever to give you a deferment.

In fact, the mortgage contract requires you to make monthly payments on time, every month. Not some of the time. Not just when you have job. Not just when you feel like it. You must make the payment on time every month. That's the contract you signed. Don't like these terms? Fine. Go rent. Otherwise, you better take whatever job you can - even washing dishes, delivering pizzas, cleaning houses, whatever - to make ends meet if you lose your job.



If the government allowed BOA to disregard client agreements, don't you think I would've received a letter about this? If this is true and did indeed happen, why are they stating that they have no record of a deferment agreement? I do and that's all that matters.


No, you wouldn't have received a letter. No one is obligated to tell you what assets the bank purchased, and what contracts they agreed to keep, and what contracts were deemed null and void.

If you default on your mortgage, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The bank isn't required to do anything for you. They aren't required to do a short sale, or renegotiate payment terms. They have every right to foreclose.

Again, it's your word against theirs, and we only get to hear 1 side of the story. Why should we believe you? After all, you have already proven on this forum that you don't keep your word, or honor your contracts.

And, if they claim that they don't have the repayment agreement, perhaps you have a forgery on your hands. Perhaps Countrywide destroyed the repayment agreement before the sale of the company to Bank of America -- After all, Countrywide was well known to be a crooked lender.



Keep bowing to the banks.


No one here is bowing to anyone. I just believe in honoring contractual obligations. Our society is based on contracts, and legal agreements, not based on force and fear. And I don't for one minute believe your story because it's clear that you are not presenting both sides of the story, nor are you taking one iota of personal responsibility for being in default.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


You're absolutely right.
I should be taken out and shot.

Only the little guy is capable of breaching contract. The little guy is always wrong. Everyone should only be able to purchase a home if you have over $350,000 in savings.

I'll start looking now for a nice cardboard box to live in because the banks are never wrong. I'm sure if I covered the box in wax, I can live in it until the Chinese take over America and move me into one of their 10x10 apartments.

I'm so happy you've talked some sense into me. In fact, I shouldn't even purchase a used vehicle unless I have $5000 in savings.

According to your philosophy, I shouldn't have even went to college because I should've known that it wouldn't have gotten me anywhere in life. They never even should've given me a loan for school unless my parents were rich and could pay it back in the event that I became unemployed.

I wish I were as smart and sensible as you. I hope I have a perfect life like yours one day.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


The bank shills are so obvious aren't they?

They don't have a clue about the reality of the fraud. Maybe he should read the thread I wrote on it back in 2010. It's all about the fraud.

As I say, keep up the good fight.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


Thanks again, Julie, for interjecting common sense into the discussion. You said exactly what I wanted to, but refrained. I do feel that s/he works for a financial institution and will back them no matter what, but then I would also be assuming facts. If this poster honestly believes that homeowners deserve absolutely no breaks in times of difficulty and is so concerned with who's doing the right and legal thing, s/he should not ignore the fact that my initials were forged twice. I don't care who you are, forging someone's initials and/or signature is a crime and said individuals and the company they represent should be held accountable.

Again, I appreciate your support, Julie. For the record, I didn't write this thread for sympathy as the other member stated. I created it in the hopes of helping others and receiving advice from those who cared enough to offer their knowledge. If I could repay anyone, it would be those who have helped me while expecting nothing in return.

The banks are run by criminals. All you have to do is look at how much they make in interest alone. Providing someone with a three month deferment is a drop in the bucket to them. If at the end of the deferment period, had I not found new employment and couldn't pay according to the stipulations set forth in the deferment agreement, they would've had every right to take my home, but this didn't happen and should've upheld their end of the deal whether or not they were the company who originally agreed to it. I wish I could change things or been able to see into the future, but all we can do is the best we can and hope that things go smoothly in our lives.

Have a wonderful evening, Julie.


Edit to Add: Funny how CookieMonster can talk about mortgage fraud and how mortgage lenders doctor credit reports, but is able to ignore how the banks honor Notes with forged initials.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-7-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   


Only the little guy is capable of breaching contract. The little guy is always wrong. Everyone should only be able to purchase a home if you have over $350,000 in savings.


It's a $70,000 mortgage. Even if you had a measly $10,000 in savings you could have sustained the mortgage payments for close to a year. Give me a break.



In fact, I shouldn't even purchase a used vehicle unless I have $5000 in savings.

Not a bad idea, actually. New cars depreciate as soon as you leave the lot upon the date of purchase. Paying cash for a used vehicle prevents you from paying interest to an automotive finance company. Why would this be such a bad idea exactly? Paying cash for items makes sense.

In regards to your particular situation, renting would have been a better option. First, you don't have to pay any interest, and second, you don't have to pay any taxes. Plus, no down payment. Renting is cheaper, and also allows you flexibility to relocate without having to worry about selling the house. Why not rent? Seriously, if you are in that dire a financial situation that you cannot afford your mortgage, then rent.

But, what happens if you don't pay your rent on time? Do you think the apartment complex is obligated to work out a repayment plan with you? What about your electric bill, or cable bill, or car payment? Are any of these vendors required to work out a repayment plan if you fall behind on your payments?

Of course not. Why would you ever believe that you could fall behind on your mortgage payments and not risk losing your house? Are you truly that naive?



According to your philosophy, I shouldn't have even went to college because I should've known that it wouldn't have gotten me anywhere in life.

Depends on what you study. If you spend $200,000 getting a degree in a field that has no job prospects, then you would better off going to a trade school or obtaining a degree in a highly specialized field in higher demand.

As with anything in life, you get out of it what you put into it. Even if you majored in a non-technical field, you still learn valuable job skills in college if you apply yourself. Research, writing, and reading skills are still enormously valuable in the marketplace. There is still a market for people with brains and work ethic.



They don't have a clue about the reality of the fraud. Maybe he should read the thread I wrote on it back in 2010. It's all about the fraud.

The FBI cites mortgage fraud as the single most reason for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. This includes not just shady dealings by the mortgage broker in doctoring up mortgage loan applications by inflating borrower's income and capacity to repay, but also borrowers that committed fraud as well by lying on their loan applications.

Banks were defrauded due to these fraudulent practices, because these fraudulent borrowers could not repay these loans. As a result, we have had record bank failures in this country as a result of the fraud perpetuated by borrowers that lied about their capacity to repay.

Read the FBI files on mortgage fraud yourself - They are easily accessible on the FBI.gov web site. Banks were defrauded big time, which is why so many banks have failed in the past few years.

You remember the days not so long ago when you could get a home with No Money Down, and make payments at Interest Only. Mortgage brokers sold the public on the idea that borrowers could "flip" their houses when the Interest Only period expired, and make a cool $50,000 profit or more on the resale. This was the speculative real estate bubble that existed just a few years ago, and Countrywide was one of the worst perpetrators of this kind of bogus activity.

Oh, and Countrywide was NOT a bank. It was a mortgage lender at the time. Get your facts straight.



I created it in the hopes of helping others and receiving advice from those who cared enough to offer their knowledge.

Here's some advice: Pay your mortgage on time. Don't sign a mortgage contract if you don't have the capacity to repay the loan. If you lose your job, you better have savings set aside to make the mortgage payment, and you better be willing to work any job to make ends meet. Don't rely on some goofy "repayment plan" or "modification agreement" to bail you out. Make your payments on time, every time, and you won't find yourself in this same situation ever again.



The banks are run by criminals.


No, sub-prime borrowers that commit mortgage fraud are criminals.



and should've upheld their end of the deal

Why should the bank - any bank - modify a loan for someone that lost their job and does not have the capacity to repay the loan? You clearly don't have any problem dishonoring your contractual obligations.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Copperflower
 


I may be way off here and completely wrong but I think I recall reading something how PMI can encourage banks to foreclose on you.

I believe if you were paying PMI (mortgage insurance usually required by the lender if 20% is not put down) you have a better chance of getting foreclosed. I think the insurance you were paying for covers what ever losses they incurred plus, including the outstanding loans, and they get back your home.

