Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum
Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Chat

Author Comment
Richard Fischpera
Reply with quote  #1 
I also am caught up in this Ameriquest problem. I am now wondering if some how these people are all connected. I was with Ameriquest for a time, then they sold my mortgage to Citi Residential who then sold it to American Home Mortgage Servicing. So now I am wondering if all these groups are connected. The first 2 companies I have no trouble with, but this 3rd company American Home Mortgage have been nothing but problems. I have tried to resolve problems and they have refused to help. I even tried the  president's program to have my mortgage look at to get a better rate. I have been on SSDI since 2006 and my pay has been cut in half. The company who I worked for now has taken more money out of retire benefits to pay for higher cost of health care. I received a letter from some lawyer (I think) Moss Codilis demanding I pay off the 2 months I behind. Thought out my history at my home I have never been late. Now I am treated like crap and nobody wants to help. I just don't get it the banking industries begged for money, but WE THE PEOPLE get kick in the behind.
Reply with quote  #2 
On August 31, 2007, Citigroup completed its acquisition of its wholesale origination lending unit Argent Mortgage, its servicing unit AMC Mortgage Services and shut down its retail lending unit Ameriquest Mortgage.

Mark Rodgers, a Citi spokesman, said Citi did not buy any loans in the deal. All of these companies and sub-companies were under the umbrella of ACC Capital Holdings.

Arkygirl says: OK, what does that mean? Citi purchased only the servicing rights to mortgages that had long seen the original paperwork thrown into dumpsters or into shredders? The note has been separated from the mortgage via securitization; oh, my. The original documents were intentionally destroyed by Ameriquest voiding the entire transaction from the onset. Citi bought "digital entries". Stupid Citi. Digital entries are unenforceable.

I cannot tell you for sure, but I suspect that is exactly what all this means.
There are some smart people here who can (and probably will, lol) offer further guidance on the issues of destroyed documents and separating the note from the mortgage. And a host of other issues.

February 05, 2009 Citigroup Inc.'s residential lending unit has sold servicing rights on 185,000 loans to American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. for $1.5 billion.

The deal essentially transfers the loan modification duties on that particular portfolio to American Home Mortgage Servicing -- a company that has been working to lower the face amount of loans for homeowners so that they do not exceed the value of the house.

Arkygirl says: This means that Citi, who never really owned your note and/or mortgage in the first place, has sold ONLY the servicing rights (and modification duties) to American Home Mortgage.

It is basic that you understand that American Home Mortgage does NOT, NOT, I repeat, NOT own your mortgage; nor does Citi. Some nameless faceless investor somewhere thinks he owns it but has no supporting documentation and there are layers of Trustees, etc. between you and that investor. It was a securities sale. Therefore, AHM cannot legally modify or change anything in your mortgage contract. It has no legal authority to do it.

The entire modification scam is a shell game to let banks turn something they don't own into something that they will own; in other words, turn a void contract into a valid contract by tricking people into signing a new "modification" contract. They gold plate the poop for themselves and the investors that they originally sold the poop to while claiming it was worth something. Be wary about signing anything for the impostors, American Home Mortgage.

Now, if you tell me that MERS is involved somewhere (and I suspect it is) my happiness will be unbounded.

As for Moss this forum for them. Search for them.  It is my humble opinion (and I have not found anything to refute it to date) that this "law firm" still does not exist as such. It is a group of lawyers claiming to be a law firm.

That was pretty hard for me to understand at first. Lawyers=law firm, right? WRONG!

As a once dear friend explained it to me..."A group of lawyers may own a garbage collection company. That does not make the garbage collection company a law firm." Unless this bunch of barristers has done the proper paperwork and registrations in...I believe it was Englewood, CO....they are also impostors and should be disregarded. In fact, they should be sued because they break a lot of laws with this scam. They are a bunch of hacks cranking out form letters at so-much a pop.

All these "problems" are smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that your mortgage contract and note are most likely void and you don't owe anyone anything unless you can drill down to the investor and see if that person has both your note and your contract (not likely).

We need more precedent in these cases. These banks, in their greed, have shot themselves in the foot because they have rendered their own claims unenforceable.

If there is any way you can get a competent attorney on this one, that would be your best bet. "Demand the note" should work for a start. Sue Gerald Moss and his cohorts at "Moss Codilis". Force them all into Discovery and watch them run for the hills. You may just wind up owning your home free and clear via court decision.

Reply with quote  #3 
Here is an interesting artical from the Wall Street Jounal 1/30/10 .Looks like Fannie & Freddie are conducting their own audits of loans. The question here is this process part of what is holding up loan modifications. 

How can these banks continue to foreclose on property owners while their loans are being invetigated??

Fannie and Freddie get tough on Banks!

It is payback time for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on some mortgages sold to the finance companies by lenders.

Stuck with about $300 billion in loans to borrowers at least 90 days behind on payments,
Fannie and Freddie have unleashed armies of auditors and other employees to sift through mortgage files for proof of underwriting flaws. The two mortgage-finance companies are flexing their muscles to force banks to repurchase loans found to contain improper documentation about a borrower's income or outright lies.

