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

Skip to comments.

Have lying mortgage bankers met their match?
CNNMoney.com ^ | 5/4/2011 | Colin Barr

Posted on 05/05/2011 7:44:03 AM PDT by Chunga85

How fitting that when Wall Street finally takes a hit after years of mortgage malpractice, the stick is called the False Claims Act.

If there is one thing that's never in short supply in banking circles, after all, it is false claims. Internet stocks are good as gold! House prices never fall! Derivatives make the financial system safer!

Those particular false claims aren't the ones that have Wall Street looking down the barrel of a $1 billion-plus government civil suit, mind you. Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney who sued Deutsche Bank (DB) Tuesday, is going after the bank's alleged practice of making federally insured mortgage loans without actually checking, as it repeatedly claimed, on annoying details like whether the borrowers actually had jobs or incomes or bank accounts that would allow them to repay.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.fortune.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foreclosuregate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Financial innovations are awesome.
1 posted on 05/05/2011 7:44:05 AM PDT by Chunga85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chunga85
When TARP was first being discussed, I called my then Congress Critter and said the only way that the tax payers should be "purchasing troubled assets" was if the history of those assets were fully investigated and any instances of fraud or misrepresentation were fully prosecuted.

During the S&L crisis, hundreds of people were charged with crimes for their fraudulent practices. So far in this "financial meltdown," I'm not aware of any criminal referrals for any fraud or theft. The banksters just collected the taxpayer money and went on with their business.

2 posted on 05/05/2011 7:51:43 AM PDT by cc2k ( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chunga85

Looks like they are about to get swept-up in a Populist wave that may result in televised public floggings live from Yankee Stadium.


3 posted on 05/05/2011 7:53:24 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

The problem is, no one wants to point out the folks who are the real culprits: the idiot borrowers who agreed to 2,3,4,500 thousand dollar mortgages they knew they would not or could not pay back.

A mortgage closing takes and hour and you have to sign about 100 documents — all of which say the same thing: make the damned payments.

Why we want to let these folks off the hook is beyond me. Especially Freepers who want to let them off the hook.....


4 posted on 05/05/2011 7:55:52 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I think the banker and borrowers both should go to jail for fraud. Remember, after the banker consumated the deal, he sold the note to investors, pension funds, etc, etc as AAA rated products. Worst they claimed to physically own the note and title to the property. All written on a prospectus and signed off by the CEO of the bank. Guess what? According to SEC that is fraud. Bankers and borrowers need to face a judge and jury. It is starting to happen. Banks and borrowers are going to end up like tobacco companies, a decade of lawsuits. Atleast the cigarette companies were selling a legal product with known side effects. Bankers were selling fraud.


5 posted on 05/05/2011 8:05:13 AM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
There's more than one crook involved here. Why some Freepers want to let the crooked bankers off the hook is beyond me.

That wasn't the banks money they were lending out, by way of the Federal insurance, that was your and my money they gave out. The bankers had a fiscal responsibility that they failed to uphold, and they should be held to account.

6 posted on 05/05/2011 8:10:37 AM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“Why we want to let these folks off the hook is beyond me. Especially Freepers who want to let them off the hook.....”

There’s a fair amount of blame to go around, but I don’t put stupid consumers at the top of the list.

At the top of my list are the people who put together derivatives, and credit default swaps. The people who sold “toxic assets” knowing they weren’t worth spit, but doing all they could to get them off their own books. When the bubble burst a lot of pension funds, mutual funds, and 401k’s took a big loss.

Next are the mortgage bankers. I know, I know, caveat emptor, right? Well, back in the day, the bankers would make sure you could pay. They had formulas for your debt load and the mortgage payment, and if you didn’t meet the standards, no loan. In fact, the consumer could rely on banker’s approval as a measure of their ability to pay. Predatory banking was a new twist. Taking advantage of ill informed people may be legal, but it’s far from ethical. And it’s bad business. It establishes the bankers as adversaries, not allies.

Finally, at the bottom, I put stupid consumers. Yes, it’s the consumer’s responsibility to be as informed as possible. But trust me, in those closing sessions, the papers come fast and furious, and the summary by the banker is trivialized to the point of being useless. So, the consumer needs to either be experienced, or take a full day to read all that’s shoved their way, or have a lawyer at closing. I don’t give the consumer a pass, but I can understand how a first time buyer can get snookered. There are also those who speculated, bought more than they could afford, knowingly. Those people are just as bad as predatory lenders.

Just my 2 cents, since this is the place to spend it.


7 posted on 05/05/2011 8:37:40 AM PDT by brownsfan (I miss the America I grew up in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

Not sure who here wants to let the wall street component off the hook, but there is a total lack of holding dumb (or fraudulent) borrowers to account too. That was my point.

