Mortgage debt waived after bank can't find paperwork
Oct 27th 2009 at 4:30PM
Filed under: Banks, Real Estate, Refinancing
Score: Little guy, 1; bank, 0. It's a nice change. Two weeks ago, a bankruptcy court in suburban New York did the formerly unthinkable: It waived a homeowner's mortgage debt after the bank trying to foreclose on the home couldn't submit any proof that it actually had a claim on the property.
According to the New York Times, when lender PHH Mortgage was asked to provide proof that it actually held the deed for the $461,263 mortgage, it couldn't give the judge any records.
Operating on the entirely reasonable principal that someone who claims to possess a piece of paper that gives them ownership to a nearly half-million dollar house should actually have that piece of paper, the judge slapped a stiff and possibly game-changing punishment on the disorganized lender.
Real estate experts say this is a more common occurrence than many people realize, and the potential implications are huge.
During the go-go mortgage boom years, millions of loans were bundled into financial instruments called securities and sold to investors. They, in turn, often turned around and sold those securities to other investors. Making money hand over fist was the priority; keeping good records of who actually owned which mortgage wasn't.
The shambles that many banks' mortgage records are in today could cost them big -- and keep potentially thousands upon thousands of people from losing their homes.
The idea that banks should have to prove that they actually own the mortgage that gives them the right to foreclose if the homeowner falls behind on their payments isn't new. A group called Consumer Warning Network has been advocating for homeowners who feel railroaded into foreclosure by the lending industry by advising them to ask the lender to "produce the note" in court during foreclosure proceedings.
Good Morning America covered this tactic last spring. At the time, though, the advice was just intended to help beleageured homeowners buy some time to get their mortgage modified or find another way to come up with the money they owed. It was assumed that the banks had the proof of their claim buried in a filing cabinet somewhere.
Now, though, it's clear that some lenders don't have proof that they have the right to foreclose on a home, and at least one judge has put his foot down and refused to let the lender take the home without that proof.
It's a small step so far, but it's one that could have far-reaching implications because of the large number of mortgages that were repackaged and resold many times over earlier this decade.
Of course, if a homeowner is in foreclosure, he or she will still lose the house if the bank has all the proper documentation. But if the bank can't produce the documentation, it's comforting to think that a judge won't let them put a family on the street just on that lender's say-so that they have the proof... somewhere.
If Lenders Say 'The Dog Ate Your Mortgage'
FOR decades, when troubled homeowners and banks battled over delinquent mortgages, it wasn't a contest. Homes went into foreclosure, and lenders took control of the property.
On top of that, courts rubber-stamped the array of foreclosure charges that lenders heaped onto borrowers and took banks at their word when the lenders said they owned the mortgage notes underlying troubled properties.
In other words, with lenders in the driver's seat, borrowers were run over, more often than not. Of course, errant borrowers hardly deserve sympathy from bankers or anyone else, and banks are well within their rights to try to protect their financial interests.
But if our current financial crisis has taught us anything, it is that many borrowers entered into mortgage agreements without a clear understanding of the debt they were incurring. And banks often lacked a clear understanding of whether all those borrowers could really repay their loans.
Even so, banks and borrowers still do battle over foreclosures on an unlevel playing field that exists in far too many courtrooms. But some judges are starting to scrutinize the rules-don't-matter methods used by lenders and their lawyers in the recent foreclosure wave. On occasion, lenders are even getting slapped around a bit.
One surprising smackdown occurred on Oct. 9 in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York. Ruling that a lender, PHH Mortgage, hadn't proved its claim to a delinquent borrower's home in White Plains, Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That's right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order.
So the ruling may put a new dynamic in play in the foreclosure mess: If the lender can't come forward with proof of ownership, and judges don't look kindly on that, then borrowers may have a stronger hand to play in court and, apparently, may even be able to stay in their homes mortgage-free.
The reason that notes have gone missing is the huge mass of mortgage securitizations that occurred during the housing boom. Securitizations allowed for large pools of bank loans to be bundled and sold to legions of investors, but some of the nuts and bolts of the mortgage game — notes, for example — were never adequately tracked or recorded during the boom. In some cases, that means nobody truly knows who owns what.
To be sure, many legal hurdles mean that the initial outcome of the White Plains case may not be repeated elsewhere. Nevertheless, the ruling — by a federal judge, no less — is bound to bring a smile to anyone who has been subjected to rough treatment by a lender. Methinks a few of those people still exist.
More important, the case is an alert to lenders that dubious proof-of-ownership tactics may no longer be accepted practice. They may even be viewed as a fraud on the court.
The United States Trustee, a division of the Justice Department charged with monitoring the nation's bankruptcy courts, has also taken an interest in the White Plains case. Its representative has attended hearings in the matter, and it has registered with the court as an interested party.
THE case involves a borrower, who declined to be named, living in a home with her daughter and son-in-law. According to court documents, the borrower bought the house in 2001 with a mortgage from Wells Fargo; four and a half years later she refinanced with Mortgage World Bankers Inc.
She fell behind in her payments, and David B. Shaev, a consumer bankruptcy lawyer in Manhattan, filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan on her behalf in late February in an effort to save her home from foreclosure.
A proof of claim to the debt was filed in March by PHH, a company based in Mount Laurel, N.J. The $461,263 that PHH said was owed included $33,545 in arrears.
Mr. Shaev said that when he filed the case, he had simply hoped to persuade PHH to modify his client's loan. But after months of what he described as foot-dragging by PHH and its lawyers, he asked for proof of PHH's standing in the case.
"If you want to take someone's house away, you'd better make sure you have the right to do it," Mr. Shaev said in an interview last week.
In answer, Mr. Shaev received a letter stating that PHH was the servicer of the loan but that the holder of the note was U.S. Bank, as trustee of a securitization pool. But U.S. Bank was not a party to the action.
Mr. Shaev then asked for proof that U.S. Bank was indeed the holder of the note. All that was provided, however, was an affidavit from Tracy Johnson, a vice president at PHH Mortgage, saying that PHH was the servicer and U.S. Bank the holder.
Among the filings supplied to support Ms. Johnson's assertion was a copy of the assignment of the mortgage. But this, too, was signed by Ms. Johnson, only this time she was identified as an assistant vice president of MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. This bank-owned registry eliminates the need to record changes in property ownership in local land records.
Another problem was that the document showed the note was assigned on March 26, 2009, well after the bankruptcy had been filed.
Mr. Shaev's questions about ownership also led to an admission by PHH that, along the way, it had levied an improper $450 foreclosure fee on the borrower and had overcharged interest by an unstated amount.
John DiCaro, a lawyer representing PHH at the hearing, was in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why there was no documentation of an assignment to U.S. Bank. He did not return a phone call seeking comment last week. Ms. Johnson, who couldn't be reached for comment, did not attend the hearing.
According to a transcript of the Sept. 29 hearing, Mr. DiCaro said: "In the secondary market, there are many cases where assignment of mortgages, assignment of notes, don't happen at the time they should. It was standard operating procedure for many years."
Judge Drain rejected that argument, concluding that what had been presented to the court just did not add up. "I think that I have a more than 50 percent doubt that if the debtor paid this claim, it would be paying the wrong person," he said. "That's the problem. And that's because the claimant has not shown an assignment of a mortgage."
Mr. Shaev said he was shocked when the judge expunged the mortgage debt.
"We are in uncharted territory," he said. "Right now I am in bankruptcy court with a house that has no discernible debt on it, yet I have a client with a signed mortgage. We cannot in theory just go out and sell this house because the title company won't give a clear title on it."
Among the next steps Mr. Shaev said he would take is to file an amended plan or sue to try to get clear title to the property.
Late last week, PHH appealed the judge's ruling. But Mr. DiCaro and PHH are in something of a bind. Either they will return to court with a clear claim on the property — including all the transfers and sales that are necessary in the securitization process — or they won't be able to produce that documentation. If they do produce it, they will then have to explain why they didn't produce it before.
Oh, what a tangled web these mortgage lenders weave.
From: <MABELG1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Subject: Check out Mortgage debt waived after bank can't find paperwork
To: pkoebel@gmail.com
--
___________________________________________
This transmission is intended only for the addressee, and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not use, disseminate, or copy this material. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify attorney Philip E. Koebel immediately by telephone (626)797-6342, return this transmission, and delete or destroy any copies (digital or paper).
The contents of this email and attachments may be confidential, copyrighted and/or protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.
.................................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment