iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Richard (RJ) Eskow

Richard (RJ) Eskow

Posted: October 18, 2010 02:25 AM

Jamie Dimon and the other mega-bankers who derailed the economy have a new PR campaign to sell you. They're saying that families who can't pay their mortgages must bear the blame -- all the blame -- for the foreclosure crisis. That means the public should just ignore banks' widespread lawbreaking in the registering and transfer of property titles. For the bankers who would appoint themselves the nation's moral arbiters, It's always somebody else's fault.

Not that we should be surprised. After all, the Mortgage Bankers Association, which calls itself "the voice of the real estate finance industry," did a short sale on its Washington DC headquarters which left CEO John Courson uncharacteristically speechless. It seems he didn't want to talk about how he walked away from the loans he took out to buy that building. But before the cat got his tongue, Courson managed to lecture homeowners on their "legal obligation" and the terrible "message they would send" by walking away from their mortgages.

Morality and law for thee, but none for me.

John Courson paid $79 million for his Association's headquarters and sold it three years later for $41.3 million. In his defense, anyone who loses nearly $38 million on a single real estate deal is, in fact, uniquely qualified to speak for the real estate finance industry. They mismanaged their finances so badly that they brought down the economy. They needed to rescued by the rest of us, a privilege they're working overtime to deny others. They claim that struggling homeowners are "undeserving" of help, even if the other party in their transaction has broken the law or violated a contract.

The bankers have benefited from a stacked deck, or what's known as "moral hazard." That's the term for what happens when people don't bother protecting themselves from risk because they know somebody else will take care of it for them. The banks are saying they've been reasonable business partners, giving their borrowers all the information they need to make good decisions while asking no special favors for themselves. Does that sound right? We created the "Home Loan Blame Game Scorecard," which is at the end of this post, to find out.

As CEO of JPMorgan Chase, you'd think that Jamie Dimon might hesitate before saying "We're not evicting people who deserve to stay in their house." His argument rests on the idea that homeowners bear sole responsibility for taking out loans they couldn't repay. He might be shocked, shocked, to learn that his own employees have relentlessly been trying to push these loans on people:

2010-10-18-chaseexclusives.JPG

The "blame homeowners" argument is hypocritical, but it's been effective. It helped bankers get themselves massive bailouts, pay themselves huge bonuses, and walk away with the profits they made by selling and trading these mortgages at inflated prices. And it's helped them avoid having to write down their books to reflect the actual, reduced value of the assets they're holding. That means millions of homeowners are propping them up by paying mortgages at property values that the banks themselves artificially inflated.

Now they want to use the same argument to get around the fact that they've been breaking property laws on a massive scale for years. It's just "paperwork," they say. But any homeowner who filed false affidavits - a crime that's legally equivalent to perjury - would be looking at jail time. Remember: Law and morality for thee ...

"But if these people had paid their mortgages, there wouldn't been a problem." That's a pretty compelling argument (if you're willing to ignore the widespread lawbreaking by the banks). But why couldn't they pay their mortgages? In many cases, it's because banks have violated HAMP rules for helping distressed homeowners modify their loans. That's breaking the law.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, the banks are "largely unsympathetic" to the idea of a foreclosure freeze, and they consider reports of widespread lawbreaking merely a bureaucratic problem. ""If you didn't pay your mortgage, you shouldn't be in your house," said a portfolio manager at Greenwood Capital Associates. "People are getting upset about something that's just procedural."

"Procedural" ... you know. Abiding by the law. Doing what the little people do ...

Bank of America has been a particularly egregious violator of HAMP's legal requirements, which means that many of the people it's foreclosing on shouldn't even be in that position. Yet you could almost see CEO Brian Moynihan rolling his eyes sarcastically as he said of the missing titles, "We'll go back and check over our homework one more time."

Please, Mr. Moynihan, don't trouble yourself. Allow us to check your "homework" for you. Surely bankers that hold homeowners to such high moral standards won't object to a thorough and very detailed audit of these transactions by the proper authorities. I'm sure such ethical and meticulous leaders want to know how many home appraisals were carried out by "friendly" appraisers, for instance, rather than ones who were known to come up with whatever number the bank wanted. And I'm sure they'd want to know if any of their employees had misled borrowers, perhaps by telling them that they could be sure that refinancing would be available long before their adjustable rate mortgages went up.

Remember, they're lecturing homeowners for not managing their finances well, when their entire industry would have collapsed because they didn't manage their finances well.

In a famous (and probably apocryphal) story, it's said that FDR finally got frustrated during a meeting of his economic advisors. After hearing talk about loan rates, interest, borrowing, and various financial mechanisms, the story says that FDR finally blurted out "What the hell! It's all our money, isn't it?"

That's how bankers feel about the current foreclosure crisis: It's all their money. Who cares about titles and property laws? If a homeowner hasn't been making their mortgage payments, the argument goes, then surely they should lose their house to somebody . It doesn't matter whether its Chase or Citi or Wells Fargo. As long as the banks agree among themselves who gets to put that family into the street, what's it to you, pal? And if the family's only in trouble because their bank (whoever it was) broke the law, well, we can't blame the bank if we can't find them, can we?

We're not saying that no homeowners bear responsibility for defaulting on their mortgages. Sure, some people should've known better. But three million homes have been foreclosed upon in the last three years. That's a systemic problem. One in every five houses is underwater. That's a systemic problem, too. The only factors common to the system as a whole are the bankers, and the rules that let them get away with running up housing prices in a gambling frenzy and walking away with everything when they fell. They've written millions of loans without proper risk management. Many experts were warning us that the housing bubble was about to burst, and they were getting paid extraordinarily well to understand the dangers.

Bank stocks took a steep hit last week, and why shouldn't they? The executives running them aren't very good at what they do. It's about time bankers took some responsibility for their failures. It's about time banks shared some of the lost value of these properties with homeowners - not just those who are defaulting, but all affected homeowners.

Stockholders should can the executives who have so badly mismanaged their banks. To paraphrase Jamie Dimon, we're not about talking evicting people who deserve to stay in the corner office. Word to Brian Moynihan: If you can't manaqe your business, you don't deserve to keep your job. Nothing personal, of course. For those who want to see the finance industry run by competent people, firing you is what we would call "just procedural."

______________________________

 MEET THE HAZARD MASTERS:  THE HOME LOAN MORAL HAZARD SCORECARD

HAZARD

BANKERS

HOMEOWNERS

ADVANTAGE:

Were financial professionals

Yes

No

Bankers

Cheated on property laws, taxes, titles, etc.

Yes

Mostly no

Bankers

Got rich off the deal

Made trillions

Some got to buy boats or flat-screen TVs

Bankers

Acted as unfair trading partners

Yes; had FICO, databases, teams of economists

A few hid things, but the banks knew anyway

Bankers

Could influence politicians with fat campaign contributions

Yes

No; never attended $20,000/plate fundraising dinners

Bankers

Able to influence public opinion with PR campaigns, etc.

Yes

No

Bankers

Absolutely shameless about blaming others for financial mismanagement after accepting massive bailout

Yes

No; most feel guilty about missing a payment and ashamed if they default

Bankers

Forced to bear financial burden of overpriced homes

No

Yes

Who else? 

_______________________________

Final score: To be determined in the court of public opinion, and in the corridors of Washington power.

Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.

He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."

Website: Eskow and Associates

 

Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

 
 
  • Comments
  • 163
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
04:05 PM on 10/21/2010
One of the things I don't quite understand is the characterization of the falsified statements as "procedural errors." I am told that in CA each offense carries a $25K fine...we generally do not see this scale of penalty for simple mistakes in paperwork filing, etc. Here in the Bay Area, we are getting ready to watch a baseball player go on trial for providing false statements to law enforcement - but this shouldn't apply to bankers?? And what about false statements to the police who then rely and act upon them only to discover they are in error - I saw this today: www.knowyourmortgagebanker.com/blog/blame-the-victim-or-the-perp. I am glad my husband is not involved in wrongly throwing people from their homes. Just awful.
03:10 AM on 10/21/2010
Matt Weidener posted something of interest awhile back on his blog:

I don’t know what a “Blank Check Company” is, but I don’t like the sounds of it. I don’t like a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands being responsible for taking the homes of hundreds of thousands of my neighbors. I especially don’t like the thought of the profits derived from taking the homes of hundreds of thousands of my neighbors having anything to do with,
“an unidentified operating business which has its principal business and/or material operations in China.”

