Recent Items

Bank of America Resumes Foreclosures in 23 States

Posted on by

CNN reports that Bank of America is resuming foreclosures in 23 states (hat tip reader Glen S):

Bank of America reviewed 102,000 foreclosures in the 23 states where a court must sign off on the proceedings, and it is now restarting the process on those cases, the company said Monday.

The company said the first of the new affidavits will be submitted by Oct. 25, and that it will continue its review in 27 other states.

According to a spokeswoman for the bank, no errors were found during the review, and fewer than 30,000 foreclosure sales across all 50 states will be delayed as a result of the investigation.

This is rather curious, since there is evidence of Bank of America foreclosing in the name of Bank of America (meaning Bank of America is presented as the owner of the loan) when the loan was originated by Countrywide and Countrywide provided testimony that 96% of its mortgages were securitized (meaning the owner should be a trust, not a bank). It’s an interesting anomaly that only the 4% of the mortgages that Countrywide originated are the ones that are going bad. Note also the peculiar emphasis on “fewer than 30,000″ which presumably means nearly 30% are being delayed.

This does not address the underlying question we keep raising: why did the servicers and foreclosure mills rely on robo signers? We had indicated from the get go that the real issue is attempting to put the notes into the trust far too late from the standpoint of what is permitted by the pooling and servicing agreement. This problem is fundamental and remains unresolved.

Print Friendly
Twitter26DiggReddit0StumbleUpon0Facebook24LinkedIn0Google+0bufferEmail

39 comments

  1. Andrew

    No: we don’t know how many foreclosures are in the other 27 states, so the denominator is higher than 102,000.

    On the other hand, that’s a thoroughly commendable work process in BofA: 102,000 cases examined, no errors found. Their Six Sigma stuff must be teh awesome.

  2. jbmoore

    Maybe they outsourced the review to India. Or perhaps, they didn’t review anything and just said that they did. Since the Obama Administration has decided to help the banks, they certainly don’t fear the Feds or the local law to stop their continuing frauds.

  3. Conscience of a Conservative

    Proceeding with the loans they have the highest confidence in is a brilliant move. Although it is smoke and mirrors. It’s hard to see how this plays out in the public eye since this is more of a due process issue than anything else. Keep in mind that the preponderance of foreclosures are on properties with a non-current mortgage, and when politicians make this about keeping people in their homes they confuse the issue. This IS about DUE PROCESS… at least it should be.

    1. alex

      “This IS about DUE PROCESS… at least it should be.”

      While I quite agree, there’s a simple workaround: just give the banks the power to declare anyone an enemy combatant. Why should the banks be constrained in a way that their subsidiary the US government isn’t?

  4. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    … and Countrywide provided testimony that 96% of its mortgages (meaning the owner should be a trust, not a bank).

    —-

    ???

  5. pagar

    When the laws of the state where the forclosure is taking place says certain documents are required to prove that the forclosure is legal and the firm who is forclosing can not produce these documents. When sworn statements are available from hundreds of robosigners saying they did not do what the law requires them to do, This is NOT ABOUT DUE process. This is the same thing that happens in Venezula, a bunch of thugs try to run roughshod over a countny. In stead of getting laws changed if they need to be the MERS says we write the laws and if you don’t like it tough.
    This can not stand. People need to be going to jail for this fraud.

  6. Yearning to Learn

    It’s an interesting anomaly that only the 4% of the mortgages Note also the peculiar emphasis on “fewer than 30,000″ which presumably means nearly 30% are being delayed.

    I think there are some missing words there.
    =====

    As for this press statement, I am now always on the lookout for double speak.

    The company maintained that initial assessments in the remaining 27 states show the basis for foreclosure decisions were accurate.

    Does this mean that
    -in all cases reviewed the foreclosure was handled properly AND LEGALLY including documentation etc?

    or does it mean that
    -in all cases reviewed the “deadbeat” foreclosed upon “deserved” to lose the house anyway

    as you know… a big difference.
    ———
    I’d also like to know, are they restarting ALL foreclosure proceedings for ALL of their umbrella corporation holdings?

    or are they only restarting foreclosures on certain holdings, like non-securitized mortgages?

