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.

 

Bank of America Sues Itself...

page: 1
30

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Bank of American Sues Itself In Unusual Foreclosure Case:


Over the past two years, the nation's largest banks and the Obama administration have repeatedly vowed to clean up the foreclosure fraud mess. In February, banks agreed to pay $25 billion and overhaul their foreclosure processes as part of a 50-state investigation into bank wrongdoing, resulting from practices that included robo-signing.

But in Florida's Palm Beach County alone, Bank of America has sued itself for foreclosure 11 times since late March, according to foreclosure fraud activist Lynn Szymoniak, who forwarded one such foreclosure filing, dated March 29, 2012, to The Huffington Post. (A white-collar crime expert, Szymoniak was recently awarded $18 million for her work helping the government recover $95 million as a result of bank foreclosure problems in North Carolina.)


When something doesn't sound right in "law" that usually means it has nothing at all to do with law and is simply just more legality brought forth by a priest class lawyer sect.


"This just strikes me as classic robo foreclosure," Professor Alan White of Valparaiso University Law School told HuffPost. White, a predatory lending expert who tracks and analyzes data on loan modifications and foreclosures, said that lawyers for the bank likely performed an electronic title search to see if any other liens on the property existed and simply wrote down the name of whatever bank came up in the search. Lawyers and paralegals who perform these tasks typically fill out dozens of such forms a day, White told HuffPost.


These are the times in which we live.




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Explanation: S&F!




"It's crazy," housing data analyst Michael Olenick told HuffPost. "They shouldn't be suing themselves."




Personal Disclosure: Repetion for effect ...


But meticulous attorneys would not ordinarily let their clients sue themselves. "It is a little bit mindless on the part of the lawyer," White said. "They don't need to sue themselves."


Uhhhm no its not and yes they do ... that way they get one of their mates to be employed as well!







posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Is it even legal for an entity (or person for that matter) to sue itself?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I read the article, but I don't get it. Did they do this deliberately for some reason or is this just a stupid mistake?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
I read the article, but I don't get it. Did they do this deliberately for some reason or is this just a stupid mistake?


That is a great question, and I believe the best answer is that both is true. I think the key is in the admission that they are attempting to cut out the Jr. interest:


"We are servicing the first mortgage on behalf of an investor and we own the second mortgage," Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens told HuffPost. "Naming the second-lien holder in the suit is necessary to eliminate the junior interest," Bauwens said.


The are suing themselves so they can screw someone else.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
If the first mortgage that they are servicing defaults it puts BofA in a bad position since they don't own it and have no control, they would have a hard time collecting on the second if at all. The property would go back to the owner of the first mortgage. There is no financial interest in servicing a mortgage, BofA would only collect a fee while it was in effect.

This must be some big mortgage for them to pursue this.

This may be a poor example but when my father retired and dissolved his business he sold the property and buildings on a Land Contract, the buyer down the line was able to secure a second mortgage from a private bank, When he defaulted the property went back to my father and the bank was left out in the cold, that is the risk they took. My Dad was the winner since he initially got a large down payment and then turned around and resold the property.

BofA is trying to cover their ASSets..



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Ahhh...Now it makes sense. A mortgage holder is due money from BOA for a fraudulant foreclosure (robo-signing or something similair) ...but Bank of America might have also issued a home equity loan and thus has a lien on the home. So they file suit against themselves as the lien holder for a fraudulant foreclosure and it is a win-win for BOA. Money from one hand to the other...while the poor smuck who got foreclosed on illegally gets zip. All the while BOA can tell the government and public that they made good on the illegal foreclosure.


edit on 11-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Lynn Szymoniak, who forwarded one such foreclosure filing, dated March 29, 2012, to The Huffington Post. (A white-collar crime expert, Szymoniak was recently awarded $18 million for her work helping the government recover $95 million as a result of bank foreclosure problems in North Carolina.)


On a side note....18 Million? For busting white collar crime? I like it!!

That is a creative way to make what appears to be a very good living. And there certainly is a bountiful crop of white collar crime to harvest these days. A little research, a little digging...good for her.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
the interesting thing about this entire story is that companies such as boa have insurance to cover them in cases of lawsuits.


So in otherwords they sue themselves then report it to the insurance company and receive a profit.

How would they get away with this you might ask, well I'm sure there is a partnership with the insurance company where they are scratching each others backs, especially if you have insiders who can make or break a company with the government.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tw0330
the interesting thing about this entire story is that companies such as boa have insurance to cover them in cases of lawsuits.


So in otherwords they sue themselves then report it to the insurance company and receive a profit.

How would they get away with this you might ask, well I'm sure there is a partnership with the insurance company where they are scratching each others backs, especially if you have insiders who can make or break a company with the government.


Partnership with the insurance company? How about they own it? WIN-WIN



The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, ...is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001).

It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company


Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase to Be Investigated


The new investigation set forth by the office of Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of New York State’s Department of Financial Services, will take a look at several large banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Faro, to discover whether they have fraudulently steered homeowners into force-placed homeowners insurance policies.

The office has issued 31 subpoenas or other legal notices related to the case in an attempt to discover whether affiliates of banks are receiving kickbacks for agreeing to add this insurance to mortgages—or if there are other conflicts of interest between banks and insurers, such as both functioning under the same parent company.[/ex

www.goinsurancerates.com...]



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
it is possible. i slipped on some ice on my porch and sued the owner, myself, and collected the insurance.

its just a technicality.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Nothing surprises me anymore given the build up of laws.
The more laws that exist the more loop holes that actually exist.

Still I've seen worse shinagians in business.

Such as when a companies owners open a new company and sells the old company to the new company leaving only pennies in assets in the original company and declares bankruptcy to cheat investors *cough* pic n save selling itself to big lots which they owned*cough*

We need to clear out all the current laws and start fresh.
There are honestly so many laws even the law enforcers can't keep track of them all, and I'm sure more than one law contradicts other laws out there without actually legally replacing the existing law.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Can I get away with this??????




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by freetree64
 


Well you could always sue yourself but then you have to argue with yourself about who will pay.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
OK the point of super saturation of law is fast aproaching....pretty soon there will be so many freakin laws that there will not be a lawyer who could winnow his way through a contract without building into it some kind of liability or loophole.
The Law my friend, is an ass..............
The total idiocy of the legal system is patently obvious already.
It is set up solely to benefit the elite and the corporate .....
Little guys are getting marginalized by the goverment collusion with the banks....these investigations are one thing, but who got the billions from the Bof A suit?
Surely NOT the mortgagees....the goverment collected the billions, the little foreclosed guys got nothing!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
suing ones self...
isn't kinda like an OxyMoron





The are suing themselves so they can screw someone else.


I would think this most likely



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
 


Depends on who your paying off...



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
What we really need to do is post an expiration date on all laws that aren't amendments to the constitution.

There are far too many laws and they all step on each others toes.
The more laws the more loop holes and confusion it makes.
Considering times are changing so fast I saw sit down and make a list of the must have laws.
Resend all current laws and going forward all new laws past are only effective every 10 years.

To pass a new law you need 2/3 of the vote, be it politicians, or general election.
When a law is about to expire it will only take a simple majority to keep the law say 50% =1 or 55%.
If in 10 years the law isn't given an extension it's gone plain and simple.

There are just too many damn laws on the books.




top topics



 
30

log in

join