I hope the FBI and AG's are investigating this company - if DJS is doing busy with this company, maybe others are, too - a great place to hide money, China is. Could it be out of US jurisdiction? If that's so, then there must be another way to get restitution for damaged homeowners.
12:27 AM on 10/21/2010
The Mortgage Bankers Association benefitted by using MERS as a corporate veil. Fannie (under conservatorship) would buy up the toxic assets that MERS had hidden under a rug. Fannie (before conservatorship) must have known about MERS - that's how Fannie and the Mortgage Bankers were able to keep things off the balance sheets - collusion.
One the Fed realized the MERS mistake, it was too late. TARP was already handed out. It looks like the Mortgage Bankers Association may get out of this scott-free, since MERS is Bankruptcy-remote and the toxic assets are now paid for, and owned by, the Fed. We the people have gotten shafted, meanwhile, through the loss of jobs caused by the failure of Corporations that bought into the worthless crap. What did they buy into? Intentionally overvalued MBS. Losing a job means loss of a home for many people. Loss of a home means the Mortgage Bankers can remortgage it and keep the money wheel turning under MERS. This all started with the rape of homeowners. It should not end with more rape. Investigate the MBA, not just the Banks. Investigate MERSCORP. Give the people a bailout, and put the rapists in jail where they belong!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebtNavigation
Attorney and Author
02:39 PM on 10/20/2010
I don't usually make "Star Trek" references, but there is a particularly poignant one to be made here. In one episode the Enterprise crew are representing the Federation in contention with the Klingons for the favor of the tribalistic inhabitants of some planet or other, and at one point their headman says "what the Klingon has said is unimportant and we do not hear his words." And that about sums it up for anything coming out of the banking industry or their various sock puppets.

In Mexico in the mid-'90s Wall Street engineered a currency coup that tripled the debt owed by small businesses and family farms and also allowed for them to be massively ratejacked on top of it. Mexicans consequently formed the "el Barzon" movement and pushed back Wall Street and deposed their ruling party of 60+ years. In this country YouTube phenom Ann Minch has already declared the debtors' revolt and begun going after them http://www.revoltstartsnow.com

If you've been pushed under, you can read every other page of my book for free: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25443175/Debt-Hope-Down-and-Dirty-Survival-Strategies-Evaluation-Version-Complete
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:01 AM on 10/20/2010
I look at this thing very coldly and methodically:

"Securities fraud." Check.

"Money laundering." Undoubtedly.

"Usury." Yep.

"Swindling." Duh.

"Racketeering." Yes.

And I could go on, until all of my word-count is used up. But these are all: Crimes.

I know where to find 310 million Plaintiffs in this country alone, and (literally) billions more outside.

Never mind the "morality" of it. Never mind what the criminals are saying. Focus, instead, upon the crimes they have committed and that they continue to commit. No criminal institution is "too big to fail."

Also let us focus upon the "all civil officers" of our Government who, in direct defiance of Article 2 Section 4 of the supreme law of our land, took billions of dollars in bribes and continue to do so. That venerable document doesn't call it a "campaign contribution," doesn't use the word "lobbying," and knows nothing of "corporations" or "corporate freedom of speech." The word is, "bribery." And the word next door is, "treason."

A criminal never faults himself. Some dim part of Al Capone probably did think of himself as "a furniture salesman." But 310 million people do not have to live under the heel of such evil men and women. And, we won't.
06:52 AM on 10/19/2010
A moral hazard, ay? Is that anything like hundreds of pilots in uniform outside the south Florida Shearson offices cutting up their gold cards? Or maybe a moral hazard is when the strikers don't return to work and people aren't crossing the line? Is that the banks' moral hazard? Perhaps we need to use the bullfighters cape technique. Let the banks charge after the target and then lift the cape. Voila! Negtive pressure and they can into the abyss. We can have cocktails on the way down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Shields
Poet & Advocate For Special Needs Children
02:01 AM on 10/19/2010
I will not quibble the point that there is blame aplenty for this mess.

But consider this...when you go for a mortgage, you KNOW how much you can afford...or should. When I bought my home over 20 years ago, I demanded to know how much the payment would be, with EVERYTHING...meaning taxes and insurance. I needed to know if our income could cover it. We were already paying $750 a month for rent. Buying a home did not INCREASE our income. Most people can handle a small raise in their costs...but going for double or worse is a recipe for disaster.

I was pitched for re-financing again and again during the last bubble. In every case, they were trying to persuade me to borrow against my equity, in exchange for an ARM. I remember how carefully they avoided the issue when I said i didn't want adjustable rates. And they always said "Yes, but you can always re-finance!" as the kicker. Thank god I resisted the temptation. Too many people with perfect credit are being denied. The likelihood that the average consumer will get the loan they need to haul their chestnuts out of the fire these days is negligible.

But while it was happening? "Just ignore the man behind the curtain, Dorothy..."
photo
Inkeesgirl
You can't take the sky from me...
11:46 PM on 10/19/2010
How nice for you!!. You are so clever. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone had been as smart as you!!! But the issue here is that many people weren't as clever and smart as you, and now they are in trouble.The choice to walk away from a home is a business decision, pure and simple. The circumstances are going to be different for everyone, depending on amount upside down, age of the borrower, etc. No matter what the borrower does, there will be consequences. I think that everyone in this situation needs to weigh the consequences and do what's best for themselves and their families.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Shields
Poet & Advocate For Special Needs Children
07:18 AM on 10/20/2010
No...I was not "so clever"...merely very cautious.
This isn't about blaming the victims...please don't mistake my point.
But an entire generation of young adults take the financial cues from watching their parents...and i think its better for them to know where NOT to go, don't you? I am still seeing ads trying to suck in first time buyers. The "good loans" at the lowest interest are now seriously hard to get...which means there are still sharks in the water.

The current standard is now 20 percent down to get a home...which is what it USED to be 30 years ago. We do ourselves no favors if we set people up to make the same mistakes.
12:56 AM on 10/19/2010
This is total bollocks. The last thing on the mind of anyone who is losing their house is the "morality" of it. With all due respect, that boat left the dock after the first missed mortgage payment. The concern is usually trying to find a job to eat and get medical coverage for the family.
The banks deserve what they got and are stuck with. They ruined the economy, causing people to lose their jobs and thus their homes.
03:04 AM on 10/19/2010
The banks have always been tough to deal with. Always. From taking farms back in the 80's to the current malaise. But they are 'banks'. Pure and simple. I am not sure what people really expect from them. Trusting a bank is a lot like putting your faith in any institution. They will usually find a way to let you down or take your money.
11:20 PM on 10/19/2010
>But they are 'banks'. Pure and simple. I am not sure what people really expect from them.

I expect when they mismanage their business by being over leveraged to 100:1 on junk mortgage back securities or other casino "derivatives," that they will go out of business. I then expect that their will be a sheriff's auction to sell off their fancy office furniture.

Not that they will crawl weeping to congress for a bailout and free money to keep their "casino" going, and then knife the very taxpayer that saved them in the back.
photo
Kai-HK
Don't Share My Wealth! Share My Work Ethic!
09:12 PM on 10/18/2010
Mr. Escrow:

1) Regardless of how the banks behaved in processing documents, these people need to be evicted as soon as possible. They have broken their moral and legal obligations to pay their bills and they need to move on. Banks need to get tighter procedures but after that let’s move on. This isn’t worthy of the indignation you are throwing at it.

2) You diatribe against John Courson is misdirected. Firstly, he couldn’t pay his bills and couldn’t refinance so he lost his building. It was foreclosed upon. It wasn’t like he wasn’t paying and then trying to use the system so he doesn’t have to pay while he uses it for another 18 months (average defaulted house loan prior to eviction). He returned the building to the bank, just as people who took out loans they could not pay need to return their houses to the bank. It is the circle of economic life.

3) You criticize Mr. Dimon for his bank’s ‘pushing of people to take ARM loans’. So what, that is their business. People didn’t need to take the loan and they could have shopped around. If they didn’t that is their fault not JP Morgan’s. What people do also not realize is that if people default on ARM’s, the banks most likely also lose money. Its is lose-lose for both parties. And you claim they misled borrowers by making false claims but you provide no proof. None. Just conjecture and your own imagination.

Kai
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mikdow
Curse you, Mansquito.
09:56 PM on 10/18/2010
Kai, the problem here is that many of these people ARE paying they're mortgages. Many many more are eligible for mortgage modification under current law yet they are being denied modifications, possibly illegally.
photo
Kai-HK
Don't Share My Wealth! Share My Work Ethic!
11:50 PM on 10/18/2010
Really? How many are paying their mortgages and being erroneously evicted? I have heard of a handful of anecdotally illustrated cases but a) have not seen the proof that they have been paying their mortgages just seen assurances by writers of blogs that they have and b) even then I have only heard or seen a few cases out of the hundreds of thousands/millions of completed and on going cases which is really not an example of endemic fraud and c) given that the average time from default to foreclosure is 18 months, I would argue that there is plenty of time to affect a redress of the problem if you really are erroneously being kicked out of your house and, finally, d) even if someone has been erroneously evicted address that specific case not condemn the entire industry.

Regarding modifications, are they illegally being denied modifications? Again, where is the support? And where does it stipulate that banks MUST modify even if you apply. If anything they are incentivized to modify but NOT legally forced to modify. Congress does not have that much power that it can order banks and property owners to take losses on their investments. As such, where are they breaking the law? Just because you qualify to apply does not mean you qualify to get, and that is mostly the banks prerogative.

Your thoughts?

Kai
photo
unfoxworthy
We:ScottOlsens,the misfits,out to change the world
11:03 PM on 10/18/2010
And now for the totally ignorant part of the argument.
Oh gee...
Beat me to it, KAI
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MeinNH
Ooooo Silly Me
08:49 AM on 10/19/2010
I am so with you on that!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jjsardo
Proud liberal in a red state.
08:52 PM on 10/18/2010
Well, I’m sorry but I just don’t understand all the fuss over a few clerical errors and a handful of oversights. It’s not like the banks didn’t try.

Anyway when Congress speaks of the rule of law, it doesn’t mean banks. And surely Congress never meant the sanctity of contracts to apply to bankers.

Besides mortgage papers are so confusing why would any court expect bankers to understand them.

OK. So the banks want to cheat the middle and working classes out of hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

So what if your mortgage is up to date and it’s foreclosed. Go rent. Let’s give the banks a break. This mess is so big they’re bound to make a few mistakes.

On the other hand, this could be an issue the Democrats could really capitalize on.

Hello, Democrats? Are you there? This mortgage thing could be a really big issue in the campaign. Like, ya know, it could be an October surprise or something. After you get finished demolishing the campaign of Jack Conway in Kentucky you might want to read up on mortgage fraud. It’s in all the papers. Now’s the time to take the bull by the horns and turn this thing into a winner.

Oh. I forgot. Wall Street would never give you permission.
06:40 PM on 10/18/2010
Homeowners should reject as so much nonsense all of the preaching coming from the mouths of mortgage lenders. Mortgages are contracts rather than sacred undertakings. I remind my clients of Oliver Wendell Holmes' observation from "The Path of the Law": "Nowhere is the confusion between moral and legal ideas more evident than in the law of contracts. ... The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it-and nothing else."

Contractual obligations are daily revised or even completely repudiated by businesses large and small in countless boardrooms and bankruptcy courts. The interests of secured creditors, typically lenders, are routinely protected at the expense of unsecured creditors, typically very small businesses that can least afford the losses. I have yet to hear of a CEO of a large company going through reorganization shedding tears or losing sleep over the small creditors who are crushed in the process.

