Tag Archives: Bank of America

National Mortgage Settlement Update

Posted on by

Joseph A. Smith, Jr., the Monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement (NMS), has issued his Second Compliance Report (I blogged about an earlier report here) which has been filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia. According to the Monitor, Ally Financial and Wells Fargo were not in violation of the settlement at all during 2013 and BoA’s and Chase’s deficiencies were not widespread. Citi had a widespread deficiency.

The Monitor’s conclusion echoes his earlier report although his tone is more optimistic than last time:

It is clear to me that the servicers have additional work to do both in their efforts to fully comply with the NMS and to regain their customers’ trust. The Monitor Reports that I have just filed with the Court show, however, that the Settlement is addressing shortcomings in the treatment of distressed borrowers.

CAPs [corrective action plans], including remediation efforts when required, have been implemented or are in process. If the CAPs are not successful, the Monitoring Committee and I will take additional action, as dictated by the Settlement. In addition, we have applied what we have learned to enhance our oversight of the servicers by creating four new metrics to address persistent issues in the marketplace. (16)

The big five banks appear to be improving their compliance with the settlement, which is obviously a good thing. But there is still work to be done to improve loan servicing. The monitor notes the top ten complaints about servicers that were submitted by elected officials on behalf of their constituents:

1 Single point of contact was not provided, was difficult to deal with or was difficult to reach.

2 Single point of contact was non-responsive.

3 Servicer did not take appropriate action to remediate inaccuracies in borrower’s account.

4 Servicer failed to update the borrower’s contact information and/or account balance.

5 Servicer failed to correct errors in the borrower’s account information.

6 The borrower was “dual-tracked.” In other words, the borrower submitted an application for loss mitigation, and although it was in process or pending, the borrower was foreclosed upon.

7 Servicer did not accept payments or incorrectly applied them.

8 Servicer did not follow appropriate loss mitigation procedures.

9 The borrower received requests for financial statements they already provided.

10 The completed first lien modification request was not responded to within 30 days.

Total Executive Office complaints for all servicers: 44,570 (n.p.)

Obviously not every complaint is valid, but these numbers suggest that the settlement is not being fully complied with.

Is Banks’ $200 Billion Payout from RMBS Lawsuits Enough?

Posted on by

S&P issued a brief, The Largest U.S. Banks Should Be Able To Withstand The Ramifications Of Legal Issues, that quantifies the exposure that big banks have from litigation arising from the Subprime Crisis:

Since 2009, the largest U.S. banks (Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo) together have paid or set aside more than $45 billion for mortgage representation and warranty (rep and warranty) issues and have incurred roughly $50 billion in combined legal expenses .  . . This does not include another roughly $30 billion of expenses and mortgage payment relief to consumers to settle mortgage servicing issues. We estimate that the largest banks may need to pay out an additional $55 billion to $105 billion to settle mortgage-related issues, some of which is already accounted for in these reserves. (2)

S&P believes “that the largest banks have, in aggregate, about a $155 billion buffer, which includes a capital cushion, representation and warranty reserves, and our estimate of legal reserves, to absorb losses from a range of additional mortgage-related and other legal exposures.” (2) As far as their ratings go, S&P has already incorporated “heightened legal issues into our ratings, and we currently don’t expect legal settlements to result in negative rating actions for U.S. banks.” (2) But it warns, “an immediate and unexpected significant legal expense could result in the weakening of a bank’s business model through the loss of key clients and employees, as well as the weakening of its capital position.” (2) S&P also acknowledges that there are some not yet quantifiable risks out there, such as DoJ’s FIRREA suits.

As the endgame of the financial crisis begins to take shape and financial institutions are held accountable for their actions, one is left wondering about a group who is left relatively unscathed: financial institution employees who received mega bonuses for involving these banks in these bad deals. As we think about the inevitable next crisis, we should ask if there is a way to hold those individuals accountable too.

