Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mortgage mess: Who really owns your mortgage? (epidemic of forged and missing documents)
CBC News ^ | 4/03/11

Posted on 04/04/2011 1:40:39 PM PDT by Libloather

Mortgage mess: Who really owns your mortgage?
Scott Pelley explains a bizarre aftershock of the U.S. financial collapse: An epidemic of forged and missing mortgage documents
April 3, 2011 6:01 PM

Do you know who really owns your mortgage? As Scott Pelley reports on "60 Minutes" this week, that question has become a nightmare for many homeowners since the invention of mortgage-backed securities. Yes, those were the exotic investments that sparked the financial collapse in this country. And the're still causing problems.

As it turns out, Wall Street cut corners when it bundled homeowners' mortgages into securities that were traded from investor to investor. Now that banks are foreclosing on people, they're finding that the legal documents behind many mortgages are missing. So, what do the banks do? As Pelley explains in this video, some companies appear to be resorting to forgery and phony paperwork in what looks like a nationwide epidemic.

Even if you're not at risk of foreclosure, there could be legal ramifications for a homeowner if the chain of title has been lost. Watch the "60 Minutes" report and listen to Pelley's discussion with "60 Minutes Overtime" editor Ann Silvio about the findings of his reporting team.

Watch Scott Pelley's report.

Have you contacted your mortgage servicing company to find out whether your mortgage has been bundled and sold? Did you get a clear answer and a copy of your mortgage paperwork to back it up?

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foreclosures; forged; missing; mortgage
Think Commiecare™. Video @ the link.
1 posted on 04/04/2011 1:40:43 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather; All

This has been going on for years....60 Minutes is kinda late to the ball game

I guess it will be a little harder now for the Bankster supporters to spew their Business Socialist/Free Trade Communist Globalist “they’re all deadbeats” rant....and push for more Bank Bailouts


2 posted on 04/04/2011 1:44:12 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (Donald Trump wants Obama's BC released...Glenn Beck attacks Birthers....Now, who is supporting Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

This is what title insurance is for.

Don’t buy cheap title insurance, buy good title insurance from a reputable insurance company.


3 posted on 04/04/2011 1:45:18 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Yet another reason among many why in my opinion these so-called mortgage backed securities ought to be 100% illegal.


4 posted on 04/04/2011 1:45:41 PM PDT by jpl (Run Christie, run.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior

Wait til the bankster’s apologists show up and blame this all on deadbeats.


5 posted on 04/04/2011 1:49:43 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Sounds like there are very few honorable players in the mortgage business. The only REAL victims are the ones who did the right thing. Not your daddy’s America anymore.


6 posted on 04/04/2011 1:52:23 PM PDT by LuvFreeRepublic (Support our military or leave. I will help you pack BO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Got mine from a credit union that does not sell their mortgages and thank God I did.


7 posted on 04/04/2011 1:54:58 PM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

Rush Limbaugh will say the federal gubmint made them do it.


8 posted on 04/04/2011 1:56:28 PM PDT by Huck (Palin on Libya: Definitely a no-fly zone, definitely regime change, won't rule out ground troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
It's interesting to read the comments at the site. Except for one person, who seemed unusually confused, all of the comments were from people who did not make their mortgage payments and defaulted on their loan. They do not like the way they are treated by the mortgage holder and/or the government.

These people are not being "defrauded", they did not make their required payments and defaulted. No one is being kicked out of their house who made all the required payments.

I do not call them deadbeats, there are many reasons people default on their mortgage, but neither are they "victims".

9 posted on 04/04/2011 1:59:04 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Exactly. That’s what’s missing in these stories. The people being foreclosed upon didn’t pay their mortgage.

Yeah, the lenders didn’t get the paperwork right but that doesn’t change the underlying fact of default.


10 posted on 04/04/2011 2:05:25 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

I agree few who have made their payments have been removed from their homes.

However, let’s forget about the morgtagees for a moment and talk about the mortgagors.

What is the proper term for using forgery to generate documents in order to gain possession of a valuable piece of property?

Sounds like fraud to me.

The misbehavior of the borrowers is often being used to claim the lenders are fully justified in whatever they have done, and the reverse.

My point is that many on both sides have committed fraud. Many investors took shortcuts in order to save money, ignoring the very clear state laws, and now are taking further (illegal) shortcuts to hide their previous failure to follow the law.


11 posted on 04/04/2011 2:09:04 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jpl
MBS originally had a lot of positive attributes, namely that they allowed home-buyers to tap into national credit markets, rather than having to rely only on the credit conditions of their local bank.

Problem is that in the late 90's, Manhattan went crazy with bizarre versions of MBS, putting out tons of the things with little or no documentation and due dilligence, and literally fraudulent marketing propaganda. The fact that investment bankers are paid on how many deals go through, regardless of proper documentation and quality of collateral, meant that irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorkers did what irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorkers should be expected to do...