  7. Free and Clear

    Which states is BOA resuming? The non-judicial states?
    Where are the friendly, helpful, cheap lawyers who can help the homeowners fight?

  8. Homeowner's Get your Tents

    Bloomberg:

    ‘At the same time, the American Securitization Forum is saying it’s nonsense to worry that loans weren’t properly transferred to mortgage-bond trusts because of “blank” endorsements, potentially invalidating tax benefits, said Tom Deutsch, the New York-based trade group’s executive director. It’s unlikely a large number of mortgage notes are completely missing, he said.

    “My sense is it’s more anecdotal than systemic,” he said. ‘

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      Yes, it has to be anecdotal because none of this was done centrally or is public. But lawyers who have seen tens of thousands of cases among them say they have not seen a single instance of the note being conveyed correctly. And I now have two cases of individuals at major subprime originators saying they didn’t convey the notes. The one who was a senior executive at his bank ALSO said that no one in the industry “moved the paper”.

      So what does it mean when all the anecdotes all point in the same direction? It starts to look persuasive, at least if you don’t have an economic reason to believe otherwise.

  9. Paul Tioxon

    Liquidate, Liquidate, Liquidate and then the political reaction. What form will it take? Certainly, not this PR 3D hologram of a political movement, the tea party. When the people who have been hurt, not just had the notions on their minds, consider a country different than what they think they should be living in, then what?

    Will people just move on with their lives, write blogs, vote really, really hard and angry when they vote next time? The social order has been exposed for all to see. Even the educated middle class must see the end of the expansive American Frontier has been no more expansive than the margin that the people who are wealthy and who own this country will allow them to have. But now that margin is shrinking and the economic carrying capacity for the middle class is shrinking. Not enough increasing profits to turn around and reinvest in the job making machine. So, we get to obey the laws and the wealthy and powerful, as they always have, get to make the laws up that we have to obey. If the laws start to affect them, they just get the politicians to change the laws to keep them in compliance.

    Now that most large countries are too strong to directly or even indirectly be exploited for profits, the American businesses prey on the citizenry of America. Just like the hopeless ghetto crime, where shootings, and rapes and drug dealing are almost always kept in the hood, the exploitation has come home to roost. No Viet Nams to invade, no more citizen armies to go forth and kill Iraqis, private mercenaries from XE and the professional soldiers class of America have to do all of the dirty work. But now, we not only do not want to fight these filthy wars, we don’t want to pay for them or finance them. We can’t even economically afford them if we wanted to. Did you really think that the same group that blew Kennedy’s brains out all over his wife’s lap in public, then his brother, and any body else that got in their way from Kent State to Jackson State would hesitate to slow down foreclosure. Expect more to be taken from the hides of the citizenry as needed by the owners of America.

  10. US Bootleggin

    I like what some activists have done. Show up at executives houses, drop old furniture on their lawns, wave signs, use megaphones. I’m convinced the mega-media remains part of the problem, if you don’t have a Democracy you probably have a captive 4th estate. In addition to the FAUX network, I’ll never forget Rick Santelli and the paid douche baggers in April of 2009, simultaneously cramdown was defeated. The banks actually may have been able to cover more of their asses if cramdown had passed. Crooks!

  11. skippy

    repost…amends..

    Vous me surprenez, tu m’etonnes!

    One would think in light of transgressions ongoing distinctions of personal vulgarity fall wayside. Just look at it all…immensities burden saddled on further promises not unlike those still echoing from not so distance past…yet parse its common-es.

    Americans for all their bravado cower in their ponzi assessed asset Dow/Jones rating agency poli teddy bear complacency, unless its time to send the kick ass high tech sons and daughters bomb you back to the stone age from 20 thousand feet then to send in the robbers and looters brute squad spitting on the indigenous population for their barbarity forces.

    The French which we ridicule at every opportunity, are showing us exactly how tame and docile we have become, how we blindly accepted the social imprinting handed down to us from above. They do not dally over such…not at the dinner table distinctions, they move, they demand a place at the table or heads will roll.

    Skippy…A land of individuals breed to spend…now with out cash…to satisfy its ends…to wander with out meaning laments dourer.

  12. john c. halasz

    I asked this question on a thread a few days ago: just why would the banks, stupendously, fail to convey the notes to the trusts? I didn’t get anyone to explain, so I’ll repost my original comment here.

    This “explanation” from the Randall Wray piece I don’t understand:
    “According to Brown (quoting Steve Liesman and Neil Garfield), the other possibility is that the tranching process actually prohibited assignment of the notes to the REMICs. Bundles of mortgages of varying quality would be tranched into a variety of securities, say from AAA to BBB. But no individual mortgage is actually assigned to a particular tranche—until it defaults. When one defaults, it is assigned to a lower tranche security and then the foreclosure process begins. This means that from inception of that BBB security, there was no way to assign a note to the trustee because the trustee did not know in advance which mortgage would default.”

    I’d thought all the mortgages were to be transferred into a trust, which would gather all the payment streams from them, (which would mean that each mortgage was owned in part by each tranche), and then the flow of payments would be sliced and diced into a different set of payments, “waterfall”, in accordance with the rules stipulated by the structure. Since the acceleration of principal to the top tranches was one of the mechanisms by which they would be “AAA”, a prepayment or foreclosure recovery would count as principal payments and flow to the benefit of the top tranches, whereas continued payments of interest or fees would relatively advantage the bottom tranches. There would be no need to assign a particular mortgage to a particular tranche, rather than just differentiation what was interest and what was amortizing principal. Any help on this question, anyone?

    1. Mike

      I’m not sure of the specific mechanics of forming the different REMIC tranches, and my understanding was the same as yours (that all the money would get pooled and the BBB investor would take the first specified percentage of losses, then the next tranche up, all the way until the AAA investors), but maybe they were trying to hide the fact that more of the loans in the pool were garbage than they let on. If a bunch of loans turn out bad and the losses escalate “up the waterfall,” the higher tranche investors get suspicious. But if they waited until the bad loans were identified before plugging them into the lower tranches, it probably helped the deception, since the lower tranche investors would be less likely to complain about a bunch of loans in the pool going bad.

  13. John Durham

    The arrogance of the banks know no bounds. They don’t have the qualified help to go through 100,000 loan documents in a year let alone a month. They are announcing this because they must announce their phony earnings figures tomorrow. (Shares are up 2.4% on the news, outpacing the broader market.) Maybe they think they can bluff their way past the elected officials trying to stop them. They will make it through the elections and maybe they hope the courts will all fall in line. B of A is going down and so are the other major players. They have got to do something dramatic.

    What was actually also said, “A spokesperson told WSJ that it had not found a single case of a foreclosure without justification, which is key.” http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-to-resumpit-foreclosures-2010-10 The real basis for their conclusion is that they feel confident that every family they are throwing out in the streets deserves. That is KEY!

  14. Francois T

    “A spokesperson told WSJ that it had not found a single case of a foreclosure without justification, which is key.”

    Well! I’m so sure Business Insider and the WSJ lapped this PR milk with utter delight!

    Nobody dispute the “justification” goddamit-I’m-so-tired-of-this-let’s-beat-the-deadbeat-bullshit!!!

    We want to know if said foreclosures were LEGAL!

  15. rd

    1. They probably checked 100,000 files to make sure that the address matched their file of non-payment for the required period. That would be enough for the them to state that foreclosure was justified.

    2. The election is only a few weeks away. I wonder if any of the judges were up for re-election and could use some campaign contributions.

    3. I don’t comprehend the sentence “no errors were found during the review, and fewer than 30,000 foreclosure sales across all 50 states will be delayed as a result of the investigation.” Why would they delay 30,000 if they didn’t find errors? I assume that the mortgage note owners would want those houses foreclosed ASAP.