And the lending component became totally estranged from the packaging of the credit default swaps and the other esoteric instruments packaged by banks.

Simply trying to get some proportion in the debate. The media acts like folks who BORROW FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND and allowed to live in a huge house were somehow “held up” — it makes no sense.


8 posted on 05/05/2011 9:24:18 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I think your sense of proportion is off.

There are an army of foreclosure lawyers going after the failed borrowers, and lots of empty homes. In some states, those folks are still on the hook for the money the bank can't get from the sale of the house. The failed borrowers are not having a fun time. You can find a number of articles on www.nakedcapitalism.com about folks who were robbed of their homes by the banks.

On the other side, we have seen sworn testimony about 10s of thousands of perjured documents by the banks. And yet, no banker has lost his house or been otherwise penalized.

Until we see a lot of perp walks, there isn't enough emphasis on the crime of the bankers.

9 posted on 05/05/2011 10:11:50 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

Congratulations.

You have bought all of the liberal populist victimology kool aid on this story and understand NOTHING about the mortgage industry.

I’ve not the time to educate you on how it works.


10 posted on 05/06/2011 6:57:56 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright; Lurker; FromLori; azhenfud; Wolfie; UCFRoadWarrior; servantoftheservant; ...
I’ve not the time to educate you on how it works.

Please reconsider. Your country needs you now.

Were we to hold court with the issue at bar being our survival in imaginary case "Citizens [Plaintiff] v. America, Inc. [Defendant]" the defense would move the court to dismiss.

The Plaintiff could adequately plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation in order to defeat a motion to dismiss.

Defendants would offer no valid case law to support their position because there is none.

The court would rule in favor of the defendants based on economics as opposed to law.

HELP!

11 posted on 05/08/2011 7:16:13 PM PDT by Chunga85 ("Foreclosure Fraud", TARP, "Mortgage Crisis", Bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Yeah, da heck with holding the banks responsible for their shady business practices, or letting them face the risk they accepted. Not to mention ignoring the laws they broke.


12 posted on 05/08/2011 7:18:54 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

bwahhhaa haahhhhaaaaa haahaaa

thanks for the laugh


13 posted on 05/08/2011 7:20:36 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

Less Than $13k To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR


14 posted on 05/08/2011 7:23:16 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
If you have nothing to say helpful or educational about the subject, then why post anything at all.

It's not about the victimology of the borrower. It's about the criminality of the lenders, which is on all sides of the deal. The bankers & mortgage processors have shafted the borrowers, and the taxpayers who guaranteed the loans, and the pension plans that bought the loans via MBS.

And the banks did this intentionally.

Stupid, venal and corrupt borrowers are and have always been a problem and banks were supposed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the shareholders and despositors to not lend to these types of borrowers. What's new now is the flagrant disregard of the banking and mortgage industry in giving out huge money to this type of borrower.

Stupid, venal and corrupt borrowers aren't a problem if the banks properly refuse to lend to them.

15 posted on 05/08/2011 7:25:48 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

What a child. You want to hold the business responsible but not the borrower - when in fact if the borrower had simply lived up to their obligation there would be no problem.

You have your ACORN membership with you? Or did you leave it at the unemployment office? Maybe in the government cheese line? Oh, i know, it’s under our work boots where you’ll NEVER find it.


16 posted on 05/08/2011 7:26:52 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“What a child. “

Thanks for the personal attack.

“You want to hold the business responsible but not the borrower -”

Where did I say that?

“when in fact if the borrower had simply lived up to their obligation there would be no problem.”

No problem with the banks committing fraud, perjury and a myriad of other crimes? Which bank do you work for?


17 posted on 05/08/2011 7:29:27 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I don’t work for a bank.
But I do have four mortgages. I understand them all. I pay them all. I accept responsiblity for them all.

You, meanwhile, agree with CNN.


18 posted on 05/08/2011 7:30:30 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

The issue is not the forclosure, even with the document fraud.

The issue is the questionable ability of the mortgage holder to convey clear title to the new owners without the proper paperwork (which they cannot produce) because of MERS.

Can of worms and it is already opened. What a mess. Will take years to solve and there is no universal quick fix. Only case by case solution.


19 posted on 05/08/2011 7:30:48 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

If you want to deny that the government under Carter and then Clinton forced banks to lend to folks they did not want to, then go ahead and join ACORN and the DNC and MSNBC and the Daily Kos and Huff Po and The Nation and all the others who agree with that sentiment.


20 posted on 05/08/2011 7:33:11 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“But I do have four mortgages. I understand them all. I pay them all. I accept responsiblity for them all.”

Well jolly for you. I guess you are so busy paying for those mortgages that you’ve ignored every bit of economic news for the last 4 years.

“You, meanwhile, agree with CNN.”