The result: Freddie Mac required lenders to buy back $2.7 billion of loans in the first nine months of 2009, a 125% jump from $1.2 billion a year earlier. Fannie Mae won't disclose its figure, but trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance said Fannie made $4.3 billion in loan-repurchase requests in the first nine months of 2009.

"Because taxpayers are involved, we're being very vigilant," said Maria Brewster, who oversees Fannie's repurchase team. "No taxpayer should have to pay for a business decision that caused a bad loan to be sold to Fannie Mae."

The get-tough stance comes amid pressure on Fannie and Freddie to make the most out of more than $100 billion in taxpayer funds they got to stay afloat. The U.S. government took them over in September 2008.

The biggest losers are likely to be Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other mortgage lenders when the housing bubble burst. Such lenders also are being deluged with loans kicked back to them by holders of mortgage-backed securities who uncover deficiencies with loans bundled into the pools. One common example: a borrower who said the loan was for an owner-occupied home but used it for a second house.

Overall, banks repurchased about $14.2 billion in loans from holders of mortgage-backed securities in the first nine months of last year, up from $3.6 billion a year earlier, according to Barclays Capital. The figures are based on data reported to regulators by federally insured banks and savings institutions.

Forced loan buybacks threaten to "wipe out a significant portion of the [loan] origination profits…made in the last year," said Nicholas Strand, a Barclays analyst.

Strong-arming lenders to swallow loans that were guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helps cushion the mortgage-finance companies from defaults, though repurchases represent a sliver of all defaulted loans.

Fannie reported Thursday that borrowers of 5.29% of the loans it guarantees were at least 90 days behind as of November, up from 2.13% a year earlier. Fannie guarantees $2.9 trillion in loans.

At Freddie, such delinquencies reached 3.87% at the end of December, up from 1.72% a year earlier.

While growth in subprime defaults is slowing, defaults on prime loans are accelerating. Such loans account for 90% of all mortgages guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie.

"Delinquency rates are up, so it's not surprising" that buyback demands are up, said Brad German, a Freddie Mac spokesman. "Consequently, the number of loan put-backs will reflect that."

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods analysts warned this week that repurchases would "contribute to further weakness in mortgage banking profitability in 2010, which is difficult for an industry that will already have to cope with materially lower production volume."

The Federal Housing Administration, which has seen its market share rise and its capital reserves decline during the past two years, has indicated it is considering more aggressive steps to force banks to pick up the tab on certain loans that default.

The FHA doesn't lend money to home buyers, but insures lenders against default on loans that meet the agency's criteria.

To spurn a mortgage, Fannie and Freddie must conduct a forensic analysis to find misrepresentations, as they now are doing for millions of delinquent loans. Employees zero in on loan pools with the steepest losses and highest likelihood of faulty underwriting.

In response, lenders are being much more careful about new loans. Average credit scores for loans backed by Fannie and Freddie have climbed to about 760 from 720 two years ago.

"If you're being hit with a lot of repurchases very suddenly, the easiest thing to do is to tighten your standards rapidly," said Glenn Boyd, a Barclays analyst.

As banks improve their quality controls, they might become more flexible with some borrowers.

Many of the loans bounced back to lenders were made in late 2007 and early 2008, before underwriting standards were toughened by Fannie, Freddie and most banks, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. 

In 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought or guaranteed $2.2 trillion of mortgages. Their combined market share fell to about 40% during the peak of the housing boom as Wall Street and other private issuers ramped up business.

Since the market's collapse in 2007, Fannie and Freddie's market share has swelled to about 70%.

Bank of America repurchased nearly $4.5 billion of loans during the first nine months of 2009, according to data compiled by Barclays. That was triple the $1.5 billion repurchased in all of 2008. Some of the bad mortgages were made by Countrywide Financial Corp., which was acquired by the Charlotte, N.C., bank in 2008. A bank spokeswoman declined to comment.

At J.P. Morgan, total buyback demands surged to $5.3 billion in 2009 from $4 billion in 2008, according to Barclays. The New York company, which bought the failed banking operations of Washington Mutual Inc. in 2008, reported higher reserves for loan repurchases in the fourth quarter.

"It's early on that score," J.P. Morgan Chief Financial Officer Michael Cavanagh said when asked earlier this month about the outlook for loan buybacks. A bank spokesman declined to comment.

J.P. Morgan and Bank of America don't disclose how many loans they repurchased from Fannie and Freddie.

Write to Nick Timiraos at 

Reply with quote  #4 
American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. was grown from poison roots. Fraud, fraud and more fraud. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. was the daddy of this servicer.

Funny, the SEC gets $2.45 million dollars but the people that are now losing homes because of the fraud...well, it's a big "up yours". So wrong.

On August 2, 2007, AHMI CEO Michael Strauss sent an email to the entire company announcing company's serious financial difficulties.

"It is with great sadness I announce today that American Home Mortgage has been forced to close. Unfortunately, the market conditions in both the secondary mortgage market as well as the national real estate market have deteriorated to the point that our business is no longer viable. What this means for most of our employees is that Friday, August 3, 2007 will be your last day of employment. Detailed information regarding payroll, benefits and other human resource related matter will be available Friday morning for distribution in the office. I would like to personally thank every single individual working for the company for their efforts. It has been my privilege to be associated with such a wonderful team."

American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. was sold to Wilbur Ross & Co. LLC, as part of the bankruptcy liquidation, in November 2007. (ugh)

Ross ventured into the declining residential property market, winning an auction for the home-loan servicing unit of Melville, New York-based American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. He agreed to pay between $435 million and $500 million for the right to collect payments and maintain escrow on about $45.3 billion of home mortgages.

April 28, 2009 

The SEC alleges that former chairman and CEO Michael Strauss and former CFO Stephen Hozie fraudulently understated American Home Mortgage's first quarter 2007 loan loss reserves by tens of millions of dollars, converting the company's loss into a fictional profit. The SEC alleges that Strauss and Hozie also misled investors about the financial condition of the company, including the riskiness of the mortgages originated and held by American Home Mortgage.

The SEC additionally charged Strauss, Hozie and the company's former controller, Robert Bernstein, with misleading American Home Mortgage's auditor among other violations. Strauss has settled the SEC's charges by agreeing to pay more than $2.45 million and consenting to a five-year officer and director bar.

"These senior executives did not just occupy a front row seat to the mortgage meltdown — they were part of the show," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "As the housing market imploded, these executives kept secret that the company's holdings were collapsing like a house of cards."

Reply with quote  #5 
pj, all Fannie and Freddie are worried about is getting these bad loans off its own books and shoving them back onto the banks that sold them via forced buybacks. There is too much noise being made in Congress about killing Fannie and Freddie once and for all. The pressure is on for them to clean up their own balance sheets or risk extinction.

Even Barney Frank has seen the light and now lobbies to get rid of F & F...hmmm. (Could it be the hot wind of voter rage scorching his ample behind that finally brought enlightenment?)

Once the forced buybacks are done, the banks will begin staggering again, requiring another healthy infusion of taxpayer money into their coffers. It will be another "We have to prop up the banks or we will all die" scenario. There will be some sort of semi-plausible explanation offered, but it will be hiding the fraud.

What they are doing is laundering the fraud. When it comes out of the spin cycle it will be squeaky clean at the cost of billions, if not trillions, to taxpayers. The banks will start off shiny and new and we taxpayers will smother under the debt created and the burden of paying off debt that was never ours. I don't recall signing anything that says I want to prop up Chase, B of A, Goldman and the rest, do you? They won't find a contract with my name on it to do that.

None of it amounts to a hill of beans where individual loan mods are concerned. F & F are looking for bad or nonexistent underwriting procedures and they will find plenty. This loan mod thing is a scam and a is a method of holding things off until they figure out how to clean it all up without sparking a revolution. I hope they don't wait too long; I am sharpening the tines on my pitchfork now.

They keep the fraud target moving and spread out the destruction hoping that no one is watching while engaging in hidden bailouts. This is nasty stuff.

Reply with quote  #6 
Back to the issue at hand....American Home Mortgage Servicing.

Here are links to some current cases involving this servicer. Since I have no idea what situation the OP is in other than being unable to get a loan modification, here are some links to some current cases. Maybe you will find something useful here.

BTW, the Making Home Affordable program has set aside $1,469,270,000 just for this American Home Mortgage servicer to make pretend loan mods. Sheesh! That is more money than is set aside for Litton, Ocwen, Saxon and Select Portfolio individually and only slightly less than GMAC and Citi individually. What an incentive to play!

Here's the list:

Reply with quote  #7 
Richard get off the phone and pick up a pen!Put everything in writting and send it registered mail/return receipt.

If you must speak with these people, get the name & corporate id number first, and then ask "for quality purposes is this conversation being recorded"? Trust me the answere will be yes, note the exact time of the conversation & incoming phone number in a log. If you ever need to refer back this will be very helpful.

You must have canceled checks documenting your payments, and in fact they are required by law to send you an end of year statement of how your payments have been dispersed, especially if they pay your property taxes. You can submit a QWR, Qualified Written Request to obtain this information. There are great resources on this site in the home section where excellent info sheets are available.

Came down and get organized

Reply with quote  #8 

Could not agree with you more Trust me! However watching and reading how the "investor class" is spinning defining the situation has value. In fact this article has provided people with yet another tool for a QWR. As in, if F&F owns my loan has it been subject to a internal Forensic Audit conducted by F&F of an MBS pool. Correct

If it has and was forced back on the bank, then by the audit by F&F, the assignment was lets say for lack of a better word "corrupt" and provides the distressed homeowner with yet another valuable tool.

It is always important to keep it to the KISS principle, keep calm and look at the other side for valuable information. I for one will be filing a FOIA request with Fannie Mae to see if our "financial instrument" has been subject to an audit. Note NOT THE SERVICER!!

Another important area to look is SEC filings, I found a treasure trove of written "admissions" in current SEC filings made by our "mortgage servicer". Quite a few that actually contradict how they have been "servicing" our mortgage. These are tedious to read but well worth it. 

It is highly probable that the "subject at hand" and all the entities involved with the slicing and dicing have SEC filings available-probable on the web.

Good luck to everyone

Reply with quote  #9 
Indeed, pj. The F & F audits are looking for poor or nonexistent underwriting. If that is found it would be a clue that there is something "wrong" in the loan process.

Wading through the "cover up" might be daunting.  I am not sure that anyone would ever be able to get F & F to admit that the loan was turned back because of loan irregularities found in the audit. The protective attitude toward banks is still with us. I hope you will let us know if your FOIA yields pertinent results instead of some generic vague reasons.

Here are the link to the Freddie and Fannie loan lookup pages for anyone who hasn't thought to check if F & F owns their loan:

Does Fannie Mae own your loan

Does Freddie Mac own your loan

SEC filings can be valuable, too. Sounds like you have a good grip on tracking it down.

Asking a servicer anything is usually a bad idea. Sometimes it will trigger them to sell the servicing rights to another company because they do not want to deal with people they decide might become "troublemakers". Then the whole thing starts again.

Every time anyone talks to a servicer they probably get less information from the servicer than they are giving to the servicer. The type of questions being asked are revealing to the servicer and are noted in your file.

I am still waiting for ripped-off investors to rise up and start demanding that the current servicers and Trustees be fired. Then maybe there will be some auditing done at the servicer's offices as well. THAT would be a bombshell!

Reply with quote  #10 

It is my opinion that the bombshell is just around the bend. And the frantic pace that F&F is  undertaking to dump "toxic loans" points towards this. I will definitely keep everyone posted on the FOIA request. Was also told by our AG's consumer affairs office that they will do an inquiry to identify which "trust" owns our loan. Have to think that one through.

Could not agree more on the advise of communicating with "mortgage servicer's" they record everything and will use it against a homeowner in a heartbeat. If  anyone is doing a QWR on their own it better strike like a black mamba, being frivolous will come back to haunt the homeowner.

Just to provide an example of what I found in a SEC filing by our MS. They stated that at there "lock box" location where payments are sent, that they have TWO  registration/postings of payments DAILY. Our MS has been posting our payments week's after they were sent, and that is via certified mail mind you. So either they are making fraudulent claims to the SEC or they are looking to put us in default. They habitually post the payment one day before a "late payment" will kick in.

This may seem minor in the scope of things, but it is one more indication of fraud!

I have also confirmed the our MS was not licensed as required by law in our state to sell/assign mortgages when they "sold" our mortgage to the MBS secondary market as registered with the county clerk! Again illegal activity on their part.

Just a note to everyone out there, PAY the extra fee to have all documents obtained at your county clerks office CERTIFIED!

Again good luck to everyone out there, keep calm, get your documents organized and keep up the good fight. And thanks to everyone who shares their information on this site!

Reply with quote  #11 
Black Mamba-YES!

A small word of advice about sending payments "Certified Mail". Servicers have claimed in court that this method actually slows down delivery. Evidently, not all the drones sent for mail pickup are "authorized" to sign for Certified mail. This argument has actually been in their favor at times. All they have to do is only send an "authorized" drone once a month or less and they have a guaranteed delay built in. With certified they can wait until the third call before they sign which will add 3 weeks to the delivery date.

I would use Priority Mail- Delivery Confirmation Requested. Here's why. Servicers can delay by claiming that the drones are not able to sign the green card. With PMDCR, the post office shows the day they put that item into the servicer's box, period. No one has to sign anything.

You can then print out the info from the USPS Tracking site and it will show the day you mailed the item, where it went in between and the day and TIME it was delivered. They can't even claim that it came too late to post this way. Nice.

You may also find this method to be a bit cheaper and easier in the long run. You can go to the PO and grab a handful of the cardboard priority mailers and the delivery receipt confirmation slips and fill in the stuff at home making it much faster when you get to the window. When you get low, grab some more. There is no charge until you mail the item.

Since postal employees are not parties to you or the servicer you have an independent verification from someone with no vested interest in any of it. The post office would not delay on the servicer's behalf. There is no way for the servicer to deny receipt because you have taken that trick away from them. Priceless!

Reply with quote  #12 
oop's my Bad. Sending everything certified/return receipt.Which comes back with "rubber stamp" signature & date received. Good enough in a court of law. But will take your advice since it will save on cost. Understandily many people here are just figuaing this all out and the cost to some of this however minor is overwheleming

But remember from my previous post, a current SEC filing by the mortage servicer indicates under applied "business practices" for a request to become a "Thrift", that is a request to become a "bank" explicitly has stated that they are receiving "deposits" and twice daily they are posted! More on that later.

Everyone should look up where their payments are going, most likely a PO BOX is listed on a payment coupon, but some time and diligence will unearth a direct mailing address , to a lock box, such in our case, which was well documented on the web, instructing where overnight payments are received:"They just love to Blovate" Download/Print/File and keep in your records.  Also requested and received a confirmation via e-mail from the MBS advisor at the MS that the mailing address and instructions for overnight mail was  correct, again Download/Print/File!!!!

Point here is know the ANSWER before you ask the question!
Reply with quote  #13 
So, your mortgage servicer wants to become a thrift...hmmm. That would put it under the supervision of the OTS (aka "old Toothless Stinky")

Here's an old story about a thrift/servicer that was also a thief, IMO. It may look familiar to you because the same unethical practices were going on then as what you describe now. The cheating is pervasive all through the industry; they have all been doing it for a long time and they all tend to follow the same pattern of fraudulent behavior.

You will be happy to know that finally, two months after this story and all these massive lawsuits, the OTS finally forced this servicer into a Supervisory Agreement.

OTS Docket Number 04592

The servicer almost immediately applied to dissolve its thrift status and escape the clutches of the OTS which had let this servicer rob and pillage for years. When the heat got turned up the servicer bailed from the increased regulation and oversight.

I find it interesting that after this any servicer might want to be under the OTS. I heard rumors that the OTS hated Ocwen because it increased its workload a thousand per many complaints that OTS could not keep up. I have been unable to prove or disprove that rumor to date.

If there is any truth to the rumor, I find it hard to believe that the OTS would want to grant such an application to any servicer. Perhaps they have increased their staff since 2004. I hope so because they will need several people to field complaints again.

Plenty can be learned from the past......

        February 2, 2004

        Plaintiffs Aim for Ocwen

        By Brian Collins

Washington -- Suing subprime firms for "predatory" servicing is a growth industry and class-action attorneys appear to have set their sites on a new target: Ocwen Federal FSB of West Palm Beach, Fla.

Several lawsuits have been filed in California accusing the company of abusive and illegal servicing practices. In general, Ocwen is accused of failing to post monthly mortgage payments properly, charging inappropriate late fees, prematurely referring accounts to collections, and forcing homeowners into default as part of a scheme to generate fee income.

The federally chartered thrift disputes all the allegations and says it has taken steps to improve its servicing operation. "We believe the allegations to be baseless and without merit," Ocwen general counsel Paul Koches told Mortgage Servicing News. "And we will be vigorously defending that in court." (Mr. Koches represents the thrift and its parent, Ocwen Financial Corp., which also is based in West Palm Beach.)

The same California attorneys that are after Ocwen also brought claims of abusive servicing practices against Fairbanks Capital Corp., Salt Lakes City, which recently agreed to a $40 million settlement with federal regulators and to pay $15 million to settle several class-action lawsuits.

Once the FTC announced the Fairbanks settlement, it was widely expected that other subprime servicers would face similar scrutiny.

Consumer attorneys believe the incentive system built into subprime servicing encourages companies to generate fees by pushing loans into default, as opposed to arranging workouts when borrowers get into trouble.

"I think Fairbanks took it to the absolute extreme, which is why they got spanked," said Ira Rhinegold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. "I don't think Ocwen and some of the others who are engaged in subprime servicing are much better," he added.

Unlike Fairbanks, Ocwen has a federal regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which has been monitoring its servicing operation.

"We have been working for some time very closely with Ocwen to address the number of concerns related to their servicing of subprime loans," OTS spokesman Kevin Petrasic said.

Ocwen's practices are "extremely similar" to Fairbanks', according to Niall McCarthy, an attorney with the Burlingame, Calif., law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy filed a class-action lawsuit against the Ocwen Federal Bank in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Dec. 29.

Ocwen "engages in a systematic and deliberate unlawful scheme to cheat homeowners out of millions of dollars in bogus and illegal fees and charges," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs, Allie and Jerry Maddox, lost their Bend, Ore., home in foreclosure because of Ocwen's servicing practices. After losing their home, the Maddox's moved to California to restart their life.

Mr. McCarthy noted, however, there are a couple of unique things about the way the federally chartered thrift operates that are different from Fairbanks. For instance, Ocwen assesses late fees prior to the date the payment is due, he said in a telephone interview.

If the monthly payment is due on the 17th of month, Ocwen charges a late fee on the 15th or 16th even if the payment comes in on the 17th. "That is exactly what happened to our client," he said. Fairbanks would get a payment on the 15th and not post it for three days - then charge a late fee.

Ocwen said it uses an independent lockbox provider that is required to process all payments within 24 hours for automatic posting.

Another problem at Ocwen is the failure to respond to their customers, Mr. McCarthy said, particularly for requests for payoffs and efforts to avoid foreclosure. "We get all types of phone calls from people who say there is absolutely no response whatsoever when they are trying to arrange a buyout or some kind of a workout of the foreclosure."

Even if they get in contact with an Ocwen representative - they are not responsive. The response is "we are not going to work with you" or "we don't want the money," Mr. McCarthy said. "That is downright cruel when someone is trying to save their home."

Ocwen said it employs a "consultative approach to customer relations where we seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues."

Ocwen also said it leads the industry with an 80% delinquency resolution rate. "This means that in eight out of 10 severely delinquent loans, we are able to achieve a resolution in which the borrower avoids losing their home to a foreclosure."

Meanwhile, attorney Daniel Mulligan filed a class action against Ocwen in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Dec. 11.

The complaint - in Geneva Spires v. Ocwen - alleges that the servicer collects late fees when payments are on time and charges for force-placed homeowners insurance when the property is already insured.

Once a loan goes into default, Ocwen allegedly imposes and collects fees for property inspections, appraisals and broker price

        opinions in excess of the costs and for services not performed.

"Specifically, Ocwen has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging unwarranted attorney's fee for properties it has erroneously categorized as being in default," the complaint says.

The partner at Jenkins & Mulligan in San Francisco also was involved in Fairbanks litigation and like Mr. McCarthy, he is one of the four co-lead counsels in the consolidated Fairbanks case. The U.S District Court in Boston is expected to grant final approval to the $55 million Fairbanks settlement in May.

In a separate lawsuit, Mr. Mulligan sued Ocwen in December 2002, alleging the subprime servicer charges unwarranted attorney fees (usually $95) when homeowners reinstate their loans. The case, which is before a state court, is currently in discovery and a hearing on class certification is scheduled for May.

Another San Francisco law firm, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, has file a class-action lawsuit against Ocwen in the state Superior Court (Alameda County).

"To generate revenues for itself, Ocwen has engaged in a scheme by which it levies unwarranted and unlawful late fees on its customers and uses a customer's alleged lateness to improperly assess other fees, up to and including fees associated with the erroneous preparation of default and foreclosure proceedings," according to the complaint in Patricia Antoine, Jon De Kerguelen and Rosalind DeKett v. Ocwen Financial Services Inc. and Ocwen Federal Bank.

        Lieff, Cabraser attorneys also are involved in the Fairbanks litigation, but they declined to comment on the Ocwen case.

        Ocwen considers the California litigation to be "copycat" suits that are without merit.

"The litigation against Ocwen is misdirected. The litigants should consider the facts - facts that our rating agencies, investment banks and others familiar with Ocwen have found - that our servicing business is federally regulated, legally compliant and industry-leading in terms of mutually beneficial resolutions with borrowers," Ocwen president Ronald Faris said.

General counsel Koches said he is not aware of any investigations by the Federal Trade Commission or the Office of Thrift Supervision involving the company's servicing practices.

OTS had not taken any enforcement actions against Ocwen. But the agency is keenly aware of the consumer complaints about its mortgage servicing operation.

OTS officials attribute these complaints partly to the difficulty of servicing subprime loans and the size of Ocwen's portfolio. The Florida thrift services $37 billion in subprime loans, including formerly Federal Housing Administration-insured loans.

Ocwen recently won a contract from the Department of Veterans Affairs to manage and sell VA-foreclosed single-family properties. VA is currently transferring 12,000 properties to Ocwen.

Back in July 2002, a Connecticut attorney, Kweku Hanson, became so upset about an ongoing dispute with Ocwen that he became the plaintiff in a class-action suit against the servicer. The 123-page lawsuit in Hanson v. Ocwen Federal Bank outlines a six-year running battle over late charges and fees.

"It is clear that this is a pattern and practice of shear piracy," Mr. Hanson said in an interview. He said he has collected hundreds of sworn affidavits from individuals who have been injured by Ocwen. The case is still in discovery. Mr. Hanson does not expect to get a hearing for class certification until after April. The lawsuit seeks $1.5 billion in punitive and exemplary damages. Ocwen claims the Hanson lawsuit is without merit.



Reply with quote  #14 
Brilliant, I will pass this on to a friend how is stuck with a myriad of problems @ Ocwen.
Every little bit helps. And thanks for the excellent information.
Reply with quote  #15 


You say above that frivolous pleadings come back to haunt the homeowner. Why is that? I myself have been sold down the river by my own atty. I knew prior to filing bk that my 2nd mortgage servicer didn't own my mortage. They proved this after my atty instead of defending me "BACKED DOWN" to other attys and apparently a very biased and impartial judge.

The 1st if you ask me didn't prove STANDING by putting in a copy and saying 10 different entities under their umbrella own my one mortgage note! Like several others I'm a Mortgage Servicing Victim.

In Dec 03 I was SOLICITED on my job by a ROGUE Debt Investor. I say ROGUE because she'll sue anyone she can to put deniro in her pocket. But her ways should come to an end soon. She's made another enemy in NY in another scenario besides myself.

At any rate the collection agency I worked for NARS lied for 2.5 yrs about having the right to sell mortgage notes for Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation now as of 05 known as Chase Home Finance.

On the board of directors shown at the Sec of State of MO is none other than TWO OF THE TOP TRUSTEES NATIONALLY. Who've I found other cases showing documentation fraud upon the court as well in various cases. Not to mention have put together the lawfirm by the top two trustees is a subsidary of 1st American Title.

