More bad news for banks and servicers on the foreclosure improprieties front. The latest report, that Bank of America is stopping foreclosures in 23 states, confirms the suspicion that problems with foreclosure procedures for residential home loans in securitizations are widespread. From the AP via Washington Post:
Bank of America says it is delaying foreclosures in 23 states as it examines whether it rushed the foreclosure process for thousands of homeowners without reading the documents.
Bank of America is not yet able to estimate how many homeowners cases will be affected, a spokesman for the nation’s largest bank says.
A bank official acknowledged in a legal proceeding in February that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn’t read them. The Associated Press obtained the document Friday.
The executive’s admission adds the nation’s largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.
On a separate front, Reuters reported earlier today that the Connecticut AG has called for a 60 suspension of all foreclosures in the state:
Connecticut’s attorney general on Friday called on state courts to freeze home foreclosures for 60 days after borrowers claimed that major lenders may be making misstatements in the foreclosure process.
The attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, also said he is investigating JPMorgan Chase & Co over its foreclosure practices. He previously said he was investigating Ally Financial Inc and its GMAC Mortgage unit.
“Banks that lured consumers into loans they couldn’t afford now seek to stampede them into foreclosure,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “This freeze should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents and enable effective remedies.”
Finally, stocks in the direct firing line of these developments are taking hits. Lender Processing Services, which effectively subcontracts much of the opereational work of foreclosing to foreclosure mills around the US, was down 5% on heavy volume. Title insurer stocks were also down on foreclosure abuse concerns.
37 comments
Comments are closed.
This is progress, but just think how much better things would have turned out if the regulators had acted on warnings from the FBI about rampant mortgage fraud in 2004:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html
Obviously (hindsight being what it is), we should have started auditing the TBTF banks back then.
Question is, why aren’t we auditing them now?
Great question. Why doesn’t anyone with regulatory power listen to Bill Black? This stuff isn’t rocket science and those who have painted it as such do all of us a great disservice. I sense another “no one could have seen this coming” crisis in the offing.
No doubt we’ll get another round of “who could have known.”
I don’t know man. I guess if you’re running a big bank and you get paid multi-millions of dollars a year in salary and bonus — either from your profits or from taxpayer bailouts — then thinking about this stuff should be part of your job description.
But I guess when you’re at that level of the executive talent pool you don’t really have to do anything except go to meetings and just “be” rather than do.
We can be sure that the fact that Blumenthal is running for the US Senate in a fairly tight race has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the timing of his announcement.
Ditto for trailing incumbent federal Congressman Grayson’s (D) sudden foray into Florida state level law on a subject that is several years old. It’s been known in Florida courts since at least 2007 there are major problems with the foreclosure process for recent mortgages.
But incumbent Grayson is only polling 36% at this very late date so why not grasp at straws? At this point he would have to take all of the undecideds (9%) just to make it a dead heat.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/grayson-trails/63743/
Well, the first step to get Grayson more deeply involved in Florida matters at Tallahassee is to remove him from his office in Washington. And his constituents show every indication they will soon do so.
Very good points. If the only time the most populist Congressman is willing to take on bank fraud everybody knows about, is right before the election, then the American people are screwed.
With all due respect, you have this completely backwards. Grayson is probably the most liberal Representative, certainly the most outspoken on the left. He actually takes this issue seriously, and you dump on him? Where the hell are the Democratic reps in every other state, pray tell, particularly the ones that are having the highest incidences of foreclosure? You should be criticizing the say-nothings, not the say-somethings.
As to timing, I’ve had a lot of this ammo since early this year and haven’t used it because no one would give a damn. It all looks anecdotal even if you can point to a lot of anecdotes. Until you get some independent evidence, which the GMAC developments provided, you can’t make noise about it. You are just shouting into the wind. And if Grayson had made noise based only the info pre GMAC, he would have come off like a lonely opportunist trying to make something out of not very much.
I was waiting for some court decisions on pending cases that had the potential to be significant; ironically, the judge has sat on one for months precisely because he appears to recognize that issuing the only decision that the facts and law would support would also shoot the mortgage industrial complex in the head, and he did not want to be the one who pulled the trigger.
So you are off base to criticize Grayson on this one. And you are misreading why he is behind. Corporate interests, big out of state money, are pouring boatloads into his opponent’s campaign. They are burying him with local advertising, which sadly is what really counts (admittedly, his self inflicted wound with a recent ad did not help a bad situation).
Florida is one of the epicenters of the housing crisis. It’s barmy to think a Congressman could NOT be taking notice. And frankly the improprieties are a state law issue, he can make noise about them and apply pressure, but Congress is not well positioned to do much (save pressure Fannie, Freddie, GMAC, FHA, and Federal bank regulators, which is happening).
Grayson has been on this beat for some time, note date of this video. I did only a superficial search:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSKQB8DwGQs
Harvard JD carpetbagger Alan Grayson has to be one of the most Astroturfed candidates in existence. He defines the concept. And no one need take my (or your) word about this.
Go here: http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/HSRefreshContributorList.do?election_yr=2010&contComeFrom=candList&cand_id=H6FL08213&contCategory=INDIVIDUAL&category=disH&stateName=FL&congressId=08
And hit “export to Excel”. There are 2,989 itemized records of Grayson donors for the current cycle. (Those who would like to look at this but don’t have Excel can get free Open Office.)
A quick data sort on “State” identifies 2,366 individual Grayson donors listing addresses outside the State of Florida. And only 623 individual Grayson donors listing Florida addresses. But a large fraction of these Florida donors are also domiciled outside Grayson’s 8th Florida CD, which is centered on Orlando. I doubt this “populist Man of the People” has even raised 20% of his campaign money from inside his district (apart from his own checkbook. Grayson is a very wealthy whistleblower chaser).
Now we can add in the PAC money, nearly all of which is externally sourced. And what will be done with this money? Most of it will be paid to externally owned (and government licensed) TV, radio and internet media. Another large chunk will be handed to outside ad agencies and campaign consultants. Probably another portion will be spent hiring day laborers to set out signage. Grayson’s 2008 expenditure reports list such payments under “canvassing”.
This is how an illusion of consent is manufactured.
Now you were saying about all these evil outside influences drowning out the voice of Grayson’s constituents?
I see you take one line of attack with Grayson, abandon it it when I offer counterevidence, and launch a new line of attack based on a mere aside.
You imply that Grayson is an anomaly in getting funds from outside his district, and fail to provide percentage figures on his opponent. Moreover, most members of the House Financial Services Committee, unlike Grayson, get very heavy contributions from industry incumbents, as well as heavy out of district donations. 92% of Melissa Bean’s support, for instance, is out of district.
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/10/09/top-financial-services-committee-members-rely-heavily-on-finance-campaign-contributions/
Moreover, my comment was that Grayson’s opponent was getting very heavy CORPORATE donations from out of district. He is being targeted for his left wing voting record. You did not dispute that point. Grayson has done a lot of fundraising over the internet and is reputed to be good at it. I’d suspect his out of district donations are nearly all small amounts and in aggregate don’t even come within hailing distance of the out of district dollars his opponent has amassed. You raise the specter of PAC donations; pray tell which well funded PACs do you think would back a corporate basher like Grayson?
And as for “carpetbagger”, yes Grayson is not an Orlando native but tell me how many people in Florida are? And “carpetbagger” has the connotation of a political opportunist who is out to secure economic gain via his political office at the expense of the local population. Yet at the same time you hector Grayson from spending out of his own savings to finance his campaign, which really means local ads. So he’s actually made significant, for him, net transfers from his pocket to the community. And exactly what votes has he made as Congressman that were to his personal financial advantage and the detriment of his constituents?
So you take isolated factoids, wrap them in a lot of heated language, as you did in your initial salvo, to paint a distorted picture.
Yves,
You should watch the Daily Show takedown of a disingenous Grayson political ad…..it’s not crystal clear he’s the new hope
and change any more than Obama was before he let it die.
Knot,
I’m aware of the ad; did you not see the reference to “self inflicted wound” in the first comment?
You are manifesting halo effect thinking, it’s a big cognitive bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
This is clearly a world class screw up, and it probably means Grayson is toast. But you imply this was bad intent. I doubt it. People like Grayson don’t design ads, they review them. His opponent IS a theocrat, even though he puts it in a nice wrapper (no one wants to believe a handsome man with silver hair and a nice speaking voice is an authoritarian, this is another manifestation of halo effect). He really does believe women should not have abortions even in the event of rape or incest. And he believes women should not work. So the ad misrepresents the CLIP, it actually does not misrepresent his views. But that snippet is so out of context that there is no way the ad can be defended; any effort to do so would just dig a deeper hole.
The ad was really risky even if the clip wasn’t taken out of context. Comparing an extreme religious right winger to the Taliban was going to elicit a lot of pushback. Grayson failed to ask enough questions about an ad that would be provocative even if he conveyed the same message with longer clips or explanation. But you just can’t afford to make this kind of mistake, period.
I haven’t abandoned my attack on Grayson. He’s losing his race badly so he’s now grasping at any demagogic straws he can reach. This includes publicizing letters to a Republican state attorney general on matters that are outside his purview as a federal Congressman. This is about probable corrupt and illegal behavior by members of the Florida State Bar Association. Of which organization I believe Grayson is a long-standing member. So he’s years late on this issue.
All regular readers know you are a highly partisan Democrat. You advanced a thesis that implies the reason Grayson is sinking is because evil external Republican influences from outside his district are “meddling” to tilt democracy. We’ve heard it before: the Populist Progressive Man of the People against evil (GOP) corporate influences.
With all due respect I suggest it’s time you and your friends find another narrative. This one is long played out.
I merely ventured to show – from official U.S. Government records filed by Alan Grayson – that Grayson himself is no slouch in the outside-the-district-support sweepstakes. Or is that o.k. because it’s coming from “progressives”?
The campaign model I outlined is how nearly all Congressional candidates and campaigns in both parties operate. A majority of outside raised money is spent on outside owned media and outside hired consultants. This is combined with “editorial endorsements” by corporate owned external media and organizational support directed by external bosses (SEIU & NEA presidents, AMWAY big wigs, televangelists, etc).
The only exceptions to this model are districts that are so gerrymandered they are functional one-party zones. It is highly imperialistic. And it is the real reason for the profound alienation of the people from the government, political process and the elites.
I am a registered political independent. I live in Florida on the Cape Haze peninsula. This is part of the district (Florida 13th CD) on which the Bush family imposed Katherine Harris as a reward for her faithful service to them. Along the way she beat Democrat Jan Schneider twice. Yalie Friend of Hillary Schneider has since become an amusing (and losing) perma-candidate here.
Who am I working for? My four children and my wife. Are you still working for George Soros?
http://www.auroraadvisors.com/our_clients.htm
If I had my way it would be illegal for any candidate to accept one penny of money or one minute of labor time from anyone not legally registered to vote for them. Permitting them to do so is highly subversive of real representative government. But most people still don’t want to accept the fact that their system is already as degenerate and rigged as Soviet elections ever were.
You have just gone completely off the rails. Funny you accuse Grayson of desperation. While he is clearly embattled and probably a goner, it is your arguments that have become desperate and badly divorced from reality.
It is perfectly routine for Congressmen to write AGs about matters of concern in their district. You are so wrong on this one it isn’t even funny. And since when does membership in an organization imply responsibility for the actions of each and every one of its members? By that logic, every member of the AMA is responsible for the doctors whose errors wind up killing patients.
You also make a big deal of outside the district influences. Yet you tell me you are not a member of Grayson’s district. So in trying to influence opinion on Grayson in a public forum (NC is considered to be media these days, as strange as I find that concept, and new people from Florida are reading NC as a result of the Florida related coverage), you are guilty of the very behavior your criticize.
You are 100% off base on your attacks on Grayson’s funding, it turns out. I got a response from his office. FEC reports don’t require disclosure of donations under $100. Grayson has nearly 100,000 donors, most of which are the $20 dollar variety, no the $5000 corporate lobbyist type. So your attempt to reach conclusions based on FEC donations is simply spurious.
I must also note your salvo at Grayson is an exercise in character assassination. None of your criticisms are about his policy positions or his voting record. You have not offered a single example where his actions have been to the detriment of his constituents.
And you just lost your privilege of commenting here by misrepresenting my views and attacking me personally. Each is a clear violation of comments policy, which I have referred to repeatedly (this site has adopted what I call the Ritholtz Rules, see section 5B here: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/disclosures/). I’m in regular contact with pretty much all the high traffic econobloggers, and I am far less interventionist than most sites.
Your attacks on me are even wider of the mark that your campaign against Grayson.
I am a highly partisan Democrat? Bullshit. I criticize Obama and Geithner constantly. I’ve torn into Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Melissa Bean and Rahm Emanuel and that tally is far from complete. I can go down a VERY long list of both individual Democrats and Democrat initiatives I’ve savaged.
I do not currently consult to Soros Fund Management, and I never worked for Soros personally. I advised his firm, as the description indicates. When I did work with Soros Fund Management (specifically the Chaterjee group, which was a technology group that invested in VC deals and listed stocks) it was on the investment side of his operation. And the people I worked with there (I had no direct contact with Soros) are long gone. (You obviously don’t realize that it’s a violation of client confidentiality to talk about current engagements; thus I can only refer to past, not current clients on any published list).
It may not occur to you that Soros keeps his investments and his personal political activities separate.
There’s no TBTF banks or Wall St companies donating to Grayson. Bummer for him, Wall St’s got all that taxpayer bailout money, and a SCOTUS court ruling to spend freely.
So it would seem all he’s got in it is fighting to protect the people of Florida from fraud by more banksters.
Quite frankly, my state could use a couple people like that too.
Why isn’t there any Republicans doing this?
The banks will need at least 60 days to settle this issue, for $1 and no admission of wrongdoing, and to push congress to enact a law that permits nationwide foreclosures at a banker’s pleasure….or maybe 90 days.
The vocabulary of the foreclosure offensive is a little too indirect; “improprieties”, “problems”, “errors”, etc. Nah. How about, “lying”, “forgery”, “perjury” and “fraud.”
The banks wanted to foreclose on houses, but didn’t have the proof they had legal right to do so. So they lied and said they did. They embodied this lie in a document, which is forgery. They then took it to court and swore the document told the truth, which is perjury. And they didn’t do it for thrills, or from overmastering passions, or just plain Saturday Night Stupid. They did it to gain something of value, which is fraud. Since there had to be planning involved, let’s throw in “conspiracy.”
Now, I know there are lawyers who’ll claim the above is oversimplified or unsupported because these are good people and it’s a question of intent. I know there are lawyers who will claim that “up” means “yellow” because a monkey scratches his nuts. But it’s a good thumbnail sketch of the whole business to me.
It’s only forgery when the little people do it, dontcha know?
I’ve talk about document fabrication in virtually every post on this topic, what do you think that means? That is a FAR more serious allegation that the improper affidavits. And that is a fraud on the court, which I have said often.
But document fabrication has not been proven to be widespread yet. As much as I believe it to be true, and have clearly said it appears to be widespread if not pervasive I am not about to overstep my evidence to engage in sensationalism, as other sites are wont to do.
I’ll admit I’ve used the word fraud more casually in other instances, but those for the most part involved regulatory matters. And look what happened. The rules have been so weakened that what ought to be fraudulent isn’t. AIG’s Joe Cassano ought to be in jail but he gets off because he informed (ahem, more like suborned) his accountants.
This is going to play out in court, so it is important to track language and concepts that might show up in court filings. I may go back to using broader language, but it isn’t conservatism, I’ve seen critics jump on misuse of language, and the effort to discredit critics is likely to be intense on this issue.
To prove fraud, you have to prove intent. Fraud has a very precise legal meaning. Laypeople tend to use it on matters that fall below the legal threshold.
You are off base in accusing me of pulling my punches. There is a big difference between precision and understating a situation.
Yves,
I appreciate your effort to keep shining a light on this situation, and understand why you want to be precise, and even, conservative in your language.
I will say that in California at least, filing a false document with the state is a crime. And there is evidence that some of the signers lack sufficient authority to sign the notices of default and notices of sale.
The more hard evidence comes to light of this situation, and the more it is ignored by the judiciary, the more people will come to question the fairness of said judiciary. It’s all good and well to lecture from the bench about “deadbeats” getting what they deserve. But undermining people’s faith in the judicial system is not a good thing at all.
Is this sudden discovery of pervasive fraud enough of a shock to undermine any kind of “recovery”? I’m not sure, just curious about others’ thoughts and insights.
Well, call me crazy, but if you were a big bank with a lot of these assets on your books… wouldn’t it be a great thing right now for your ability to WRITE OFF these assets to be greatly impaired by legal challenges? Extend and pretend baked into the cake and pushed out into the future along with a better chance of another taxpayer bail-out?
Well one thing this fubar will definitely accomplish is make those now apparently scarce properties that do have clean title quite valuable indeed – and I might add quite marketable.
The idea that banks “lured” consumers into unaffordable loans is wildly overblown. I’m sure you can make a case here or there; now and then. Still, are we meant to forget that it was, in most cases, nothing of the kind? For years the nation was inundated with advice to take the maximum leverage possible. It worked well for some and blew up in the faces of others. But the idea that there was a significant fraction of borrowers that just didn’t understand what they were doing has minimal evidence supporting it.
Eric:
what does your post have to do with this thread? This thread has nothing to do with the culpability of buyers when it comes to their original buying decision.
the thread is about the banks using improper practices to foreclose on homes.
I don’t care if the homeowner has a 2,000 IQ and $4M in the bank and hasn’t paid their mortgage for 3 years…
the bank needs to follow the law when they foreclose.
according to your “logic” the bank should be able to hire mercenaries with guns and bazookas to come and drag a person out of their house and throw them into the street at midnight and then hold the house using said guns and mercenaries… right? Because the law of foreclosure doesn’t matter. That borrower probably overstretched and should never have had the gun in the first place.
=====
Similarly:
let’s not talk about the politicians who are saying NOTHING on this issue… let’s only dig on the politicians who are saying something.
It says something enormous to me that there is ANY politician in this cycle who hasn’t said something. Sad indeed. those politicians care so little about the rule of law and the average homeowner that they don’t even try any more.
I am glad to see that BofA had only one bad apple….
My $.02 legal opinion is that the assignment issue is far less important than this – most of the problems pointed out on assignments really aren’t, and the ones that are require expert testimony in each case. Some of the theories, particularly ones relating to trustee authority, might be promising (but it is very complicated). Most of the others are all over the map and many a waste of time.
The proof on the affidavits is a million times easier (10,000 affidavits per month for 8 years?).
There may be other “frauds on the court[s]” but this one is enough to make foreclosures judgments void where the affidavit can be traced to LPS et al. The title insurers get this. They’re screwed. The REO departments are screwed. The cash investors are really screwed.
It’s still early, but I’ve never seen title insurance panic like I have in the past two days. The issue for title underwriters is pretty clear: perjured affidavits mean those foreclosure judgments are void. Old Republic has the representation for being the most conservative of the big 4 (FNF, FAF, STC are the others).
“representaion” s/b “reputation”
I doubt banks did this on purpose. But, this is all “too convenient” to keep inventory off the market.
Maybe I’m just a contrarion, but it seems to me this is in some ways a gift to the banks in that it allows them to keep from having to take the hit to their financials of taking these loans through to foreclosure for at least two more quarters. Extend and pretend to the bitter end.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. But the banks are facing something of a dilemma. Foreclosures are killing them because they counteract the government’s efforts to keep the bubble inflated and to therefore keep people paying their overpriced mortgages. But if it becomes clear that the banks are unable to execute foreclosures, then more and more people holding these overpriced mortgages will have an incentive to just stop making their payments. I mean why pay if they can’t kick you out anyway.
This problem, since it is a problem for the bankers, will need to be fixed, and fixed in a way that is in line with their interests. Such a fix is not likely to be popular. So I would look for the Democrats to hold on in both the House and Senate so that they can get the blame for whatever fix Wall Street orders their political servants in both parties to execute.
Dan,
Think about this. The fraudulent affidavits highlight an exposure for the banks, not just about valuation (can’t prove or disprove asset value if they don’t foreclose and sell). If they don’t hold the underlying legal docs attested to in the affidavit, then it seems they may not be able to prove ownership rights. Without those rights, they don’t hold any asset to value. Hence, their risk is not just delayed asset value write downs but rather 100% write offs (plus lawsuit exposure) if they can’t produce the appropriate legal docs.
Sorry. Misunderstanding. The bank’s PR campaign claiming this is only sloppy clerical work is more what I thought of. I’ll be more clear in the future.
From a practical standpoint:
what are the effects on FUTURE MBS securitization given this new information?
Is anybody on the loop on current MBS securitization? I have a feeling that it is almost entirely dependent on Federal Guarantees right now, right? (like FHA, Fannie, Freddie, etc).
I wonder how this new specter of loan conveyance into the MBS pool will affect mortgage investor confidence going forwards?
If I were a mortgage investor I’d be turned off first by the crap I got sold in 2004-7 (yes, because I didn’t do my due diligence), and now second by the idea that the foreclosure process is such a mess, and third by the idea that the mortgages I “paid” for may not even legally be in the MBS.
to me, the practical application of recent revelations seems to indicate that Mortgages will remain on Federal life support for the foreseeable future (years to decades).
thoughts?
And along with mortgages that are the public face of that support are trillions of dollars in derivatives that very few even know exist and I can’t prove do…..extend and pretend on a bigger scale?
“I doubt banks did this on purpose.”
It depends on what you mean here. The banks did purposely go for low cost vendors. But, I agree, I don’t think they wanted an outcome like this unless they are total pyschopaths.
I was not in mortgages, per se, but an attorney involved with ancillary vendors and the attitude is ALWAYS get ’em closed and funded and we’ll do the clean-up later (and with any luck, if we wait long enough, a boom will cause it all to go away). Right now, the boom the MBS folks need is a meteor strike – which is more likely than real estate coming back in the next few years.
First, in 27 states the courts won’t be involved for a while yet. The problem will come when people want to sell their property and there is an unclear title. Special warranty deeds are supposed to be exceptions, not standards.
Second, I find myself wondering if and when this mess will hit commercial property.
“The courts won’t be involved for a while yet.” That depends. Court files with the bad affidavits are just waiting for “former” homeowners to make a motion to vacate. And here, this is not a DIY undertaking.
“Special” or “limited” warranty deeds are not the problem (and they are the norm from REO departments). The problem is that the title conveyed to purchasers is defective and it was caused by the grantors (REO lenders). They are on the hook for title defects created by themselves.
Right now, it’s the title insurers who will kabosh on post-foreclosure transactions. How far back they’ll look is a big question and I don’t know enough about Florida law to say, but it sounds to me like the LPS model really took off in 2002.
Commercial foreclosures are different. First, the fees are not regulated anywhere near as stringently, so at least there is a chance these were done right. Second, businesses don’t have the passion to make lenders’ existence miserable the way a lot of [former] homeowners do. On the other hand, I know nearly nothing about CMBSs, except servicing was usually retained by the originator. I don’t know whether that matters or not. But, I’ll stick with commercial lending is very different from consumer lending, and the behavior has very different motivations.
I’m in foreclosure with court case corralling a passel of fraudulent affidavits, a fraudulent assignment of mortgage and a note endorsed to a party who is not the financial entity whom foreclosing upon my home. My loan documents do not follow the pooling and servicing agreement of the MBS trust that ostensibly held my mortgage. I had a full doc loan but was put into a stated income stated asset (SISA) tranche. (I still have the copies of emails back and forth to my broker about the many documents that were required.)
In addition, I have a full coverage PMI policy that is in effect for 25 months of default, which I have not exhausted. It is unknown if this insurer is paying the foreclosing entity or the entity to whom the note is endorsed, as it’s been difficult to get any info.
Additionally, I was paying in full, on time, every month. When I was subject to a reduced income, I began an eight month ordeal to get some sort of relief, forbearance or modification, all the while paying the full amount due on time monthly. Finally I was informed that I would only qualify if I stopped payment for 90 days. I’d never paid a bill late in my life but I was nearing the end of my savings and followed instructions.
I began the begging process again on day 91, and on day 117 was served with foreclosure papers by a strange financial institution with whom I never had any contractual relationship. Their foreclosure mill has fabricated many documents to prove ownership and entitlement.
My case is neither unique or special. I would say that most foreclosures today follow the same pattern.
I am happy to provide plenty of examples right from the official public land records from Florida to highlight the corruption therein. What’s worse is that no Florida judge will even entertain these issues. Naked Capitalism posted about the experiences in Kangaroo Court in Rocket Docket foreclosure court in Florida.
The day soon arrives when the American public finally understands that millions of land records, promissory note endorsements & allonges, assignments of mortgage AND our judiciary has been irreparably corrupted.
And I’ll be standing by with plenty of proof plucked ripe and ready for review.
Lisa Epstein
ForeclosureHamlet.org