The problem isn't MBS per se, but rather a banking sector that lives off of government welfare and protections. Manhattan is full of crony capitalists who claim they support free markets, until an opportunity comes their way to use the state to advance their private interests at the expense of the rest of the nation. And when they lose money, they always expect someone else (the taxpayer) to fit the bill. After all, they went to Harvard. They shouldn't be allowed to lose money. //s

Simply outlawing MBS won't solve the problem, because really any kind of investment security could result in this kind of stupidity so long as the government rewards stupidity. What we need is a truly free-market financial system where those who fail, fail period, and no one's lobbying efforts are rewarded with laws meant to destroy more talented small competitors. This will punish irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorker-ism, and reward dilligent, intelligent, and responsible investing behavior.

12 posted on 04/04/2011 2:12:10 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo (Mitt Romney: He's from Harvard, and he's here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jpl
MBS originally had a lot of positive attributes, namely that they allowed home-buyers to tap into national credit markets, rather than having to rely only on the credit conditions of their local bank.

Problem is that in the late 90's, Manhattan went crazy with bizarre versions of MBS, putting out tons of the things with little or no documentation and due dilligence, and literally fraudulent marketing propaganda. The fact that investment bankers are paid on how many deals go through, regardless of proper documentation and quality of collateral, meant that irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorkers did what irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorkers should be expected to do...

The problem isn't MBS per se, but rather a banking sector that lives off of government welfare and protections. Manhattan is full of crony capitalists who claim they support free markets, until an opportunity comes their way to use the state to advance their private interests at the expense of the rest of the nation. And when they lose money, they always expect someone else (the taxpayer) to fit the bill. After all, they went to Harvard. They shouldn't be allowed to lose money. //s

Simply outlawing MBS won't solve the problem, because really any kind of investment security could result in this kind of stupidity so long as the government rewards stupidity. What we need is a truly free-market financial system where those who fail, fail period, and no one's lobbying efforts are rewarded with laws meant to destroy more talented small competitors. This will punish irresponsible dumbshit liberal New Yorker-ism, and reward dilligent, intelligent, and responsible investing behavior.

13 posted on 04/04/2011 2:12:17 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo (Mitt Romney: He's from Harvard, and he's here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Exactly. I have only 2 questions for the mortgagor being foreclosed on. Did you take a mortgage loan? Did you make payments on the mortgage loan? Arguing that the mortgagor should get a pass because of the banks misdeeds after the fact to correct a paperwork issue is analagous to a burglar arguing he should not be prosecuted because the homeowner replaced the stolen goods with goods he bought with counterfeit money.And, no I am not saying unfortunate folks foreclosed on are burglars and yes, the banks should be fined for their violations.


14 posted on 04/04/2011 2:17:26 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Why isn’t Pelley looking into Obama’s background?

Huh?


15 posted on 04/04/2011 2:20:57 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Who really owns your mortgage?

That would be me.

16 posted on 04/04/2011 2:22:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Of course Obama loves his country. The thing is, Sarah loves mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
mortgagate
17 posted on 04/04/2011 2:29:18 PM PDT by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Talks to Settle Foreclosure Probes Could Take Months
18 posted on 04/04/2011 2:32:41 PM PDT by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
Exactly. I have only 2 questions for the mortgagor being foreclosed on. Did you take a mortgage loan? Did you make payments on the mortgage loan? Arguing that the mortgagor should get a pass because of the banks misdeeds after the fact to correct a paperwork issue is analagous to a burglar arguing he should not be prosecuted because the homeowner replaced the stolen goods with goods he bought with counterfeit money.And, no I am not saying unfortunate folks foreclosed on are burglars and yes, the banks should be fined for their violations.

Bad analogy. What's happening here is closer to the situation where you drive over the speed limit, you get into an accident with car #1, and the driver of car #2 sues you. You may have been at fault, but only the person you actually injured has the right to sue you.

Here, some of the banks that are suing don't own the mortgage anymore. Yes, the borrower defaulted, but he could get foreclosed upon by Bank A and then, a year later, could get sued by Bank B on the same debt, because Bank A actually sold the mortgage to bank B ten years ago. Unless the bank that's suing can prove that they still own the mortgage, they have no right to go to court. (The problem is that some banks were so sloppy with their paperwork that no one can possibly figure out who owns the mortgage now. That will give some deadbeat borrowers a windfall, but if so, it's the banks' fault. And the alternative will really create the risk of some borrowers getting sued twice for the same debt.)

19 posted on 04/04/2011 2:33:34 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

As near as I can read, thus far almost all of this comes from Foreclosures bringing the poorly documented transfers to light. I have heard/read stories of multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same property each claiming to be the sole note holder.