Again with the personal attacks. Perhaps you were so busy paying those four mortgages that you’ve forgotten all your social skills.


21 posted on 05/08/2011 7:33:48 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Did the govt force banks to give you those 4 mortgages?


22 posted on 05/08/2011 7:34:58 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

You asked if I worked for the banks. Since I did not, it was only appropriate that you know on what basis I claim to understand the mortgage industry. I simply gave it to you.

As for agreeing with CNN, if you find that insulting, it is you who needs to soul search because you DO AGREE WITH THE OP CNN article. And with ACORN, and with the DNC, and with Barney Frank and Chris Dodds and MSNBC and Daily Kos and so on. I’m sorry, you DO parrot their line in this debate.

If you think that’s insulting, well, you should, but you chose to agree with them.


23 posted on 05/08/2011 7:45:02 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

>>> Well jolly for you. I guess you are so busy paying for those mortgages that you’ve ignored every bit of economic news for the last 4 years.>>>

In response to your kindergarten chant, I am well aware of every bit of economic news the last four years. I wish I had been able to sell two of the four properties with those mortgages but could not. Thus, I have skin in the game. But I’m not whining about the banks or the sellers or anything else.

I think it’s instructive that you deride paying mortgages Shows true colors.


24 posted on 05/08/2011 7:47:38 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

No, you show a distinct lack of judgement and tendency to make assumptions.

You got one thing correct, you are sorry.


25 posted on 05/08/2011 7:50:01 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

go back to your ACORN meeting. The rest of the adults and I will go back to work.


26 posted on 05/08/2011 7:51:25 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Chunga85

****a $1 billion-plus government civil suit****

And how much did they get in the bailout?


27 posted on 05/08/2011 7:53:56 PM PDT by Varsity Flight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I’ve not the time to educate you on how it works.

Wow noob, you are one smart, sanctimonious SOB!

28 posted on 05/08/2011 7:55:24 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Chunga85

Yep, the scumbag bankers should be in jail right next to the scumbag deadbeat borrowers.


29 posted on 05/08/2011 7:56:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

I love how people around here judge you on how long you’ve been registered on FREEP - as if that’s a legitimate measure of one’s expertise on a given subject.

I’ve written on the mortgage mess for national publications and for national talk shows for years. I’m no noob on mortgages and a few other subjects. When I’m a noob on something, rest assured I’ll ask questions and not take the very same take that CNN, ACORN, Daily Kos, MSNBC and every other liberal outlet takes on it and call myself a Free Republic type of guy.

That’s contradictory in and of itself. And yes, it’s too long of a subject to be understood in an internet thread.


30 posted on 05/08/2011 8:03:16 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Spend a little time researching those four mortgages and you just might find reason to be less complacent. This is not just about people who have been foreclosed upon, it’s also about people who have been paying on a note to entities with no legal basis to receive the payments and no clear claim upon the property as collateral for the loan.

It’s a legal nightmare, fraught with corruption and fraud. But, you’re OK with that, it seems, and you’re not alone. Just why that is, I’ll never understand. There are two parties to those contracts, under terms to which both parties are legally bound.

Breaking the law and defrauding not just investors but homeowners themselves is a far more serious infraction than default, the consequences of which are clearly laid out under the terms of th contract.

Your priorities are strangely askew, here. You’ve said you have “skin in the game.” It’s clear that you do, above and beyond those four mortgages.


31 posted on 05/08/2011 8:04:20 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

What about the scumbags like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who forced lenders to make loans they knew from underwriting would not work?


32 posted on 05/08/2011 8:04:29 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver; C. Edmund Wright; Chunga85; slowhandluke
The government should be suing itself.

Here is a handy timeline of why the housing bubble burst (from a recent FR thread).

» 1977: Democrat Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing home loans to low-income families.

» 1999: Democrat Bill Clinton puts the CRA on steroids by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of subprime loans.

» September 1999: The New York Times publishes an article headlined "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending," which warned of the coming crisis due to lax lending policies of the Clinton administration.

» 2003: The White House calls Fannie and Freddie a "systemic risk" and the Republican Bush administration pushes Congress to enact new regulations.

» 2003: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., says Fannie and Freddie are "not in a crisis," bashes Republicans for crying wolf and calls F&F "financially sound." Democrats block Republican-sponsored regulation legislation.

» 2005: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan voices warning over F&F accounting, saying, "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

» 2005: Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says he thinks F&F "over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world."

» 2006: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., again calls for reform of the regulatory structure that governs F&F.

» 2006: Democrats again block reform legislation.

» 2008: The housing market collapses; Democrats blame the Republicans.

33 posted on 05/08/2011 8:06:29 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Fraud isn’t that hard to grasp, but you seem to be having some trouble.