If you didn't have PMI I believe that they have to pay for all the losses in addition to your outstanding balance.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
No, sub-prime borrowers that commit mortgage fraud are criminals.


Committing mortgage fraud (intentionally lying on a document which you must affirm is truthful) is criminal, but not being able to pay is not a crime.

Plenty of large corporations when they are unable to pay, either restructure or file bankruptcy. There is never any criminal prosecution or even moral condemnation, it is just normal business. (unless there is actual fraud) Read the business papers, it happens all the time. An investment didn't work out, stockholders
lose, lenders swap debt for equity. It's just business and everything follows the usual contract law. Only when it comes to "the little people" does this "moral obligation" crap come up.
If you borrow money from your dad, then yes, you have a moral obligation.

And during the insanity, there were plenty of people (the quant nerds in the risk management & the middle aged ladies-with-a-bun in the processing department) who were complaining to their management about how crappy the loans they were and how they didn't believe the documents and how much excessive risk the bank was taking on. They were all told to STFU by the top management who was making enormous bonuses because of the massive sales figures---bank figured they could securitize.

Washington Mutual even committed self-fraud. When honest independent appraisers gave opinions on property values which came in below what would be necessary for a loan to go through, they stopped using them and instead forced most appraisal to go through a captive subsidiary or spineless partner which would always approve the appraisal for the loan amount. It was 100% about the volume because the top management made huge bonuses for revenue growth.

one tiny example.
money.cnn.com...


In 2006, Ameriquest agreed to pay $325 million to settle charges brought by several state attorneys general that it had among other things pressured appraisers into boosting home values. And last year, Ohio's attorney general sued 10 local mortgage and brokerage firms alleging they regularly asked appraisers to guarantee certain values before they would be hired.


Note. Historically, mortgage fraud was a conspiracy against the bank where a collection of people made a deal to borrow money against a property whose value as collateral was fraudulently inflated, then the people take off and fail to pay. So excessive appraisals were part of the m.o. of the fraudsters. In the bubble, financial institutions did it so themselves, making it clear to anybody who wanted appraisal work that they had to always approve no matter what. Self-defraudization. Today of course, they are still opposed to any regulation which might stop crap like this (such as being required to personally hang on to loans instead of securitizing 100%, and thus be hurt if they do something idiotic).




I believe if you were paying PMI (mortgage insurance usually required by the lender if 20% is not put down) you have a better chance of getting foreclosed. I


This is probably true, the lender thinks its easier to collect from the mortgage insurer than from you, so they foreclose rather than negotiate or restructure.




edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Just a bit of advice that I had to learn the hard way. If you make calls to people that can in turn harm you with false allegations record the call on your phone or camera, show the date and time in your house or computer while doing it.

This has gotten me out of repeated jams with those that can simple make a claim, and its your word against theirs. Now I more openly speak my mind knowing that my words cannot be misconstrued.


Peace, NRE.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09


My problems started when BOA took over CONtrywide. I had an agreement with CONtrywide to defer my payments for three months. BOA took over during this time and decided they didn't want to honor this agreement. When a company purchases/acquires another company, they purchase all debts and agreements.

Not necessarily. The FDIC has the ability to nullify any and all contracts of the failing bank when it takes over a failed bank institution. Bank of America probably had a similar agreement in their takeover of Countrywide that gave them the ability to nullify your (alleged) repayment contract with the failed lender, Countrywide.

Just because you supposedly had a repayment contract with Countrywide doesn't mean that the contract was legal binding at the time of the takeover.


So Bank of America could inherit the contract to collect payment in the first place but didn't have to honor the legally negotiated modification in favor of the borrower?



No, you wouldn't have received a letter. No one is obligated to tell you what assets the bank purchased, and what contracts they agreed to keep, and what contracts were deemed null and void.


Can a normal person say "Hey the FDIC nullified your contract to collect payment" or is that something that only the privileged members of the Federal Reserve System get to do?