If a homeowner is two hundred thousand dollars upside down on a mortgage and can't get the lender to agree to a modification or a short sale, the best advice is to walk away. Until lenders become powerful enough to re-establish debtors' prisons, they can save their sermonizing.
07:44 PM on 10/18/2010
What?! But these are the Priests of Mammon!
Ah well, we know Washington will be listening to their sermons. They too are devout servants of Mammon.
photo
Inkeesgirl
You can't take the sky from me...
11:54 PM on 10/19/2010
I agree, it seems as though many people have the word "mortgage" confused with the word "marriage". I didn't see anything about "for richer or poorer, till death do us part" in my loan agreement
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
06:31 PM on 10/18/2010
Most of the big investment banks have already paid back their TARP loans with interest. Hundreds of small community banks are still repaying, but the government expects to make a small profit on the bank portion of the bailout. The subprime loans we forced Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to swallow will eventually return a profit. Fannie and Freddie can afford to hold them because they are government back loans. The total bailout, including the auto industry, will end up costing less than the 1980s bailouts of the Savings & Loans industry.
12:32 AM on 10/20/2010
Does the bailout pay you to comment on blogs in direct lock-step with the banking lobby too?

"The subprime loans we forced Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to swallow will eventually return a profit. Fannie and Freddie can afford to hold them because they are government back loans. " umm no...Fannie and Freddie holding MBS makes these gov't backed loans, but does not make them profitable, as shown by how Fannie is constantly hempraging money on them even with many of these assets not being marked down to market yet and frauduland paperwork making rights to foreclosose on underlying assets skethchy not being priced into these assets yet. We bought/guaranteed these because no one else would, they weren't going to be a good deal.

Truth: TARP is small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our insolevent banks. Most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all and was not mentioned in recent reports on lowered estamates on TARP costs. It's easy to pay back the treasury with money from the fed, though. The U.S. has lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion on total bailout programs.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
06:08 PM on 10/18/2010
Most of the big investment banks have repaid or will soon repay their TARP loans with interest. According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, “Despite criticism of the program as a bailout, the $250 billion bank portion is expected to generate a profit for the government. But that’s in part because more than 600 banks nationwide, mostly small community-focused institutions, continue to pay quarterly dividends on the TARP funds they have not repaid. (The entire financial rescue plan, which also assisted automakers and mortgage lenders, is expected to result in a lower-than-expected $29 billion loss.)” The total cost of the TARP program is expected to less than the cost of the 1980s bailout of the savings & loans.
06:02 PM on 10/18/2010
I simply fail to see what all of the hysteria is about on this issue. At the end of the day, this IS a procedural issue. An officer of the lender signed an affidavit stating that he had personal knowledge of the facts, but he/she was signing hundreds of affidavits and did not have personal knowledge. However, the person preparing the affidavits WAS looking at the servicing system and did have personal knowledge. All the "robo-signer" needs to do is look at one computer screen and they have personal knowledge.

The issue is not whether the affidavits are factually false. They are not. And many borower's counsel are doing their job and fly specking them to verify that. Where are the claims that the affidavits are actually false? There are a few out of millions of foreclosures.
06:18 PM on 10/18/2010
Your understanding of the law of evidence is incorrect. Personal knowledge is not "acquired" from seeing what's on a computer screen. The type of "evidence" you find acceptable is inadmissible. That's the problem. And filing an affidavit which falsely claims that the affiant has personal knowledge is fraud on the court. Most of us who practice law in the trenches take that very seriously, and so do the courts, even if lenders and people like you regard perjury as simply a procedural glitch..
09:46 PM on 10/18/2010
No. Your understanding of the laws of evidence are entirely incorrect or out of date since the early 1800s. Under the business records exception, a person signing an affidavit based on the business records of the affiant is entitled to rely on those business records to verify the facts. In the old days, that was by means of reviewing ledger books. Now, it is a quick look at the "loan status screen" on the mortgage loan servicing system. That takes less than 60 seconds, but some people were too lazy to do it. 15 years ago, we used to print the screens out for the lawyers to review, but now they require on-line real time access to the system to draft the default affidavits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlairCase
05:54 PM on 10/18/2010
According to the New York Times Bank of America announced this morning that it is resuming foreclosures. “As was the case for our judicial state review, our initial assessment findings show the basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” the bank said in a statement. “Our decision to review our process and later, to extend our review to all 50 states, has been an important step to give customers confidence they are being treated fairly.” Homeowners willing to gamble that BoA can't prove legal standing to foreclose can challenge them in court, but most will simply be adding legal fees and court costs to their financial woes.