34 posted on 05/08/2011 8:12:13 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

What we have is a failure to communicate:
And No I do not have any relationship to the mortgage industry other than being a bigger customer at this time than I’d like to be. But I have researched it and written about it for years.

I am not ok with any fraud and corruption of course, and any business as big as the mortgage business is going to have some of that. Right now the biggest problems are with over burdensome government paperwork and bureaucracy along with non paying customers.

As for your claim that “it’s also about people who have been paying on a note to entities with no legal basis to receive the payments and no clear claim upon the property as collateral for the loan” — all I can say is I am not aware of that being a widespread issue - and if it is — that is out and out fraud or identity theft of some description and not directly related to sub prime borrowing and the derivatives that resulted therefrom.

I would love to see a link to more info on that, and I’m not being catty. I really would I will still write about this.


35 posted on 05/08/2011 8:13:37 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

THOSE are the people I want to put in jail.


36 posted on 05/08/2011 8:16:25 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Look into Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. I know them because they financed a construction-perm loan of mine in 2006.

I've since sold the house, it was a lake house, my dream house, but the economy forced me to close my business in July, 2008 and reduced circumstances no longer permitted such a luxury. I dodged a bullet, with both the price declines in the second home market and with Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. They have since gone through quite the controversy:

__________________________________________________________________

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Corp., Ocala, FL - Multi-state Settlement Agreement


By the Office of the Division of Banks

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORP. ("Taylor, Bean & Whitaker" or the "Corporation"), a corporation headquartered in Ocala, Florida with full knowledge of its rights to Notice and Hearing pursuant to the laws of: the States of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Vermont, North Carolina, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts (collectively the "States") and having waived those rights, consents to this agreement ("Settlement Agreement") with representatives of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions; the District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking; the Florida Office of Financial Regulation; the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance; the Idaho Department of Finance; the Illinois Department of Financial Professional Regulation-Division of Banking; the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions; the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation; the Massachusetts Division of Banks; the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance; the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance; the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks; the Pennsylvania Department of Banking; and the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration (hereafter the "State Mortgage Regulators") dated June 22, 2009, solely for the purpose of resolving this matter in its entirety, and without admitting any allegations or implications of fact or the existence of any violation of laws, regulations, and rules governing the conduct and operation of the mortgage business in each of the States.

WHEREAS, the State Mortgage Regulators conducted a multi-state examination ("Multi-State Examination"), of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker in order to evaluate Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's compliance with applicable state laws, which included evaluation of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's underwriting standards, risk management practices, and other applicable laws, regulations, and rules governing the Corporation's mortgage business.

WHEREAS, the Multi-State Examination was limited to non-traditional mortgage products (as defined by the Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products Risks) (hereinafter "Non-Traditional Mortgage Products") originated by Taylor, Bean, & Whitaker in 2006.

WHEREAS, each State Mortgage Regulator conducted the Multi-State Examination pursuant to its statutory authority, and certain of the States conducted parallel examinations of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker resulting in the issuance of State-Specific Reports of Examination to the Corporation.

WHEREAS, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker is licensed under the laws of the States.

WHEREAS, the confidential findings of the Multi-State Examination and related State-Specific Reports of Examination which were prepared by the State Mortgage Regulators and issued to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, identified alleged compliance exceptions with applicable laws, regulations, and rules governing the mortgage business. The confidentiality of information relating to the report of examination by Florida's Office of Financial Regulation will be determined by Section 494.00125, Florida Statutes.

WHEREAS, on or about February 25, 2009, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker filed Responses to the findings and violations alleged in the Multi-State Report of Examination, as well as State-Specific Reports of Examination (collectively referred to as the "Report"), with the State Mortgage Regulators whereby the Corporation contested the concurrent findings and alleged compliance exceptions described in the Report.

WHEREAS, after negotiation and solely for the purpose of resolution of all compliance exceptions alleged by the State Mortgage Regulators and noted in the Report, which the parties now dispute and wish to resolve without protracted administrative proceedings and judicial review, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker hereby waives its right to the hearing process relative to this proceeding and affirms that the Corporation desires to participate in and support industry reform, and is willing to take action as set forth in this Settlement Agreement.

WHEREAS, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker consents to the adoption of this Settlement Agreement and the entry of a Final Order in any settling State where so required, and further agrees that it waives all rights to appeal any such Final Order entered consistent with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

THE MULTI-STATE EXAMINATION ALLEGATIONS

WHEREAS, the State Mortgage Regulators allege Taylor, Bean & Whitaker has been the subject of certain compliance exceptions under each of the various States' mortgage brokerage or mortgage lending laws, which alleged exceptions may include those further described herein.

WHEREAS, the alleged compliance exceptions set forth in the Report were based on a targeted sampling of select closed loans, and address the underwriting standards and oversight of risk management practices in connection with Non-Traditional Mortgage Products in the time-frame considered in the examination process.

WHEREAS, the alleged compliance exceptions were disputed by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker in a Response dated January 25, 2009 and no exceptions relating to compliance with applicable law, regulations or rules were admitted by the Corporation.

WHEREAS, the Multi-State Examination and Report cited allegations related to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's offering of Non-Traditional Mortgage Products to prospective borrowers, and compliance with the Corporation's investor guidelines.

WHEREAS, the Multi-State Examination and Report identified certain changes to underwriting standards, compliance and risk management practices that were alleged to be necessary to address the Corporation's business practices and underwriting system.

WHEREAS, the parties now seek to resolve by mutual agreement all alleged compliance exceptions identified during the Multi-State Examination and Report, to promote industry reform and to serve the interest of consumers who have financing through the Corporation.

NOW COME the parties in the above-captioned matter, the State Mortgage Regulators acting under their statutory authority and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, and agree as follows:

  1. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to conducting the mortgage business in each State. Such obligations shall include the following:
    1. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall submit to the State Mortgage Regulators identified in the Report, a written response that describes the revised policies and procedures to be adopted by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker to address (i) the alleged compliance exceptions relating to Non-Traditional Mortgage Products as set forth in the Report and (ii) the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
  2. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker agrees to submit to the State Mortgage Regulators a revised, written compliance program ("Compliance Program") designed to maintain compliance by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker with applicable laws, regulations, and rules governing the conduct and operation of its mortgage business in each of the States. The Compliance Program shall:
    1. Include a written description of the revised policies and procedures to be adopted by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker to address (i) the alleged compliance exceptions relating to Non-Traditional Mortgage Products as set forth in the Multi-State Examination and Report and (ii) the provisions of this Settlement Agreement;
    2. Provide for a review process to assess the compliance of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, and all applicable employees, staff, and independent contractors who operate on behalf of the Corporation with (i) the statutes, regulations, rules, and other relevant provisions of law applicable to those engaged in the mortgage business in each State and (ii) the provisions of this Settlement Agreement;
    3. Provide for the review of mortgage loans submitted multiple times through automated underwriting programs, in order to prevent and detect instances in which information, including, but not limited to income, reserves and/or expenses may be altered during each submission in an effort to qualify applicants for loans;
    4. Ensure that the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Compliance Program is managed by qualified managers who shall have responsibility for all consumer compliance and related matters, including, but not limited to, monitoring the Corporation's compliance and ensuring that corrective action is taken to address all alleged compliance exceptions relating to Non-Traditional Mortgage Products identified in the Multi-State Examination and/or set forth in the Report;
    5. Provide for adequate training to applicable staff persons, conducted by qualified and trained personnel, which includes, but is not limited to, proper instruction, adequate supervision and ongoing training to ensure proper implementation and execution of the revised policies and procedures implemented pursuant to this Settlement Agreement;
    6. Ensure that detailed background checks for all Taylor, Bean & Whitaker employees and third-parties, such as mortgage brokers, are conducted periodically and in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and industry standards;
    7. Ensure that Taylor, Bean & Whitaker and its third-party vendors comply with the Home Valuation Code of Conduct;
    8. Ensure that the Compliance Program addresses the placement of loan applications; application completion procedures; verification and due diligence procedures; internal policies and quality control procedures; books and record retention procedures; privacy policies and practices; and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and rules governing the mortgage business; and
    9. Identify the type and number of senior management and officer personnel necessary to manage adequately and supervise properly the Corporation's mortgage business activity and the Compliance Program; ensure that each individual identified possesses the ability, experience, and other qualifications necessary to perform competently present and anticipated duties, to follow and enforce the Corporation's revised policies and procedures and Compliance Program adopted pursuant to this Settlement Agreement; and confirm the level of staffing needed to conduct competently the Corporation's operations affecting the States' consumers.
  3. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the revised written Compliance Program, as detailed in Paragraph 2(a)-(i) of this Settlement Agreement, the State Mortgage Regulators may unanimously reject the proposed policies and procedures as set forth in the Compliance Program and provide the Corporation with one coordinated response setting a new timeframe for the submission of a revised Compliance Program.
  4. Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall engage an independent loan review firm ("Loan Review Firm") to conduct a review of certain Non-Traditional Mortgage Products and loan applications processed by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker from January 1, 2006 through the date that the Loan Review Firm commences its review. The Loan Review Firm's engagement letter shall establish a reasonable and mutually acceptable sampling procedure which will be applied to complete the application review for the referenced Non-Traditional Mortgage Products and review period. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall first submit the proposed engagement and sampling procedure to the State Mortgage Regulators. If, after ten (10) days, the State Mortgage Regulators do not raise objection, then the Corporation shall execute the engagement. The firm previously retained by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker as identified in the Report shall not be eligible to be retained as the Loan Review Firm for purposes of this Settlement Agreement. The Loan Review Firm's review shall commence within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement.