  16. Rick Halsen

    I think the banks have this locked down in their favor by pure attrition.

    I’m figuring they know there aren’t enough competent RE attorneys around to challenge this latest gambit on a substantial ’nuff scale – much less enough already delinquent, out-of-work with no extended employment bennies, with famished family thoroughly broke homeowners, who can afford to hire said competent RE attorney even on damn contingency. The price of gas alone these days to get to their office is likely to be financially prohibitive.

    I don’t know how these attorney’s are handling getting paid from all these broke folks and considering the other side is working on a different time delay whenever possible and obfuscation schedule, but nonetheless it’s gotta be a good time to be a RE lawyer – at least socially for now.

    Hell, your typical next door RE attorney just might become as socially attractive and desirable as the next door BMW mechanic.

    What a world we live in when attorneys are held in the same esteem as your neighborhood plumber. The End must be near indeed.

    RH

    1. Nathanael

      I believe you are correct: they are simply attempting to steal as many houses as they can before they get caught. They’ve decided that it makes sense to do so as fast as possible, to create “facts on the ground”.

      This is going to backfire on them big time, because there are only two possible results:

      (1) Collapse of public faith in the entire judicial system, with refusal of police to enforce foreclosures, and squatters’ rights becoming the main form of title;
      (2) Massive crackdown by the judicial system leading to the personal bankruptcies of the execs who ordered this.

      Mozillo was smart, he got out while the getting was good. The people currently running BoA are stupid. They didn’t.

      1. Paul Tioxon

        Yes, facts on the ground! Just as Netanyahu declares a moratorium on settlement construction, then allows it, then, OH I don’t know, do something back and forth as part of the Peace Process. It is very hard to draw the eventually national boundaries of Palestine with a million Israelis on its sovereign soil. Gets more ground for Israel, keeps hardliners in power in Knesset, and placates American benefactors i.e. National Security Apparatus of USA. Excellent strategy. Make hay while the sun shines! More foreclosures completed just water under the bridge and we Know Obama didn’t want to dredge up all of that Bush/Cheney war crime terrorists police state stuff from the past. Let’s take the high road and all of that spot on BS.

  17. John Durham

    Also, it would be more convincing if they gave a different number out than 102,000.

    Surely a precise examination would give us a more exact number than the one within a closest thousand.

    I would more believe a number something like 102,713. That would prove that they had actually thought a little bit more than 15 minutes about how to present to the press, politicians and public their very large lie.

  18. Nathanael

    It seems pretty clear that BoA is submitting new fraudulent documents. :-P They think that they won’t get caught this time because their frauds will be more efficient. Or something. This is going to backfire on them in ways they cannot possibly imagine.

  19. Dan

    Of course they are moving forward. They need that sweet, sweet government guaranteed nectar after foreclosing. They can taste the FDIC love already.

    I can see B of A’s PR submission now:

    Under the law, it is proper and capitalistic to efficiently breach our contracts to investors and random homeowners we never had a contract with because…..

    YOUR can’t prove fraud. And if even if you can, its YOU the tax payer committing the fraud since YOU own us.

    Shame one you taxpayer. YOU are a fraud and a deadbeat.

    Us? Not so much

  20. bob

    How is this story from CNN called Journalism?

    The reader is left with at least two questions after reading each sentence. The questions are never answered.

    It pretty close to spin, but even that doesn’t do this type of press release reporting justice.

    I can see a team of at least 10 to 12 people working on this story over the weekend. I find some humor is trying to figure out who was more bank friendly, the press team from Bank of America, or the “reporting” team from CNN.

  21. Altoid

    This whole thing is, to me, a head-on collision between the slipshod mores of Wall Street and the requirements of property law, in which WS decided to dabble and thinks now that it must play by their rules. What the episode shows is that WS– and the banks have to be included, because the big ones are about finance and not retail banking– doesn’t care about details it doesn’t gain from.

    I’m a layman in RE and mortgages. I think I now understand that when I buy a house, I become the property owner at the moment I sign. When I close, I own. Doesn’t matter if I pay cash or borrow money to buy it, or how much I owe. If I borrow and take out a mortgage, I still own. The mortgage puts up property I own as collateral, and I’m giving the lender or assignee the right to take over my property, following due process, if I don’t comply with loan terms.

    If this is right, it really needs to be hammered on. There’s a lot of loose talk about “the house belongs to the bank” if I’ve got a mortgage. That’s a colloquial but not a legal understanding; it’s mine.

    And a house isn’t something I own progressively more of as I pay more. I’m not buying it from the bank; I already own it. I pledge it as collateral for a loan, but I can only do that *because* it’s legally mine. Right?

    To put that another way, what bank would lend money on a house where the buyer didn’t have clear title at closing? And they wouldn’t, because if the owner doesn’t have clear title, then the owner can’t pledge it as collateral.

    I’m just concerned because all the good work of Yves and bunches of other people is really predicated on this basic understanding that is *not* shared by most of the public and is not discussed by most journalists.

    I have to make an honorable exception for Mark Haynes, who had all he could do not to show outright scorn for the trade association weasel Tom Deutsch this morning on CNBC.

    But most people do not understand that fundamental fact of RE. The fast-and-loose-with-truth banksters count on that.

    1. Paul Tioxon

      All real property is assigned a title of ownership in the US. It could be property of the US Government, or Property of the ArchDiocese of Philadelphia or property Joe and Mary Public. The property is defined and the title of ownership is assigned to some one by name. The name of the title of ownership is commonly called a deed. Your name is on the deed to the property you own and it is a matter of pubic record. The public records are usually kept at the county levels in most states, but in general, it is kept by the government. That is part of the bundle of rights that you possess exclusively for that piece of real estate. If it was not recorded, any one could come along and claim it; that is use it, live on it, build on it. But our society allows you to have real estate rights of ownership that you can document to the world with a deed.

      Banks want collateral for a loan. They will hedge the money they lend to you by giving you, in addition to a loan or to them, the note, they will give you a mortgage. This is a 2 part process. The loan is described as the money you owe for, say 30 years, at 4% interest, using an amortization schedule that covers 360 payments if taken to completion. You pay principal and interest for a total monthly payment to the lender. There are other terms as written down in the note. The note is the first part.

      The second part is the mortgage. It is the protection the bank has that you will pay the loan back in full, in accordance with its terms in the note. The mortgage is recorded with property which also records you as the owner. This is also called a lien. It is always a first lien. A first lien means that the bank, is the first creditor in line to use the real estate if need be to be made whole if you do not pay their loan back to them in full. You still are the owner of record on the deed. That never changes no matter how many liens are recorded against the property. Liens in and of themselves do not change the owner of the property. They do not dilute ownership of the property. The liens are there so that the rights of a creditor can be facilitated through due process, if need be. The lien makes your debt to a creditor a secured debt. A secured debt has an asset pledged, that can be liquidated to pay the debt. The asset pledged via a mortgage is your home and the land under it.

      The note is your contractual obligation to repay a loan.

      The mortgage is is a lien recorded against real estate, which can then be used as collateral as outlined within the terms of the note.

      The mortgage lien runs with the property. It is not transferred. It does not jump to another piece of real estate. When you pay off a loan, you get a letter from the bank stating you paid your debt in full and they are releasing the property as collateral. This is called a mortgage satisfaction letter. You then take this to the county court house and they remove the lien from the records as a lien. It is historically there, not expunged as if it never happened, but not active, not actionable any more by the bank.

      The note, your contractual obligation to make a monthly payment, is what can be conveyed from the mortgage banker to the Wall St securitization process. It is not a question that the people who agreed to pay a loan back do not need to pay a loan back and are therefore deadbeats. The question is: who is the owner to the rights of that note, with its monthly cash money payment? If anyone can show up and say, we own the rights to this note, or if more than one party shows up and says, I too claim sole right to the monthly payment, then what? By showing the sequence of events in conveying the note, the entity with the proper legal standing can be identified by the courts as have rights to due process. If no identifiable party can be demonstrated, the escheat laws of the state take the property, in this case the note into possession of the state treasury for safe keeping until the legally identifiable owner shows up and claims it.

      Perhaps all 50 state should set up escheat escrow funds to collect mortgage payments until this mess is sorted out in the courts 10 or 20 years from now. This is my modest proposal.

      1. Altoid

        Thank you, that’s clear even for me. If I can try to paraphrase part of it: In a nutshell it sounds like they’ve securitized the cash flow, which is what they do for a living, but haven’t bothered to follow through on registering the liens properly. So in effect, the securities are mostly signature loans because while in theory the property is available as collateral, it’s hard or impossible to figure out who has standing to take action for failure to pay.

        Seems to me there might be a theoretical problem using something relatively small and not immediately divisible, ie a piece of real property, as collateral for multiple securitizations. Even though interest in the property can be divided, as you say, the proportion and status have to be properly recorded to prove interest and right. Sounds like they developed the trust or whatever as a dodge to try to retain undivided interest and divide up the cash flow, or something. But they were mostly interested in the sell side because houses always rise, right, and there won’t be that many foreclosures to worry about anyway. Payment is a moral obligation, after all.

        You’ve confirmed, I think, that the property doesn’t belong to the bank, lender, or whatever. In order to get it– and if I violate my loan terms they’re entitled to it– they have to exercise a properly-recorded lien. Without that, I’m still in default but it isn’t clear who gets to recover the property I’ve pledged or in what proportion.

        Still, I think this fundamental point needs to be made in every public discussion involving foreclosures: if my name is on the deed, the property is mine. My name goes on at closing. Of course the property is subject to liens, the big one normally being the mortgage, and I’ve agreed to that.

        But we’re not in a situation that most people probably think we’re in because they don’t know property fundamentals and are accustomed to making installment payments of various kinds, namely that somehow the bank owns it and I’m making payments over time to get the title from the bank. People need to be told flatly that this isn’t the case at all.

  22. Will T

    Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, has an interesting paper about to be published that explains how a servicer can name themselves, via a webpage, as “certifying officers” of MERS. I’m sure most readers of this blog are somewhat knowledgeable about MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) and why the banks created it – to save money by avoiding county registry fees, among others. He calls MERS “a corporate structure that is so unorthodox as to arguably be considered fraudulent.”

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1684729

    From the paper:

    As a practical matter, the incoherence of MERS’ legal position is exacerbated by a corporate structure that is so unorthodox as to arguably be considered fraudulent. Because MERSCORP is a company of relatively modest size, it does not have the personnel to deal with legal problems created by its purported ownership of millions of home mortgages. To accommodate the massive amount of paperwork and litigation involved with its business model, MERSCORP simply farms out the MERS, Inc. identity to employees of mortgage servicers, originators, debt collectors, and foreclosure law firms. Instead, MERS invites financial companies to enter names of their own employees into a MERS webpage which then automatically regurgitates boilerplate “corporate resolutions” that purport to name the employees of other companies as “certifying officers” of MERS. These certifying officers also take job titles from MERS stylizing themselves as either assistant secretaries or vice presidents of the MERS, rather than the company that actually employs them. These employees of the servicers, debt collectors, and law firms sign documents pretending to be vice presidents or assistant secretaries of MERS, Inc. even though neither MERSCORP, Inc. nor MERS, Inc. pays any compensation or provides benefits to them. Astonishingly, MERS “vice presidents” are simply paralegals, customer service representatives, and foreclosure attorneys employed by other companies. MERS even sells its corporate seal to non-employees on its internet web page for $25.00 each. Ironically, MERS, Inc.—a company that pretends to own 60% of the nation’s residential mortgages—does not have any of its own employees but still purports to have “thousands” of assistant secretaries and vice presidents. This corporate structure leads to inconsistent positions, conflicts of interest, and confusion.

