.....................Total Pageviews




My photo
I am a Product and Brand Value Accelerator with over 2 dozen IMDB Credits, Los Angeles EMMY Winner. Top 25 Lifetime Tongal Ideationist, Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Internship Scholarship Winner. Also am a Video Forensics and Video Analysis Expert for Hire.






Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Adam Levitin, Barry Ritholtz, Karl Denninger, Calculated Risk, Matt Weidner, Neil Garfield, Meet Karen Gelernt and her take on Title Transfer Law 101.

I am not as well versed as any of you on possibly opposing Karen Gelernt's pro banking, pro securitization position, but I wanted to make you are all well aware that this position paper does exist, AND SHOULD BE REFUTED.

In my opinion, I find Gelnert's position refutable, but I would be using mere logic to refute Gelernt's position, whereas perhaps you six can cite law and all that legal stuff that matters to the court.

If you know any of the pick six I named up above, or frequent their blogs, maybe you can pollinate this article onto their forums or blogs so we can expose the banksters misguided position. I could leave the messages on their blogs and websites myself, but I'm NOT going to because it can be seen as spamming.

The internet needs more pollinators, BEE a Pollinator and pollinate this particular topic far and wide because I think it is ground zero for exposing just how out of touch the banksters really are and now we have a position paper to prove it, or in this case, disprove.

And if you want to learn more about "American Banker", click here.

Courthouse News Service

Click above to read story about a couple that pays a LOT OF MONEY to catch up on their home mortgage payment but Bank of America refuses to accept the money because it is not the "exact amount". Bank of America will not reveal what the "exact" amount is. CLICK HERE TO GO TO COURT DOCUMENT.

Monday, November 29, 2010

How Securitization Could Deceive Home Buyers into losing prior mortgage agreements and procedures without ever agreeing to such changes in terms.

One aspect of the entire home foreclosure issue that needs more attention is the deception of the monthly home mortgage payment amount never changing even as the TERMS within the mortgage note were changing WITHOUT THE HOMEOWNER'S EXPRESSED, WRITTEN, CONSENT.
When a home buyer's mortgage note was being batted around like a floating beach ball at a baseball game from one banking entity to another, the monthly mortgage payment amount usually never changed. The act of not changing the monthly mortgage payment amount while changing other aspects of the mortgage agreement without expressed, written consent from the home buyer can be construed as deceptive since it deceived the homeowner into thinking that none of their mortgage terms had changed..
Example: Securitization Investors that gained control over the home buyers ability to apply for HAMP, or HAFA, or perhaps other home mortgage re-fi programs, while the actual monthly mortgage payment amount never changed, can be construed as an act of deception.

If a homeowner's monthly mortgage payment amount never changes, it is FAIR and REASONABLE for that homeowner to assume that there have been no changes in the homeowner's mortgage terms even as the securitized mortgage note changed hands several times.
It seems to me that when a home mortgage is securitized, resold but then actually does change the home buyers ability to refi their home, mortgage fraud has occurred.
If any of the following eight terms below (and there could be more than eight) were altered as a securitized home mortgage dances its way from one mortgage servicer to another, such as....
  1. the homeowner's ability to refi their home,
  2. the way penalties and fines were assessed,
  3. the late payment policy,
  4. the time it takes for the payment to reach its destination,
  5. the time it takes for the check to clear,
  6. the level of customer service to what it was in the past,
  7. the monthly mortgage amount,
  8. arrears policy.
.........then in my opinion the home owner has had their property rights abrogated.

If any of those 8 mortgage related responsibilities changed (and there could be more that I missed) at any time during the transfer and retransfer of the securitized mortgage note, it is my opinion the home buyer has a LEGITIMATE cause of action to contest a foreclosure action.

The moment any change in terms occurs to a home mortgage note that the home buyer is unaware of and did not give their expressed written consent to have happen, then that home buyer may have a legitimate cause to contest any action that leads to a foreclosure action.

If a judge is trying to avoid home buyers taking advantage of the foreclosure situation by trying to stay in their home for "free", in my opinion the judge could ask that the terms of the mortgage note revert back to the ORIGINAL status with the original owner of the note.

