Naked Capitalism – Bank of America Allegedly Foreclosing Fraudulently in Kentucky

Bank of America Allegedly Foreclosing Fraudulently in Kentucky

If you were to believe the banks, the concern over foreclosure “improprieties” is way overdone. They claim that the robo signers really weren’t doing anything seriously wrong, the banks just need to redo some paperwork, and everything else about foreclosures is just fine.

Yet Bank of America, having made the implausible claim that it had reviewed 102,000 cases in a few weeks and nothing was amiss, was forced to retreat and acknowledge that it’s review hadn’t been comprehensive, and it was finding errors at a rate that could exceed 5%..

The bank position so far has been that problems so far are mere mistakes and “sloppiness”. But as we’ve described repeatedly, the problems with securitzations run much deeper than that. It appears that the parties to the deal often failed to take the time consuming steps necessary to convey the note (the borrower IOU) to the trust as stipulated in the contract governing the deal, the pooling and servicing agreement. The PSA required that each note in the deal had to be signed by multiple intermediary parties before it got to its supposed final resting place, a trust. And that had to take place by closing or at most 90 days thereafter.

Many foreclosures show this process was not observed on a widespread basis: the notes were assigned (as in transferred) to the trust right before closing, a violation of the PSA, the New York trust statutes that govern virtually all mortgage securitization trusts, and IRS rules for these trusts (REMIC). When foreclosure defense attorneys started contesting these assignments, suddenly a new ruse started to show up: allonges, which are sheets of paper that contained the needed endorsements, would magically appear out of nowhere. The problem is that an allonge is supposed to be used only when there is no space left on the note for endorsements, including margins and the reverse side, and when it is used, it is supposed to be so firmly attached to the original as to be inseparable. But these “ta da” allonges were always somehow discovered at the custodian, quite separate from the note.

Bank of America appears to have improved the state of the art in the creative foreclosure procedures department. I started hearing a few months ago about a sudden and suspicious increase in the number of foreclosures Bank of America was making in its own name. BofA was in effect saying that it owned these loans and had never securitized them. That seemed questionable, since the bulk of Bank of America’s mortgages had been originated by Countrywide, and Countrywide has said in its SEC filings that it securitized 96% of them. Why would the courts see such an explosion in foreclosures in the relatively small proportion of mortgage that BofA had kept on its books? Lawyers suspected that BofA was falsely claiming that it owned the loan to circumvent questions about standing (if the note had not been conveyed to the trust properly, then the trust might not be able to foreclose).

We now have some evidence that these suspicions are correct. A bankruptcy attorney in Kentucky has been working with clients who have lost their homes in foreclosures in the name of Bank of America. After taking the house, the bank has been filing deficiency judgments for the remaining mortgage balance. The attorney files a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In the example we have here, Bank of America next files an objection to the bankruptcy plan. The attorney for Bank of America makes a response to the objection. Before the confirmation hearing, the same attorney files a second objection to the plan in the name of a Countrywide trust.

The attorney for the borrower, needless to say, raises all kinds of hell in the hearing, and wants an explanation of how two creditors, each representing the same debt obligation, can each object to the plan, when neither has yet filed a Proof of Claim.

Here is the juicy part. A Proof of Claim is filed later that day. It shows a series of assignments that were executed after the judgment (meaning after the house was taken by BofA) and after the borrower’s attorney filed the bankruptcy petition. The assignment is from MERS to Bank of America executed on September 29. The second assignment is from Bank of America to trust CWABS 2003-B6. This assignment has not been recorded in the land office as of November 10. And even more fun, the allonges look odd.

SEC filings show the loan as asset of CWABS 2003-BC6.

So we have:

Be sure to check out the rest here…


I sure could use some…

3 Responses to “Naked Capitalism – Bank of America Allegedly Foreclosing Fraudulently in Kentucky”
  1. Robert Cain says:

    I’m in Ky. & am in need of an Attorney for my house. Can you give me the name of this atty.? Thanks.

  2. Officer of the Law says:

    I wonder why the prosecutors refuse to hold the bankers and their attorneys accountable for their multitude of crimes, don’t you?

    Are the prosecutors too busy? They seem to have plenty of time to hassle pot smokers and protestors. We all know how dangerous they are to our way of life.

    Do the prosecutors not understand that fraud and perjury are crimes? They seem to be able to read although having dealt with a lot of them, I realize that most are more corrupt than the criminals that they prosecute and not much brighter even though they are more well educated.

    Many prosecutors claim to be investigating the bankers and their attorneys. I wonder when they will bother to take action to indict some of them, don’t you? Do they really need more time to investigate or are they really after something else?

    Unfortunately, the prosecutors have done nothing to stop the bankers’ crime wave because prosecutors all across America take cash to look the other way when the rich and powerful commit crimes.

    It is time to arrest and prosecute the prosecutors. After all, if we let them continue to cover up for the bankers’ crimes, they will help them steal everything and impoverish everyone.

    • Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

      Of the reasons I can think of none include anything that resembles the prosecutors doing their job and protecting citizens from criminals and criminal activity.

Leave a Reply