Forum Post: Mortgage Robosigning Settlement Near, Yet Again
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 28, 2012, 8:45 p.m. EST by brightonsage
(4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Mike Lux ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/settlement-release-looks-_b_1236602.html ) reports that the terms of the negotiation between the 5 largest players in the mortgage mess do not release them from liability in general and specifically the following are excluded from the settlement:
No release on any fair housing, fair lending, or civil rights claims.
No release on any Federal Housing Finance Agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprise claims.
No release on any Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims (which would admittedly be modest, since the Bureau was only established in July 2011).
No release on tax liability claims.
No release on criminal liability claims.
No release on SEC claims.
No release on National Credit Union Association claims.
No release on FDIC claims.
No release on Federal Reserve claims.
No release on the "vast majority" of origination claims.
No release on the "vast majority" of securitization claims, including all claims of state pension funds.
No release on legal liability surrounding Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).
According to these (two) sources, the release is almost entirely confined to robosigning cases.
Some of the state attorney's general are still not satisfied with the dollar amount and nobody from the mortgage side has signed off. Read the article for details. The good news for all of us watching from afar, is that it looks like there can be and probably still are a lot of of investigations and prosecutions in process.
There may be some hope for cynics yet.
What do you think?
It's just defending squatters. It's hilarious how indignant deadbeats can be over technicalities. Let's see, the squatter is living for free, not even paying the real estates taxes, and the bank that messed up a technicality is the bad guy. They barely even mention the default. It's just a shakedown of the banks for another round of redistribution.
Borrow money, default, blame the bank, and keep what you bought. That's the ethic of OWS.
If that is what you believe, stay tuned. Technically, it is illegal to sign someone else's name to an affidavit, using a machine or a proxy. And, technically, those who have been a party to this should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not only will the deadbeats not cash in, but a lot of innocent victims won't either.
It is. Those leaping to the defense of the deadbeats, just never seem to be able to mention default. Borrowers in default are in a free rent period before foreclosure. They pay nothing. Nothing towards the mortgage and nothing towards property taxes. They are squatters.
Those judging those in default to be deadbeats, never seem to be able to mention the fraud involved in getting people who were qualified for standard loads to switch, or be switched, without their knowledge to sub-prime loans, or packaging subprime loans into MBO's with AAA ratings, or foreclosing on people .who were qualified for and promised restructuring. Those leaping to the defense of those perpetrating the abuses that are huge in the number of incidents and in the amount of money involved which will, hopefully, soon be fully documented, are disingenuous fools. Are the victims. yes. Are there squatters, yes. When the numbers of each are recorded, your apology should be recorded, as well.
Oh, Lord. Yes, we're all just victims. LOL. The subprime crowd didn't have an equity stake in the first place. We simply lacked a word to describe their situations. They were renters with a call option in the event housing continued upward. But we called them "owners". So, they were losing "their" homes evoking all the misplaced pity one can imagine. But equity is created with a check, not a pen. So, bullshit on that one. They've had a nice free rent ride, something they couldn't have had anywhere else. Their options are expiring out of the money, but that's about it. Defending squatting and getting a free house because you defaulted is inappropriate.
Fraud and forgery are just nuisance details that are sometimes associated with otherwise exemplary individuals that deserve awwwwlllll of our sympathy and concern, along with appropriate jail terms, of course. Fines, for just one small aspect of this widespread practice, of $25,000,000,000. agreed to by plaintiffs, some would consider worthy of note. Can you recall two or three larger ones? And what were the causes? How about some numbers to back up your claim?
[Removed]