Subsequently, after denying me a TRO to protect my home in a Counterclaim
for the actions of the bk judge and my own atty. I put in a Motion to Vacate her order. After denying me this again two months later she came back and SUA PONTE RECUSED herself.

So from Frivolous to Recusal doesn't ad up. I've been trying for yrs being on the inside of the meltdown to Tell THE TRUTH. But they did remove my attys adversary that I had a copy of that he never filed. Then they also removed a page in my counterclaim telling them exactly who I am. The now third Judge Recused as well. The fourth Dismissed for a Lack of SMJ Jurisdiction.


I did my adversary outlined by one of the top consumer credit attys across the USA. My attys was there as well. It should of never been dismissed but the CORRUPTION IS HIGH IN ST. LOUIS. No one has ever had to answer for their actions at all.

I'm now going to OSHA since they may be able to help. Everyone else has refused to. I"m not STUPID. I had bankers to spend $150,000 to $50m per month. But the BANKERS are CORRUPT . For all the AMERICANs put into a situation of not being able to pay I had a way to. Within 5 days or less my bills could of been paid off...But one banker wasn't spending enough to get Citi to deal with him...The other Citi made the buyer not perform. They wanted to make money on something once it was SOLD. How if something is SOLD do you ever make money on it? Especially when its deficiency balance mortgage notes. The worst of the worst.

Some people end up in situations beyond their control. My hope has been that's why I received the two RECUSALS. So maybe I'd get help and be able to pay my bills and HELP OTHERS. But instead have faced nothing but CORRUPTION FOR TELLING THE TRUTH....SURE puts a NEW MEANING TO THE TRUTH...SO what would you do now? I know the RECUSAL issue could maybe help me as it did the WVA Massey case. Any advise?

I've done research and I've read that sometimes Recusal is the Exception to the courts JURISDICTION. Know if this is TRUE? Does two separate Recusals create and exception necessary for the courts JURISDICITION
Reply with quote  #16 
Reply with quote  #17 
Top Gun, we were discussing "frivolous requests" in submitting a QWR to your MS. Not court actions.
Reply with quote  #18 
I am in the midst of foreclosure and reading "everything" I can.  Bottom line is - Can American Home Mortgage Servicing be the one who filed the Lis Pendens?  They are just the servicer - correct?  Loan originally with Ameriquest, then assigned to Deutche as trustee, then Cit-Residential, and now AHMSI.  Who has to be the one who files against us?  Papers were served once and then eight months later cancelled by Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff.  Found today that Deutche filed the Lis Pendens prior to the assignment to them being recorded (it had been signed and notorized 11 months before).  Now I am trying to follow the paper trail on this one.  Negotiation with AHMSI was "a waste of time".  Help if you can please.
William A. Roper, Jr.
Reply with quote  #19 

What is the juriisdiction (state) where the subject property is located?

Reply with quote  #20 
Mr. Roper - this is all in Florida (Miami).  If Deutsche as trustee for Ameriquest filed the second Lis Pendens - and then supposedly Citi Residential Lending bought all of Ameriquest - shouldn't there be something recorded transferring the note and the mortgage to Citi and then what happens with the original filing by Deutche/Ameriquest?  I saw yesterday in some reading that Citi bought a lot of Ameriquest loans.  I also read that Ameriquest split up the recording of the note and that of the mortgage and that this process could make the note unenforceable.  Thanks!
Reply with quote  #21 

The note (paper/tangible), if it is proved up with proper chain of endorsements to the current holder then the current holder of the note would have rights as holder in due course to enforce the mortgage note and mortgage(security instrument), but if the mortgage has been stripped from the mortgage note, then the power of sale clause contained within the mortgage is out of reach.and the power of sale is out of reach.

If the mortgage has been bifurcated from the mortgage note, the Holder in Due Course of the mortgage note could attempt a money judgment on default of the note, but foreclosure is not possible.

Reply with quote  #22 
Thank you.  How would I attempt to find out who actually holds the note and the mortgage at this time?  I just can't find anything beyond the assignment from Ameriquest to Deutche.  No other recorded documents that I can find, but do know that Citi-Residential Lending was the contact for some time before AHMSI came into the picture.  Any ideas?
Reply with quote  #23 

I'am so confused, I have been in a lawsuit w/ameriquest for 7 yrs, the loan was sold to citi, now american home mtg owns my loan, BUT my loan is in the chicago courts. Please can someone explain what is happening. my case is w/ameriquest but now american home mtg says they have my loan...and in chicago my case is with ameriquest... 

Reply with quote  #24 
Any suggestions on what other route to take to get AHMSI to give me the actual owner of the note since I have requested it twice in writing from them with no response.
John Patrick Harrigan
Reply with quote  #25 
Who owns American Home Mortgage now. I'm hearing the Co. ticker symbol (AHMIQ) is up for sale 200K through e-Kong Group, Mr. Richard J. Seimens
Also, Mr. Wilbur Ross comes from the Rothchild's Bank of London,  now Rothchild Inc.