If the paper trail could be reversed, and everything went back to the way it was, and all penalties and fees were waived, and all credit dings on the credit report of the homeowner were reversed, then the homeowner would get another opportunity to move forward with a HAMP (without parallel foreclosure kicking in) or whatever other re-fi they would want to try, unencumbered by the possibly illegal limits placed on them by the "investor" who allegedly now owns their mortgage note.

While the media pushes the term "foreclosure" as a way to paint the homeowner as the bad guy, I feel this article just adds additional fuel to what Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC calls, Fraudclosure, They say foreclosure, WE SAY, FRAUDCLOSURE.

Edit update Dec. 13, 2010 11:46 am, Paul Jackson of Housing Wire has written a piece redefending securitization. However, I see no mention in Mr. Jackson's article about the sanctity of "change in terms without the expressed written consent of the homeowner".

Saturday, November 27, 2010

So Which Came First, the Mortgage Note, or the Investor?

Maybe it is time to question the role of the "investor" in the mortgage foreclosure debacle of 2008-2010. We keep hearing that the "investor" must approve any changes to the mortgage.

Wait a minute, did the homeowner originally agree that their mortgage note could be resold over and over without the homeowner's written approval each and every time the note was resold?

Would it even be legal to put a "resell the note" clause in a homeowners mortgage contract without the homeowners written approval each and every time the note was actually resold?

Does it even make sense that an investor who did not even exist when the homeowner originally signed the mortgage agreement could then swoop in at a later date and actually hold that homeowner, hostage, over mortgage refinance opportunities?

Does it make any sense that the late to the game investor can nix any interest rate reduction the government might be willing to provide to the homeowner via taxpayer funded programs like HAMP ?

If you agree to buy a car and then afterwards a video camera is installed inside the car without your knowledge, and the video footage is then sold by the car dealership for a profit, shouldn't your permission be required before the video camera was installed in the car?

If you had been consulted about the video camera being put in the car first, and told that money could be made but that your agreement was necessary, would you not expect a "cut" of the camera profits?

What has happened in the home ownership situation is backwards to what should have happened. All homeowners should have been able to negotiate a BENEFIT, PRIOR to the reselling of their mortgage note to an "investor". Instead, the selling of the note to an after the fact investor is now being used as a billy club to stymie homeowners even when taxpayer back mortgage help is available.
Let us not confuse the investor that invests in the CONSTRUCTION of a new home before it is built versus the investor who invests in a mortgage note after the fact, as they are not the same thing.
An investor in new home construction puts up money up front to purchase land and build the home. When the home is then built and THE BANK approves a loan from their own money supply to a qualified homeowner to purchase that home, then the ORIGINAL investor is PAID OFF.
Example: Investor acquires a parcel of land that will accommodate 5 homes. Investor gets permission from the city to build on the parcel of land. Investor gets bids for constructing 5 homes. The bids are competitively priced because building five homes next to each other results in a discount purchases for the builder. Not only that, the builder can actually keep inventory in the empty lots while building the first few buildings. Whereas one home might cost 200,000 dollars to build, 5 homes might be built for 600,000. The investor has a 400,000 dollar margin once the homes are built and the bank and realtors find buyers for the homes.
(Ironically, it used to be that by the time the homes were finished and sold, the prices of the home had already risen so the investor is probably selling those 5 homes for a minimum of 250,000 each, meaning the margin of profit could rise to 650,000. Enough of a profit to build another four or five homes and actually own them outright!)
The homes are then sold and the investor walks away with their profit. ALL THAT is LEFT in regards to the mortgage is the HOME BUYER, and the BANK that provided the loan.
Unless the home buyer agrees in writing later on to "securitize" the loan, than all is well. However, if the bank unilaterally decides to securitize the loan at a later date, without the homeowner's approval or knowledge, those new investors CANNOT TAKE PRECEDENCE over the homeowner's right to pursue a more competitive loan refinance, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
My contention is that no securitization can go on without the homeowners approval because this is in fact a RE-SECURITIZATION. The homeowner was already approved for a loan, there is no need to re-securitize the loan. Ironically, the act of resecuritizing the loan appears to actually hasten foreclosure activity. It sounds fraudulent to me to call reselling the note resecuritization if it actually does the opposite and actually causes the homeowner to have LESS refinancing options at a later date.
Now that the homeowner has a mortgage loan agreement with the bank, anything that happens after that point, without the acknowledged written approval of the homeowner, in my opinion should be void.