If I sign something, can I say "oh that doesn't apply, that wasn't me, that was just a subsidiary of my soul which I incorporated in the Cayman Islands who was later acquired by another entity, go negotiate with them. Oops the FDIC has broken their contracts, so solly....."
edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   


I believe if you were paying PMI (mortgage insurance usually required by the lender if 20% is not put down) you have a better chance of getting foreclosed.

If you have PMI, it means that you never put down the full 20% standard down payment, which automatically means that you have no "skin in the game" when it comes to foreclosure. Borrowers that cannot afford to put 20% down are considered higher risks of default, because it usually is a sign of limited liquidity (i.e., cash on hand or savings) and a lower personal Net Worth.

The mortgage crisis could have been averted in part if Congress passed a law requiring 20% down payments on all mortgages. Fewer people would have walked away from their homes if they had some kind of equity in these properties. Instead, during the bubble, it is too easy for borrowers to walk away from their homes because they don't have any vested interest in the property - They have no equity.



Committing mortgage fraud (intentionally lying on a document which you must affirm is truthful) is criminal, but not being able to pay is not a crime.

Agreed.



Plenty of large corporations when they are unable to pay, either restructure or file bankruptcy.

Of course. However, in this particular thread, the claimant is stating that the bank - Bank of America - is stating that they have no record of a repayment agreement. The claimant states that they did have a repayment agreement with the prior lender, Countrywide. Given Countrywide's notorious criminality, it would come as no surprise if the repayment agreement was shredded prior to Bank of America taking over this particular loan.

Instead of calling a spade a spade, the claimant bashes Bank of America, which has the unfortunate task of trying to clean up Countrywide's mess. A mess so bad that even the Federal Government had to step in and push Bank of America to take over Countrywide for fear that Countrywide's failure could have catastrophic effects on the overall economy.

We only hear the claimant's side of the story, not the bank's side of the story. If Bank of America truly has no copies of the repayment agreement, they are obligated to foreclose. They are under no obligation to rework a new repayment agreement under these circumstances.



It was 100% about the volume because the top management made huge bonuses for revenue growth.


True enough. However, these bonuses could never have been paid if fraudulent, bogus loans weren't originated in the first place. Borrowers and mortgage brokers connived and schemed to defraud the banks, and submitted loan paperwork that was fraudulent and inaccurate. The evidence is in the FBI.gov files outlining how mortgage fraud was perpetrated at the time - And the FBI raised red warning sirens at the time as well.

At the time, you had hairdressers earning $20,000 a year claiming they earned $100,000 a year, and purchasing $750,000 houses on Interest Only, no income verification, no Down Payment loans.




Historically, mortgage fraud was a conspiracy against the bank where a collection of people made a deal to borrow money against a property whose value as collateral was fraudulently inflated, then the people take off and fail to pay. So excessive appraisals were part of the m.o. of the fraudsters.


Again, read the FBI files on mortgage fraud. They outline quite clearly that Borrowers - not banks - were committing mortgage fraud. In fact, sophisticated criminal rings - some with ties to organized crime - were some of the biggest perpetrators of mortgage fraud.




So Bank of America could inherit the contract to collect payment in the first place but didn't have to honor the legally negotiated modification in favor of the borrower?


The bank that took over Countrywide is claiming that no modification agreement exists. It's only the borrower's claim that one existed just prior to the bank's takeover. We have no way of verifying whether the modification agreement is a legal, binding contract in this case.

It is my best speculative guess that Countrywide probably discarded or shredded the repayment agreement prior to Bank of America's takeover. If so, then the borrower's beef is with Countrywide, not the bank.




Can a normal person say "Hey the FDIC nullified your contract to collect payment" or is that something that only the privileged members of the Federal Reserve System get to do?


The FDIC is a unique situation, because it is an arm of the Federal Government with the power to nullify contracts. This power comes to the FDIC from the Congress, elected by the people.

So, for example, say you have a maintenance contract to clean the buildings of a failed bank. If the FDIC takes over that bank, they can cancel your contract in its entirety. FDIC has sweeping powers to do so.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Maybe you should read those FBI Files yourself.
www.ritholtz.com...

FBI Estimates 80% of Mortgage Fraud Involved Industry Insiders



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join