Wait a few years as the economy starts to recover and a segment of homeowners go to refi or sell and find they cannot refi or have to sell at a discount due to clouded title. Will be interesting to hear what the they are all deadbeats crowd will say then.


20 posted on 04/04/2011 2:51:43 PM PDT by Fraxinus (My opinion, worth what you paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The paperwork issue may be a big mess, but the real epidemic is simply in the numbers of people ACTUALLY IN DEFAULT on their mortgage, and now hoping, with populist exuberance, for some other wedge to stay in a home they can no longer afford - as in,

"O.K., I can't make all more mortgage payments, but my bank used shoddy document handlers so they should have to take a haircut on the principal amount of my mortgage, to the point my payments are down to a level I can afford"

Cleaning up the paperwork should not require ignoring the facts of actual defaults and getting the foreclosure rate down sooner by foreclosing sooner; not stalling.

21 posted on 04/04/2011 2:57:04 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

You are right in the case of mortgage modifications. But the impression I got from watching 60 minutes, particularly with the woman lawyer that was being foreclosed on, is that albeit she did not make her mortgage payments, she should have a defense to any foreclosure action because of the bank’s paperwork misdeeds after the fact. The reality in that case is that the real harm is not to her but to the institution or investor that may have purchased the mortgage and whose interest was compromised by the foreclosing bank’s paperwork misdeeds.The mortgagor in that case cannot be held liable for the foreclosing bank’s misdeed and the real fight is between the the foreclosing bank and the investor.


22 posted on 04/04/2011 3:04:05 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

“Got mine from a credit union that does not sell their mortgages and thank God I did.”

Chances are very that you have a 5 year or shorter ARM, or they did sell your mortgage and retain the servicing.


23 posted on 04/04/2011 3:09:04 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Yes We Can, have smaller government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jpl
“Yet another reason among many why in my opinion these so-called mortgage backed securities ought to be 100% illegal.”

Mortgage backed securities were created so lenders could offer longer term loans in the first place.

There were banks and S&L's that went under in the 80’s because they didn't use the secondary mortgage market (MBS’s).
They made a 30 year mortgage to a customer and funded it with deposits.
Say they made the mortgage for 7% and funded it with 3% CD’s.
What do you think happened when the CD’s matured and they had to pay 9% to renew the CD?
Correct, they were out of business.

MBS’s made it possible for the bank next door to make the same loan, keep the servicing (customer still made payments to the bank that made the loan) but have the rate risk offloaded.
It was a good system.

Long term fixed rate financing just won't be available without a secondary mortgage market.
And it would put the banks in a much riskier position the next time interest rates shoot up which we are overdue for.

I haven't watched the 60 minutes episode and probably won't because it is 60 Minutes.

24 posted on 04/04/2011 3:19:25 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Yes We Can, have smaller government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

What you’re missing is the fact that the lenders have already been paid.

When the debt was packaged and RESOLD.

China is holding the bag. And Japan. Mostly.


25 posted on 04/04/2011 3:22:38 PM PDT by EvasiveManuever (Shakespeare got it wrong. Not the lawyers... journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Moreover....

The local banks (American) have ALREADY Been paid for the MBS when RESOLD.

**AND** They took BAILOUT MONEY to pay off Chinese and Japanese holders of the notes.

So again, only the little people are getting screwed.


26 posted on 04/04/2011 5:18:41 PM PDT by EvasiveManuever (Shakespeare got it wrong. Not the lawyers... journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chuckee
the impression I got from watching 60 minutes, particularly with the woman lawyer that was being foreclosed on, is that albeit she did not make her mortgage payments, she should have a defense to any foreclosure action because of the bank’s paperwork misdeeds after the fact. The reality in that case is that the real harm is not to her but to the institution or investor that may have purchased the mortgage and whose interest was compromised by the foreclosing bank’s paperwork misdeeds.The mortgagor in that case cannot be held liable for the foreclosing bank’s misdeed and the real fight is between the the foreclosing bank and the investor.

I didn't see the 60 Minutes show, but there are two possible issues: (1) In any lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that it has standing-- i.e., that it is the party who has the right to sue. If the original lender sold the loan, but didn't do the paperwork properly, it may be impossible for any bank to prove today that it is the party which owns the mortgage and has the right to foreclose.

(2)In many, but not all, states, mortgages must be recorded in the public registry of land records every time they are transfered. As a result, in some states, even if it is now possible to reconstruct the trail of assignments, the bank who legitimately owns the mortgage, and can now prove it, still cannot legally foreclose because the assignment to it (or one of the prior assignments in the chain) wasn't properly recorded. (If that happens, the result is to void the mortgage, but not the debt; the bank can sue the borrower for a money judgment on the note, but can't foreclose on the property.)