Any HAMP loan or refinance loan that now is being refused because of the invisible, after the fact "investor", in my opinion is nothing more than a straw man's argument being perpetuated by our own government, and the banksters who do their bidding.

Yes I have empathy for those investors who came after the fact, but those investors should not have been investing in these type of securitization schemes to begin with, specifically because the homeowners written approval was not included.

From Propublica dot org, "Primer: What is a Wrongful Foreclosure?

My only criticism is the writer did not use the phrase, Parallel Foreclosure when describing how the HAMP program has accelerated foreclosures for hundreds of thousands of homeowners.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Could Paid in Full Homes that had Home Equity Lines of Credit frozen at low levels be the next undiscovered foreclosure fraud mess?

Chase Bank began freezing home equity lines of credit at suspiciously lower levels approximately a year and a half to two years ago. The Chase Bank home equity line of credit freeze led to a homeowner led class action lawsuit.

With the explosion of possibly overly aggressive or unfair foreclosure action in the past two years and longer, one wonders how much the banks unfairly freezing home equity lines of credit may have then caused some homeowners to be foreclosed upon prematurely.

There are debates as to whether or not home equity lines of credits, aka HELOC's, are a homeowners "right" or not.

However, when a homeowner has actually already paid off their home, does not want to move because they have established deep roots, and is equity rich but cash poor, taking out a home equity line of credit is not a rash or irresponsible move.

The act of initiating a move can cost the homeowner 50,000 dollars when ALL of the associated costs realtor and moving costs are taken into consideration. So staying in the present, paid off home and taking out a home equity line of credit can actually be the most cost effective move for someone who is home equity rich but cash poor.

Lets say a homeowner has paid off a 300,000 dollar home, and then would like to take out 60,000 home equity line of credit against the home. The homeowner slowly goes through the 60,000 dollars, using it pay for unexpected medical occurrences, lower priced college tuition, and so on.

Just as they approach the 60,000 dollar threshold, some really bad stuff happens, culminating with the loss of employment. Unable to make the modest payment on the 60,000 dollar home equity loan, the bank repossess the home.

The heartless, arrogant, "I told you so crowd" would probably say, "too bad, it's the homeowner's fault" for taking out the home equity line credit in the first place. However, the homeowner may have actually been doing the prudent thing by staying where they are rather than moving and incurring huge moving and realtor costs, not to mention the possibility of a raise in yearly property taxes.

But lets break this situation down a little more. The homeowner has still 240,000 dollars of equity in their home. Even if the home cost significantly less than 300,000 dollars 20 or 30 years ago, the homeowner over that span of time still paid tons in property taxes, made maintenance and IMPROVEMENTS to their home, and with assessed interest charges still paid at least double what the house was worth back then, maybe even three times as much.

So the homeowners explains to the bank that they would like to "bump up" their home equity line of credit from 60,000 to 100,000 dollars to tie them over until new employment is found, or to buy them plenty of time to actually sell the home and move into a smaller home. Oh wait, without a job, they won't be approved for any new home loan.

Even if the homeowner sold their home for 300,000 dollars and paid off their 60,000 dollar home equity line of credit, and was left with 240,000 minus realtor and moving expenses (probably left with around 200,000 to 210,000), they will now have to look for a home for well under 210,000 since they have no present employment and will still need money to live off of.