    1. The scope of the Firm's review will assess compliance with the following state or federal law requirements: (i) state licensure of the loan officer, broker, and lender involved in the transaction; (ii) federal HOEPA and state high-cost home loan or predatory lending laws; (iii) state laws related to the charging of origination charges, discount points, and third-party fees, including any limitation of miscellaneous fees charged; (iv) state laws regarding the imposition of prepayment penalties; and (v) requirements of RESPA and TILA regarding the timing and accuracy of initial and final disclosures and that initial disclosures bore a reasonable relationship to the final terms of the borrower's loan;
    2. Subject to the State Mortgage Regulators' written approval, the sampling procedure will, at a minimum, ensure that the Loan Review Firm selects an approximate 10% sample of Non-Traditional Mortgage Products and transactions from each of the States for the relevant review period. It being understood and agreed that in the event that the Loan Review Firm discovers substantial compliance exceptions that impact upon charges incurred by consumers under applicable laws, regulations, or rules, such State sample shall be expanded and the review continued to address such compliance exceptions; and
    3. The Corporation shall retain all Non-Traditional Mortgage Product loan documents relating to its 2006 and 2007 book of business occurring in the States for a minimum of three (3) years from the effective date of this Settlement Agreement. 
  5. The Loan Review Firm shall prepare and submit to each State Mortgage Regulator a written report detailing the Loan Review Firm's findings ("Loan Review Report") within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement. The State Mortgage Regulators shall treat each Loan Review Report as examination-related material.
  6. In consideration of the alleged compliance exceptions identified during the Multi-State Examination and Report, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker further agrees to the following additional settlement terms:
    1. For purposes of loans in the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker portfolio, the Corporation shall establish, implement and maintain a loan modification program in conformance to that released by the United States Department of the Treasury ("Treasury"). The programs otherwise known as the "Making Home Affordable Program" and the "The Home Affordable Refinance Program" shall collectively be referred to as the "Making Home Affordable Program."
  7. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall provide to the State Mortgage Regulators a quarterly report, including an accounting of the dollar amount of the funds used for each quarter for the Making Home Affordable Program and data analysis detailing the impact of the loan modification program in a format that is reasonably acceptable to the State Mortgage Regulators.  The mortgage loans to be modified shall be those that were previously originated by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker through the Corporation's retail business directly or indirectly by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker or through brokers in their wholesale lending channels.  The identified mortgage loans shall currently be serviced by Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, owned in, or held for investment in the Corporation's portfolio. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall use reasonable efforts to remove all prohibitions or impediments to its authority, and use reasonable efforts to obtain all third-party consents and waivers that are required, by contract or law, in order to effectuate any modification. In the event that a third-party consent is not attainable, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall have no duty to comply with the provisions of this paragraph.
  8. In consideration for this settlement, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall contribute four million five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System ("NMLS") to be directed to the maintenance of NMLS; and
  9. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall also remit four million five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) in full and complete settlement and resolution of all compliance exceptions alleged in the Multi-State Examination and Report, including the State-Specific Reports of Examination as set forth in the Report, as well as all other claims, violations, and or issues addressed in, arising out of, or relating to the Multi-State Examination and Report. The Corporation's settlement consideration shall be apportioned among the States in equal shares.
  10.  Taylor, Bean & Whitaker has complied with the regulatory requirements imposed by each individual State Mortgage Regulator pursuant to the Multi-State Examination and Report.  Any further regulatory action relative to the Multi-State Examination shall be limited to the payment of any further refunds to consumers sought by the State Mortgage Regulators as a result of the loan review process described in Paragraph 4 of this Settlement Agreement. 
  11. On the thirtieth (30th) day after the end of each calendar quarter following the date of this Settlement Agreement, beginning with the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2009, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker shall furnish written progress reports to the State Mortgage Regulators detailing the form, content, and manner of any actions taken to address this Settlement Agreement. The written progress reports shall further describe any initiatives implemented by the Corporation during the preceding calendar quarter to improve the Corporation's practices in the area of consumer compliance and the results thereof.
  12. The reporting requirements contained in this Settlement Agreement shall remain in effect and shall not be amended or rescinded without prior written modification, termination, or suspension of the applicable provisions of this Settlement Agreement from the State Mortgage Regulators. The parties agree that there will be a review conducted for purposes of lifting the above reporting requirements after twelve (12) months following the execution of the Settlement Agreement.

    GENERAL PROVISIONS

  13. This Settlement Agreement shall become effective immediately upon the date of its execution by all parties.
  14. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon Taylor, Bean & Whitaker and its officers and directors, and their successors or assigns.
  15. In no event shall this Settlement Agreement, in whole or in part, whether effective, terminated, or otherwise, or any of its provisions or any negotiations, statements, or proceedings related to it be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of any kind in any action or proceeding, except in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, neither this Settlement Agreement or any related negotiations, statements, or proceedings shall be construed as, offered as, received as, used as, or deemed to be evidence, or any admission of liability of wrongdoing or breach of any duty on the part of any party, or as a waiver by any party of any applicable defense. None of the parties hereto waives or intends to waive any applicable attorney-client privilege or work product protection, confidentiality or any other protection applicable to any negotiations, statements, production of records or information, or proceedings relative to this Settlement Agreement. This provision shall survive termination of this agreement.
  16. Material non-compliance and failure to comply with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, subject to written notice and a thirty (30) day period and opportunity to cure material non-compliance, shall constitute grounds for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's license denial, suspension, and/or revocation pursuant to applicable provisions of the statutory provisions of each State Mortgage Regulator.
  17. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker knowingly and voluntarily waives its rights to appeal this Settlement Agreement and any Final Order-in any settling State where so required, provided any such State action and Order is consistent with the terms hereof.
  18. All Notices and reporting requirements detailed in the provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be forwarded to the State Mortgage Regulators.
  19. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall become public upon the effective date hereof.
  20. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall remain effective and enforceable except to the extent that, and until such time as, any provisions of this agreement shall have been modified, terminated, suspended, or set aside by the State Mortgage Regulators collectively, or upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
  21. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement shall be enforceable by any of the States individually in a court of competent jurisdiction within that State. The Corporation shall enjoy the same right to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
  22. This Settlement Agreement is the complete document representing the complete resolution of this disputed matter and all alleged compliance exceptions noted in the Multi-State Examination and Report.  It is the express purpose and intention of the parties' agreement that Taylor, Bean & Whitaker not be subject to any related examination or enforcement, claims or actions arising out of the alleged findings and compliance exceptions as set forth in the Multi-State Examination and Report.  Further, the release given herein to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker by the State Mortgage Regulators is specific to the compliance exceptions noted in the Multi-State Examination and Report, excepting only the matter of any potential refunds that may be sought by the State Mortgage Regulators on behalf of consumers as a result of the loan review process described above in Paragraph 4 of this Settlement Agreement. 
  23. The parties agree, however, that the State Mortgage Regulators may commence new examinations of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker for periods involving loans or mortgage lending conduct falling outside the scope, issues, or time period covered by both the Multi-State Examination and Report, with all rights, claims, or defenses being expressly reserved by the State Mortgage Regulators and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or warranties other than those set forth in this Settlement Agreement.
  24. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts and each signatory below represents that they have the authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of their indicated party and/or State.

Dated at Ocala, Florida, this 19th day of June, 2009.

SIGNATORY ON BEHALF OF TAYLOR, BEAN AND WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORP

By:

Paul Allen
Chief Executive Officer


SIGNATORY FOR EACH STATE MORTGAGE REGULATOR:

Felecia A. Rotellini, Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions

Thomas E. Hampton, Commissioner
The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking

Terence M. Straub, Director, Division of Finance
Florida Office of Financial Regulation

Rob Braswell, Commissioner
Georgia Department of Banking and Finance

Gavin M. Gee, Director of Finance
Idaho Department of Finance

Jorge A. Solis, Director, Division of Banking
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation-Division of Banking

John P. Ducrest, Commissioner
Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions

Sarah Bloom Raskin, Commissioner
Maryland Office of Financial Regulation

Steven L. Antonakes, Commissioner of Banks
Massachusetts Division of Banks

John S. Allison, Commissioner
Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance

Steven M. Goldman, Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance

Mark Pearce, Deputy Commissioner of Banks
North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks

Steven Kaplan, Secretary of Banking
Pennsylvania Department of Banking

Paulette Thabault, Commissioner
Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration

37 posted on 05/08/2011 8:29:56 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The problem is, no one wants to point out the folks who are the real culprits: the idiot borrowers who agreed to 2,3,4,500 thousand dollar mortgages they knew they would not or could not pay back. A mortgage closing takes and hour and you have to sign about 100 documents — all of which say the same thing: make the damned payments.
Why we want to let these folks off the hook is beyond me. Especially Freepers who want to let them off the hook.....

Sure they are a factor (maybe 10%) but the biggest mess was created on Wall Street and by thieving Banksters who bundled these mortgages into securities to be sold and traded and to be bet against and to take out credit default swaps on
Look up Magnetar and articles by Gretchen Morgenson of the NYTimes

You need to follow the money and the billions made off this mess was made by Banksters/Wall Street/hedge funds
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are to blame but they did not make millions off it
Senile Ayn Rand style hippie Alan Greenspan is to blame with his easy money policies that fueled insane lending ...but he did not make millions off it
House flippers ....bush league scammers compared to the Banksters
Angelo Mozillo and Countrywide  ...made vast millions off the scam

38 posted on 05/08/2011 8:51:19 PM PDT by dennisw (NZT - "works better if you're already smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Yep.
The government’s got a lot of balls suing its co-conspirators.


39 posted on 05/08/2011 8:51:31 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

So someone makes a bad financial move and fails to honor a civil contract is the same as a financial institution failing to do their do diligence and keep their paperwork straight and because of that they are forced to commit multiple felonies and Fraud on the Court in an effort to cover up their ineptitude in make, processing and documenting these loans loans that they made with other peoples money which they resold multiple times, while making a fortune in servicing fees and then getting most of the money back from the government insurance?

That’s like giving life to the corner three card monte dealer while handing out slaps on the wrist to the likes of Bernie Madoff, OH wait that’s pretty much what we do look at Countrywide for a good example!

What do you thing should be done to the growing numbers of these same financial institutions that are walking away/defualting on millions of Commericial real estate?


40 posted on 05/08/2011 9:58:50 PM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I’m jumping into the middle of the conversation you have been having here, so not directly related to a specific post. Just raising a point.

I’ve a few friends that have walked from their home loans. Not one of them can be characterized as getting a loan they could not afford. They had good steady jobs with loan amounts that did not have them over their heads.

They lost their good paying jobs and income. All but one had savings that could have carried them for awhile in the house. It became a business decision for them to walk.

They looked a house that was worth half what they owed. Another house that was just as nice was available for rent at less than half what their mortgage payment was. Why not walk? Why shouldn’t they?


41 posted on 05/08/2011 10:35:07 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gunsequalfreedom

Heck, why not go rob some liquor stores? They have cash around, booze too... so why not?


42 posted on 05/08/2011 10:42:32 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
Heck, why not go rob some liquor stores? They have cash around, booze too... so why not?

Because that would be against the rules.

43 posted on 05/08/2011 11:04:22 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
There's more than one crook involved here. Why some Freepers want to let the crooked bankers off the hook is beyond me.

Don't count me as one of them. The directors of the banks (and the rating companies like S&P and Moodys) should be in jail for the harm they have perptrated on this country. Instead they are getting record bonuses. It is called corruption. They should be in jail.

44 posted on 05/08/2011 11:08:02 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer
Right on K!

The skilled, knowledgeable "licensed" loan givers were duped by the stupid borrowers!

What the H!

Not saying there is no fraud by borrower, but they really need to give it a rest.

Loan GIVERS were prospecting potential borrowers like great white sharks at a luau.

Loan companies and banks told borrowers whatever they needed to hear to get them to sign on the bottom line.... some borrowers were ignorant of the fraud and some were aware (i.e., illegals... a la my former Xneighbor.. illegal who moved out in the middle of the night... of course he sent a car carrier truck to remove all of his new vehicles about a month before that).

45 posted on 05/08/2011 11:22:05 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

If you want to deny that the government under Carter and then Clinton forced banks to lend to folks they did not want to, then go ahead and join ACORN and the DNC and MSNBC and the ....
************************************************
You are echoing Rush Limbaughs infantile grasp of the situation ,, have you read any news in the last 4 years or so? How about any actual court transcripts or depositions ,, the fraud is everywhere , it was planned , the deals were designed to crash and burn because the banksters had “crash and burn” insurance in spades .. You are either a troll or you’re being played.


46 posted on 05/09/2011 3:28:52 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor
****************************************************
I apologize ,, I hadn’t read your tagline ,, you aren’t echoing Rush’s infantile understanding of what occurred ,, you provide him with your understanding and he is silly enough to go with it ... Pathetic ... Rush needs schooling on this subject more than any other ,, whenever it comes up it makes me cringe knowing that he should be doing a “face palm” ... Go tell the golfer that he needs to have ICE LEGAL send someone over (they’re right in Rush’s neighborhood) and ‘splain it all to him ... because this is far out of your league.


47 posted on 05/09/2011 3:34:30 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
But I do have four mortgages. I understand them all. I pay them all.

Do you know who currently holds them all?

If not, good luck in getting clear title once you've paid them off.

48 posted on 05/09/2011 3:43:25 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke

They’ll always be a certain ilk that will forgive criminal behavior if committed by the “right” kind of people against the “wrong” kind of people.


49 posted on 05/09/2011 4:10:51 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer; All
I think you've seen this collection before. I'll be adding a few blockbusters soon.

Fight Club Lawyer - Foreclosure Fraud

50 posted on 05/09/2011 5:26:46 AM PDT by Chunga85 ("Foreclosure Fraud", TARP, "Mortgage Crisis", Bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

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