    (hat tip Nemo)
    https://self-evident.org/?p=860

  23. Ron Shannon

    What’s the status of the title insurance aspect? What is the title insurance industry saying? If the banks and/or servicers can’t get title insurance to own/sell these properties, won’t that be the effective cause of a processing shutdown?

  24. CathyG

    From CNN:

    According to a spokeswoman for the bank, no errors were found during the review, and fewer than 30,000 foreclosure sales across all 50 states will be delayed as a result of the investigation.

    –Huh? There were no errors but 30,000 error-free sales are being delayed? Apparently these arrogant SOB’s don’t even feel obliged to pretend to make sense.

    “This is an even better outcome than we previously thought,” said Paul Miller, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. “We thought January was a more likely time to restart the [foreclosure] process.”

    –Greed apparently is trumping caution. If they restart foreclosures now, they can boost the stock price in time for bonus season. If they waited until January, they would likely have a much more friendly federal legislative branch to bless their fraud and thievery with some shiny new industry written legislation. Like, maybe it’s time to power grab land and property law out of the hands of 50 states and make it a Federal responsibility. After all, it’s SOOOOO inconvenient and SOOOOO inefficient to have to buy out 50 state legislatures when the banksters can get what they want by buying out the one legislature in D.C.

    From the AP:

    Bank of America said Monday that it plans to resume seizing more than 100,000 homes in 23 states next week. It said it has a legal right to foreclose despite accusations that documents used in the process were flawed.

    –Really? Is anyone on the planet stupid enough to believe that they audited ‘a hundred thousand’ loans in default .. .. .. IN JUST TWO WEEKS? Have they added robo-auditors to their robo-signers? If they had the knowledgeable employees to go through 100,000 files in 10 working days, they wouldn’t have needed robo-signers to begin with!

    Who is going to believe this criminal organization’s unsupported claims about what it has a ‘legal right’ to do? The question is today, was yesterday and will be tomorrow: do the banks have legal STANDING to foreclose? If they do, the solution is so simple even a banker with the IQ of a teacup ought to be able to manage it: SHOW THE NOTE!

    Bank of America Corp. says it’s confident of its foreclosure decisions in a majority of its questionable cases.

    –So people will have their property confiscated based on this criminal organization’s confidence level? SHOW THE NOTE!

    Its move comes two weeks after the bank began halting foreclosures

    –And right after two days of consecutive 5% drops in the stock price, one day before earnings are to be reported and right at the front of bonus announcement season. So what actually drove that two week time frame?

    The company said it plans to resubmit documents with new signatures

    –Even though its extensive internal review and audit showed that there were no errors.

    Shares of Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America had been flat earlier in the day but jumped on the news. They rose 36 cents, or 3 percent, to close at $12.34.

    –Gotta get that stock price up before bonuses can be announced or boyo Brian and his henchman can’t steal as much of the corporation’s pretend and extend, government supported, fraudulently generated wealth as they had counted on.

  25. attempter

    Maybe it’s a coincidence, but this sounds like partial fulfillment of my prediction of a few days ago in this thread.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/10/wells-fargo-outed-as-member-of-robo-signer-club.html

    So if Wells still refuses to suspend, would the others have to revoke their quasi-suspensions? By that I mean announce something like, “We concluded our review, and found that our practices are fundamentally sound. So we’re lifting the suspension and resuming normal business.”

  26. Jane Brown

    Bank of America is sleazy enough to have taken out secret life insurance policies on their low level employees( with only Bank of America as beneficiary) and we’re supposed to believe they have dotted all their “I”s on every piece of foreclosure paper. These are the same people that purchased Countrywide, one of the top players in the housing crash.
    And the same people who tell homeowners applying for a modification that they must miss 2 mortgage payments to qualify. By doing that they are creating an artificially large foreclosure market by advising people to do the wrong thing,ultimately ruining their credit and making it impossible for them to refinance. And now they own Merrill Lynch and are holding how many 401K’s and pension plans. Am I the only one that is concerned?????

Comments are closed.