In essence, if the unemployed homeowner tries to move, they could be put in a position in which they have to pay for their new house in full, and, then won't be able to take any money out in the form of equity if they don't have a job.
If the new home they move into is significantly lower in price than the home they moved from, they may be hit with IRS tax obligations on the alleged "profit" made by being forced into a much cheaper home because they have no current income. This is getting ugly!
So if the bank says no to the 60,000 dollar home equity line of credit increasing to a 100,000 dollar home equity line of credit, the homeowner could be put into a position in which they lose they are foreclose upon and lose 240,000 dollars of built up equity, almost overnight.
And as this is happening, did the bank ever offer a reverse mortgage option that might keep the homeowner in their home for the next 10 years rather than foreclosed upon overnight???
I respect the banks right to not allocate a home equity line of credit that will not be repaid. However, I was told by a banker that banks figure 67% of the value of a paid off home is the maximum safe amount of money the banks are comfortable allocating.

If the banks have recently reappraised a homeowners home resulting in an inevitable reduction in value of the home, plus the 67% max home equity line of credit threshold, means the bank is risking no more than 40% to 50% resale value for a home that could one day increase in value to what it once was.

In other words, even at the 67% threshold figure of a new appraisal, the risk to the banks if the homeowner does not pay back the HELOC is SIGNIFICANTLY offset, by the reduction in value by the new appraisal plus the 33% equity cushion the banks require.
How many homeowners have lost their previously completely paid off home because they only received a marginal amount of home equity line of credit, say, 25% or only 30%, or 35%, even though their homes were already paid off?
The media does not often do stories on foreclosed homeowners who had paid off their home but then lost it because of a low home equity line of credit and an unforeseen emergency, but they are out there, and possibly in the millions.

In many instances homeowners who actually had paid off their homes may now be the silent victim of foreclosure based on Home equity lines of credit unfairly frozen at very low levels.

For so long these homeowners dutifully paid their monthly mortgage until they owned their home in full. But then the shame of not being able to make a payment on a small home equity line of credit loan because of unemployment, that then led to the loss of their home to foreclosure, may represent too much loss of honor to bear in public, and these proud homeowners remained silent as they lost everything.

I have yet to see one news story about home equity lines of credit being frozen at low levels, yet it could be just as nasty as what has happened to those who are upside down on their homes.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

If Investment firms are still advocating investing in subprime loans and ARM failures, then nothing has really changed, has it?

The two Housing Wire article links below about ARM and Subprime investment strategies really frost me. I'm not a banking expert, I don't work in any financial industry capacity, yet the two story links below from housing wire come off to me as tongue in cheek irony.

If I remotely understand these two articles, they are reports about what investment firms are telling their investors to do in the housing market. I presume the investors' goal is to bet against american homeowners and where they can expect the best return when it comes to betting against the american homeowner.

Why does the U.S. government continue to allow this form of mortgage failure investing to continue? Shouldn't the government and the local community handle their own mortgage investing loan business, without a disinterested third party investor raiding our own soil so they can profit at our demise. I thought the point of fighting wars elsewhere was to prevent terrorism on our own soil.
What about economic terrorism in which investors put their money where the greatest chance of home ownership failure is possible?
No matter how much money we spend fighting wars elsewhere in the world, the ideal way for those nations to fight back is to simply invest on home ownership failure in the United States.


Monday, November 22, 2010

Too Big to Jail? Will the Fed actually offer alleged foreclosure related law breakers a chance to pay fines to avoid potential criminal charges?

Is the entire Foreclosure controversy going to result in the Fed deciding that the amount of people involved in illegal activity is so massive, that as a group they are too big to jail?
Is it also possible that government agencies themselves forced the banks and mortgage servicers to accelerate their foreclosure activity, and would rather have everybody pay a fine then have this rush to foreclose information come out in a court of law transcript?

If the government chooses to offer fines as a way out of lawlessness, what will they do for the hundreds of thousands, perhaps into the millions of homeowners who have already been irrevocably harmed? What will be done to actually change the entire process in such a way as to not motivate the loan servicers, investors, and banksters to not want to foreclose on a home in the future?

Is Barack Obama going to have the mettle to go after the very core group of financial industries that gave handsomely to his campaign in 2008? Will the republican politicians, who never met a bankster they did not like, have any appetite to actually prosecute anybody from wall street?

I am advocating that the rules regarding the homeowner's down payment be changed. It seems that the down payment is being immediately sucked up by money grubbing vampire bankster suckers, who then get bored with tending to the actual mortgage and instead scheme of ways to exponentially increase the "value" of what is nothing more than a home on main street.

If foreclosure meant that a significant portion of the down payment, say 75%, went back to the homeowner (along with any gained equity) as a down payment rebate, would not the banks try harder to work something out with the homeowner? Even if it meant just letting the homeowner run through a significant portion of their 75% of the down payment as ongoing monthly payments, this would still give the homeowner some type of leverage, AND, IT WAS THE HOMEOWNER'S MONEY to begin with.

It seems to me that it should not become the banks money, or the investors money, or anybody else we don't know about, until the mortgage is actually paid off.

Thursday, November 18, 2010



(Edit Update - Nov. 27, 2010 10:53PM)

URGENT, House of Representatives Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, mortgage servicing issues, Thurs, Nov. 18, 2010

URGENT, House of Representatives Financial Services Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, mortgage servicing issues, Thurs, Nov. 18, 2010 at 10AM (or thereafter).

A mirror meeting to the one held two days earlier in the Senate, but this one is for the House of Representatives. This one has gone under the radar a bit but should be on CSPAN, the House of Representatives channel.

UPDATE: 2:00 Eastern Standard Time. I saw a small portion of the hearing. I could not find which channel it was on, and I mistakenly thought it would be on the House of Representative CSPAN channel, when instead it was on CSPAN-3. Then when I found it, I heard about 10 minutes, when they cut away to the Charlie Rangel misconduct hearing.

I'm hoping the meeting will be available as an archive and will share the info when I find out. If you know, please leave it in the comments section.


Edit update: Nov. 27, 2010 10:55 pm.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

HR 3808 REJECTED! Presidential veto stands! For Now.

Hooray, HR 3808 REJECTED! Presidential veto stands! However, I think I heard that the motion would be going back to committee. Yikes!

Like I say, A republican politician never met a bankster they did not like. Final vote was 185 yes, 235 No.

Watch HouseLive Beta - Nov 17, 2010 - The VOTE ON HR 3808.

Watch HouseLive Beta - Nov 17, 2010 to see if Barack Obama's veto of HR 3808 (a good move), is overturned by the House of Representatives.

UPDATE: 3:04 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. This looks like a hit or miss venture. There were other issues on the table today including airport screening practices and security, who the new party leaders will be, and so on.
I don't think the HR 3808 vote has happened yet.

UPDATE: 5:09 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. The HR 3808 vote is coming up. Nancy Pelosi and her freshly slurped kool aid mustache is speaking as if its a victory to be in the minority. Who Knew!

UPDATE: 5:17:00 EASTERN STANDARD TIME. The HR 3808 Vote is ON.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

CSPAN3's coverage of the Nov. 16, 2010 Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Mortgage Service & Foreclosure Practices Hearing.


Here is the link for a CSPAN3 video recording of gavel to gave coverage of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Hearing on Mortgage Services and Foreclosure Practices. (PLEASE NOTE, THAT WAS A LIVE LINK AND CHANGES DAILY.)

I suggest anyone with a blog find at least ONE EXCHANGE that you think is important, and TRANSCRIBE IT.

Many issues came up in the hearing. Some of the main points raised included...

1. The committee was curious as to the number of homeowners who have been adversely affected by all aspects of the foreclosure controversy. NOBODY is willing to give a number. My suggestion, come up with a percentage. 10% may be the point of no return where pretty much everybody would agree that is way too high of a number.

But what if the percentage of problems is around 1% to 2%? Obviously still a huge number, but, is it a big enough number to actually grind the entire foreclosure process to a halt?

Diane E. Thompson pointed out that the reason the number of defective foreclosures is hard to know is that many times draconian fees were the tipping point that made the foreclosure happen. The foreclosure paperwork may have been correct, but how the situation escalated to a foreclosure situation may not have happened ethically.

2. The mortgage servicer and the investor are more adversarial with each other than cooperative. This is important because between the mortgage servicer, the investor, and the bank, there can be three different entities with three entirely different agendas. Diane E. Thompson pointed out that the banks are trying to hide their defective loans to make their books look good, so their agenda can be different from either the investor or mortgage servicer. Three entities, three different agendas, all against the homeowner, ouch!

3. A good bit of time was spent on PARALLEL FORECLOSURE. The bottom line was that the issue of Parallel Foreclosure IS KNOWN, and it just stinks to high heaven. The banks tried to claim that they are working on having the SAME PERSON handle an account all the way through which might help with communication between the foreclosure wing and the HAMP for HAMPsters wheel. However, I seem to recall Chase Bank admiting they begin foreclosure on homes that require HAMP before HAMP commences.

Here is Bank of America's actual use of the word "parallel foreclosure" during the hearing.

4. Early on, a group of homeowners who were in attendance LOUDLY BOOED when the Chase Bank rep, David Lowman, began to babble his spittle about caring for the community and the homeowner. One man was escorted out of the hearing in handcuffs by security guards for shouting out that Lowman was Lying.

5. Another key point raised by the committee was the concern that as a foreclosure occurs, the other homes in the area reduce in value. I recall reading that each foreclosure in a neighborhood reduces the surrounding homes by 1 percent. During the committee hearing, they were using 5% as their benchmark, perhaps referring to a few foreclosures in each neighborhood.

6. The Banksters continued to claim that they would prefer the homeowners not be foreclosed on and that it is more profitable to keep a homeowner in their home then foreclose on them. I personally don't believe this at all and my research seems to confirm they are lying.

7. I don't think the down payment issue was mentioned, but I will have to listen again to the entire program to know for sure. Until the down payment is put back on the table during a foreclosure, (meaning the homeowner gets back a signficant portion of the down payment if they are foreclosed on), banksters will probably continue to prefer foreclosure to working with the homeowner.
Of course there were several more issues raised, and I will add them after reviewing the program again.





Diane E. Thompson to speak about HAMP today, Nov. 16, 2010, at the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee hearing.

I've tried to piece together a few of the more important aspects of the HAMP crisis, and it is a crisis.

Here are five important points about HAMP to be aware of prior to Diane E. Thompson's return 16 months later to Washington.
1. Read Diane E. Thompson's July 16, 2009 report to learn that all of HAMP's problems were identified back then.

2. Barack Obama has taken credit for the HAMP program when it first was announced on February 18, 2009 and then again as recently as Oct. 27, 2010 when Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of Home Ownership Preservation Office, proclaimed HAMP hugely successful.

3. The latest spin from HUD is that HAMP just puts off the inevitable foreclosure. OUCH!

4. Banks are NOT OBLIGATED to follow HAMP guidelines, therefore any HAMP violation by the banks might be easier to void in a court of law. Although homeowners could argue that once a bank agreed to accept a specific HAMP application, the banks should have honored ALL HAMP guidelines for that particular HAMP application.

5. Banks accepted HAMP applications AFTER initiating Parallel Foreclosure, a definite no no. OUCH AGAIN!
I will be interested to see what Diane E. Thompson has to say 16 months later.

Monday, November 15, 2010

The Problem with Predatory Loans and an Example of a Predatory Loan.

Too much blame may be being placed on the homeowner when they agree to a predatory loan. It seems to me that a knowledgeable loan rep can figure out how to eek through the loan app system a loan that barely passes, thereby resulting in the highest interest rates and biggest balloon payments allowed.

What if the loan rep had asked the mortgage loan applicant for a written list of their debts and other potential credit score blemishes, then ran a separate credit report and noticed that the report provided by the customer mentioned things that the credit history report did not show?

What if the loan rep did not reveal all of the blemishes that the homeowner revealed to the loan rep, specifically to make sure the loan barely passed, versus failing?
Could not the loan rep decide what additional credit blemishes from the customer's written list to add or withhold so the mortgage application just barely passes, thereby allowing the loan rep to charge the highest interest rate with additional balloon obligations as well?
It seems like the loan rep wins big time if they can barely pass a customer's mortgage loan app. If the customer successfully makes the predatory mortgage payments, the loan rep wings, if the customer defaults because of the predatory interest rates, then the 17 income streams that can be generated because of a foreclosure kick in, including the loss of the down payment.
Excessive interest rate variations between good credit score customers and bad credit score customers may be causing predatory lending. Maybe the highest interest rate loan versus the lowest interest rate loan should be kept within a very narrow difference, of say, 2 percentage points, to help avoid the practice of predatory lending.
Why not offer every mortgage applicant the SAME interest rate and control the amount of money a mortgage applicant can borrow?
Example of a Predatory Loan.

My example uses the premise that Mortgage Loans should not be given out if the bank thinks the customer will fail on them.

Customer A and Customer B get 300,000 dollar loans.

Customer A, with a "poorer" credit score than customer B, is offered 30 years at 8.085 percent interest, which equals a monthly payment of 2,219.10

Customer B, with a "better" credit score than customer A, is offered 15 years at 4.00 percent interest, which equals a monthly payment of 2,219.06

Remembering our premise that banks should not approve any loan that they think may fail, and since Customer A is making the same monthly mortgage payment on the same amount loaned as customer B, but for TWICE AS LONG as customer B, Customer A is the VICTIM of Predatory loaning!
Home loan applicants that are being extended into 30 year mortgage loans for the same monthly payment that they could have gotten in a 15 year loan that came with a lower interest rate is PREDATORY LENDING.
If I were an attorney trying to prove that predatory lending victimized my forclosure client, I would try to find examples where similar loan amounts were being approved to other home owners near where they lived that allowed the applicant to pay off a loan in half the time, but with the same monthly payment amount.
That IS discrimination and it is IRRELEVANT to say the customer who got to pay off the same mortgage amount in half the time got that deal because they had a better credit score.
In my opinion, any mortgage loan that is going into foreclosure that has any hint of predatory lending attached to it should be suspended until the monthly mortgage payment is recalculated at a fairer interest rate and the excess already paid is credited back to the homeowner; a significant portion of the down payment is credited back to the homeowner (plus any accrued home equity); and that total amount is then converted into "rent money" that could keep the homeowner in their home for several additional months or years with no additional mortgage payments necessary.

Or, the homeowner could be handed a check based on the down payment, accrued equity, and the monthly difference between a predatory loan and what a legitimate loan would have cost, if they desire to leave the home sooner rather than later.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Not Breaking News because it's almost 16 months old, but Diane E. Thompson's July 16, 2009 Senate Committee Hearing critique of HAMP is STILL VALID.

Barack Obama has chosen to take a path of deception regarding HAMP that has resulted in over a million homes being unfairly foreclosed upon even though Obama was publicly warned about what was wrong with HAMP back on July 16, 2009!

Barack Obama's impudence recently escalated (Oct.27, 2010) when he had Chief of Homeownership Preservation Office Phyllis Caldwell give verbal and written testimony Before the Congressional Oversight Panel | RealEstateRama that claimed everything was fine with HAMP.

If you are an attorney representing a homeowner who was subjected to violations of how HAMP was supposed to perform, and those violations occurred well after July 16 of 2009, you can click here to read the written testimony given in front of the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by Diane E. Thompson.

The question remaining to be asked is, is it fair and reasonable that 16 months after receiving official notification in front of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee by Consumer Advocate Diane E. Thompson that Barack Obama and his administration are still using a poker face to say everything is fine, when the problems outlined by Diane E. Thompson 16 months ago still remain?

If I were a homeowner with a HAMP case and a good lawyer, why not subpoena Barack Obama? Barack Obama has not only taken credit for HAMP when he first announced it, he has recently had one of his paid personnel go in front of a congressional oversight committee and say the HAMP program is a success.

Is that not perjury?

If it is perjury, than Barack Obama needs to answer more questions in court over this matter, no?

Share Gadget