Regardless of whether securitizing mortgages was a good or bad thing for the economy, all of this could have been avoided by the banks being more careful with the paperwork back at the time of the original and subsequent transfers, but it seems that few of them were.

27 posted on 04/04/2011 5:46:29 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

Nope 15 year fixed. They still hold the mortgage.


28 posted on 04/04/2011 6:14:09 PM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
“Nope 15 year fixed. They still hold the mortgage.”

They service it.
Ask them specifically if the actual loan has been sold (securitized) on the secondary market, a customer wouldn't be made aware if it had.
Most credit unions wouldn't be able to hedge the cost of funds for 15 years to offset the loan they have made to you.

29 posted on 04/04/2011 6:51:54 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Yes We Can, have smaller government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EvasiveManuever

Someone who didn’t pay their mortgage and is now in a sh@tstorm is not a victim.


30 posted on 04/04/2011 6:58:58 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus
Wait a few years as the economy starts to recover and a segment of homeowners go to refi or sell and find they cannot refi or have to sell at a discount due to clouded title. Will be interesting to hear what the they are all deadbeats crowd will say then.

 

Exactly! The issues turning up now with the bankrupcies are just the canary in a coal mine. A lot of folks screaming about deadbeats today will be yelling even louder years down the line when they can't sell their house because they can't get clear title. Too many people are insanely short sighted. Little wonder our republic is being flushed down the crapper.

31 posted on 04/04/2011 7:51:27 PM PDT by zeugma (The only thing in the social security trust fund is your children and grandchildren's sweat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

Arguing that the mortgagor should get a pass because of the banks misdeeds after the fact to correct a paperwork issue is analagous to ......
******************************************
The banks broke every law in the book ,, and now they cannot show ownership... poor them!

It’s not “paperwork issues” ,, it’s INTENTIONAL FRAUD ,, you can’t fix FRAUD with new FRAUDULENT papers..

Do some reading.. here’s a good one .. http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/get-that-psa-alabama-judge-denies-securitization-trustee-standing-to-foreclose/


32 posted on 04/04/2011 8:35:36 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus

As near as I can read, thus far almost all of this comes from Foreclosures bringing the poorly documented transfers to light. I have heard/read stories of multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same property each claiming to be the sole note holder.

********************************************************

You’ve got it ,, by intentionally not transferring physical notes to the trust AS REQUIRED BY LAW (and common sense) the wall streeters were free to sell the same loan into multiple MBS’s ,, there is a famous case of a single $350,000-ish loan actually accounting for $93,000,000.00 in sales to investors... as long as the loan “failed to perform” the investors would never realize that they were had because they would be getting the expected return from a dead loan , $0 ...

Did they do that intentionally... I don’t know ,, but it happened .. it seems to have happened most often when they were at a “crunch time” and the MBS had to have it’s full complement of loans. Somebody probably just cut/pasted a list of REALLY BAD loans into a MBS whenever they needed a quick $10 or $20 million to finish one up... OR TO ENSURE A REASONABLY GOOD MBS WOULD FAIL SO THEY COULD COLLECT THE “INSURANCE”.


33 posted on 04/04/2011 8:47:00 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Then we can send a group of louts round your way to beat you up then?

After all, we can break any law we want, as long as you didn’t pay.

Right?


34 posted on 04/04/2011 8:59:25 PM PDT by EvasiveManuever (Shakespeare got it wrong. Not the lawyers... journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Where a homeowner raises a question as to who is his proper creditor (i.e., who owns the mortgage), the homeowner should be permitted to deposit his mortgage payments with the court until it is determined who holds the mortgage. Courts should have no patience with homeowners who want to use the confusion to just avoid paying the mortgage. They should be tossed into the snow.


35 posted on 04/04/2011 9:04:51 PM PDT by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

title insurance is for the past not the present.

since the big title insurance companies will not insure any transfers there is no protection.

part of the problem is that “all are equal before the law” means nothing to the banks or old judges who would never have survived actually practicing law. If you want evidence of judicially unqualified look no further than then NY judge sotomayor’s ruling on transfer seizures for pass through money.

We have one set of laws for banks and one set of law for serfs. Servicing agents should not be able to be listed in the caption of the case. It must be the name of the trust and bundle owner.


36 posted on 04/05/2011 4:51:12 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck

banks had certain blighted areas they would not lend to. They were sued the fed sued and the net result was that banks figured out how to sell what they were forced to finance.


37 posted on 04/05/2011 4:55:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

mortgage is just tying the promissory not to the property.

since there is no way to connect the debt to the asset then there is a very serious issue.

This is why some banks have now resorted to suing ONLY on the debt and not doing the forclosure. The banks are treating the debt as unsecured. (and in bankruptcy it is gONE)


38 posted on 04/05/2011 5:00:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EvasiveManuever

Seriously? What homeowner has been beaten up?


39 posted on 04/05/2011 7:17:55 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson