Correspondence with Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Staff RE Multistate Fraudclosure Settlement

Please find attached representations by AG’s office that the multi-state settlement cannot settle private claims.



AG Responses to Our Response Aug Sept Oct 2011

3 Responses to “Correspondence with Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Staff RE Multistate Fraudclosure Settlement”
  1. JS says:

    I challenge Mr. Walsh, who claims that the AG’s are driven by the interests of homeowners, to explain what the settlement will do for homeowners who have substantial equity in their homes. The answer, as stated early on, by AG Miller, is that these homeowners will be categorically denied any assistance! AG Miller stated that the intent was only to help homeowners when the cash flow from a modification was better than the cash flow from a foreclosure. That’s never the case when the homeowner has equity. As one cold-hearted but honest Chase employee explained to me. The bank is trying to mitigate losses. They will always foreclose on a struggling homeowner with equity, because they can recover all the mortgage arrears from the equity, and make a tidy profit from increased servicing fees, penalties, and legal fees.

    AG Miller testified before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on November 16, 2010, as follows:

    “To be clear, the States do not believe that every foreclosure is a tragedy that must be avoided. To the contrary, we have consistently stated over the last three years that we are only interested in modifications where the
    cash flow from the modification exceeds the expected proceeds from a foreclosure sale.”

    This is an important point because it is a true indicator of what the AG’s real goal is. If they were trying to help homeowners they’d certainly aim to help those with substantial equity. These are typically longer term homeowners, often seniors who have paid down their principal for years. No principal write down is necessary. For any legitimate homeowners assistance program, homeowners with substantial equity are the “low hanging fruit”; the easiest to help.

    Based, on the December 2010 Congressional Oversights Panel Report’s review of the HOLC of the 1930’s we know that homeowners with equity are the least likely to re-default.

    So why would the settlement exclude homeowners with equity? There is only one explanation; the intent of the settlement is to help MBS investors, NOT homeowners. Helping UNDERWATER homeowners is a coincidental side-effect of protecting MBS investors. It’s just great hype to claim that helping homeowners is the driving concept behind the AG’s settlements, but, its clearly a BS!

    Mr. Walsh, please explain !

  2. Hell No - No More Bleeping Bankster Bailouts says:

    When the entire foreclosure effort against a particular borrower is based on a whole series of fraudulent documents, ‘speeding the settlement’ does NOTHING sufficient for that borrower.

    PROSECUTION for fabrication of documents that are presented to courts and/or recorded in county land records are the appropriate efforts. Start digging out the dirt and prosecuting the criminals. Those who are allowing their notary stamp to be used fraudulently need to face charges. When they start ‘singing’, follow up with prosecuting those on up the chain.

    Instead of another round of — USELESS civil settlements such as Jerry Brown ‘achieved’ with Countrywide and the directives from the Feds that came out months ago but have shown no results, set a goal of finding out just how high up the evidence points to the intentional wrong-dongs by the banksters ans servicers and ‘REMIC Trustees’. Prosecute all of them. Start with places such as BofA, Litton, LPS and MERS. Each of the 50 states needs a law suit like the Ohio suit against MERS.

  3. housemanrob says:

    Hmmmmm…….I sense some jousting going on here.

Leave a Reply