Reply with quote  #26 

Hi guys, i like this bashing of AHM, i share no love for the name sake and any group that associates with them. I recently came across some dealings with AHM servicing. Firstly they are one of the only organizations that charge 1% to the seller for a short sale transaction. In addition when they go to place their REO properties for sale AHM servicing finds Realtors who are in bed with prospect mortgage loan officers. Prospect Mortgage is an off shoot of the old AHM retail, they utilize marketing materials along with have some key staff from AHM retail. I am not too certain of how many transferred over but the tactics in originating and the cut throat mentality are alive there. In a recent transaction i had a client be required by the listing agent on an AHM REO be approved by a Prospect Mortgage loan officer, this is a steering violation per RESPA. As i come to find out the client is offered a below market rate along with 1% for closing cost by Prospect Mortgage. When looking into how this can be i found out that the listing agent had six points on the transaction but only offered 2 to the selling agent so the assumption was that the 1% came from the listing agent to use Prospect Mortgage. I know this string of comments are mostly on the servicing but the back door dealings are everywhere for these groups. I see the issue of steering, the definition of " anytime an individual is directed to an entity for profit of the referring party",this is the short/loose definition, being performed by all the big banks, GMAC, CHASE, BOFA. my understanding is that the new CFPB or The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is set to oversee any RESPA violations or Steering. I would like to see some action take towards the Banks who are offing these homes and then securing the new purchase business by making it a requirement from buyers to use specific sources for lending. The Game goes on!

Reply with quote  #27 
This is just a warning for everyone because what lies ahead is still in your hands. Be wise enough in dealing with people because with today's financial crisis, there are lots of those who really find ways to survive. Just recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently warning consumers and companies alike about the growing mortgage scams epidemic in the nation. The greatest threat is from fraudulent mortgage applications. Mortgage refinancing and foreclosure prevention scams are also a significant worry for troubled homeowners. I found it here: FBI states cases of mortgage fraud skyrocketing.
Reply with quote  #28 

I am going through the same thing ! PLEASE read my website and see my story ! I have an attorney on this as we speak !!! is where you can get ahold of me ! Their is help out their !!! Let me know if you have any questions !

Reply with quote  #29 

Tried your website.  It says it is expired/waiting for renewal. Just FYI.

Reply with quote  #30 

Tried your website .. would not allow me to engage. I was with Ameriquest.I lost my job  2 months ago.. and I applied for a Loan Modification through my servicer (OCWEN ) .. They tell me that my Servicer does not allow Loan Modifications. That my Lender is Ameriquest. I advised them that Ameriquest is no longer there.. gone .. since 2007-2009 not sure.. I asked them who my investor was. they again stated for me to call Ameriquest??? Can you direct me on what to do. In doing research .. It seems the words fraud, illegal, Ocwen etc... keeps popping up. I told Ocwen, if I can not find out this information, what do I do.. They don't know?? My home for almost 20 years ..and they don't know!!! Something just ain't right. They guy had me holding 17 minutes , the reason was he had to read through 5000( yes thousands) of paper to find out who just my Lender was... again something just ain't right.. I do not want to lose my home

Reply with quote  #31 
I need some help / advice here.  We are going to be in foreclosure here shortly and need some advice.  Our loan was originally with Sofin Mortgage, then we did a refi back in 2005 to purchase a vacation spot.  We did the refi with Ameriquest Mortgage corp, who then sold servicing to Citi-Residential, who in Feb 2009 was sold to American Home Mortgage servicing.  Our loan with Ameriquest I now see was a scam right from the start.  We were put in a adjustable rate loan with the promise to have it refi'ed in 2 years to a fixed rate loan.  Well that never happened, the market tanked as did our incomes.  In 2009 when AHMSI took over from Citi I was able to get a loan mod through AHMSI.  The process went real smooth a lot smoother then I hear a lot of people have with them.  We are now about to walk away from our home as we I believe are in a money pit of a home with a mortgage that is 100K underwater.  We will never pay this house off nor get our money out of it.  I'm not sure who at this point owns our note and has legal right to foreclose on us.  When I look up the info on our county website, this is what I find:
9/28/05 - Assigned to Ameriquest (refi date)
2/06/06 - Assigned to Mers
2/19/09 - Assigned back to Ameriquest (This is the date Citi transferred our loan to AHMSI)
Does this sound like I'd have a good case of produce the note?  Thinking about all of this now, my husband and I are sure Mortgage Fraud went on at least in 2005 when we refi'ed our loan.  Any help or in site would be grateful!  Thanks

Reply with quote  #32 
Before you decide to walk away from your  house, read this article below.
Remember that if you don't have VERY GOOD lawyer, you could end up losing your house even if there are many frauds in your mortgage.Under water is less a problem, not having a place to live is a much bigger headache. Not to mention the deficiency judgement .

Strategic Default

Reply with quote  #33 

Town and Country is behind all of these companoes. They are thiefs and liars. They force people into a mortgage they cannot afford by inflating their income. Then they are right there to foreclose on a house and refuse to let you talk to them about a payment plan. Check them out. They should be under the microsope not the borrowers. They should not be allowed to operate

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting or Website Chat Room Hosting for your website.