California Court Dismisses Plaintiffs Suit Brought for Wrongful Foreclosure Defendants Bank of America & Freddie Mac

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bergman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153173 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Most of plaintiffs’ claims were based on one of two legal theories.

First, the plaintiffs based their arguments on the alleged sale of the DOT from Bank of America to the Securitized Trust, the plaintiffs argued that the sale divested Bank of America of its beneficial interest in the DOT. Plaintiff also alleged that because the DOT was never properly assigned, the Securitized Trust also did not hold the beneficial interest. They alleged that, accordingly, the true beneficiaries are the Securitized Trust’s certificate holders.

Second, the plaintiffs based their argument on the alleged involvement of PK Properties in illegal bid-rigging activities, including activities that allegedly tainted the trustee’s sale for the Property.

The court, after considering the arguments provided by the plaintiff, granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint.

Michigan Court Finds MERS Had Capacity to Assign Mortgage, and Bank of New York Mellon Had Capacity to Accept MERS’s Assignment of the Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in Maslowski v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155970, 2013 WL 5876608 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2013) found that dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

The plaintiff in this case [Maslowski] challenged a foreclosure and foreclosure sale. Essentially, the plaintiff claimed that the foreclosure proceedings were invalid because defendant MERS lacked capacity to assign the mortgage, and defendant Bank of New York Mellon lacked capacity to accept MERS’s assignment of mortgage.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s reasoning and noted that once the redemption period has expired, a plaintiff must meet a high standard for a federal court to invalidate or set aside a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement in Michigan. In particular, a plaintiff must show both fraud related to the foreclosure process itself and that he or she was prejudiced by the defendant’s failure to comply with the foreclosure statute’s requirements. The Court agreed with the lower court and found that the plaintiff had made no allegations or showing of prejudice, and that therefore, dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

Georgia Court Affirms That The Holder of a Deed to Secure Debt is Authorized to Exercise the Power of Sale in Accordance With the Terms of the Deed

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sanford v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156084, 2013 WL 5899238 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2013), found that each of the plaintiff’s arguments lacked merit and subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure against BANA was based on three theories: (1) invalid assignment of the security deed; (2) improper notice under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2; and (3) BANA’s lack of authority to foreclose as a non-secured creditor.

The court rejected plaintiff’s second and third arguments based on previous case law. The court cited a previous holding, noting that “the holder of a deed to secure debt is authorized to exercise the power of sale in accordance with the terms of the deed even if it does not also hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial interest in the debt obligation underlying the deed.”

Furthermore, the court noted that the notice requirement is satisfied if the notice identifies the individual or entity with full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify the terms of the mortgage, regardless of whether that entity is a secured creditor, note holder, deed holder, or none of the above.

Michigan Court Finds Assignment From MERS to Bank of New York Was Valid

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division in Maslowski v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156299 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2013) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The crux of plaintiff’s claim is that the state foreclosure proceedings should be invalidated because MERS lacked the capacity to assign the Mortgage and BONY could not accept the MERS’ Assignment of Mortgage. Defendants successfully sought dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The court reasoned even if the assignment from MERS to BONY was invalid, thereby creating a defect in the foreclosure process under M.C.L. § 600.3204(1)(d), the plaintiff had not alleged that he was prejudiced.

While plaintiff claimed various damages, which arose from the alleged fraudulent assignment, plaintiff did not allege that he suffered any prejudice due to the alleged fraudulent assignment. Plaintiff failed to show that he would be subject to liability from someone other than BONY (i.e., double liability) or that he would have been in any better position to keep the Property absent the assignment Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

BAC Not Required to Evidence Holding Note in Texas Fourth Court of Appeals

Posted on by

In Lowery v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13114 (Tex. App. San Antonio Oct. 23, 2013), the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals affirms summary judgment for BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP dismissing homeowner’s claim that without evidence of holding the note, BAC lacked standing to foreclose. The homeowner sought an injunction from the nonjudicial foreclosure initiated by BAC in 2011, alleging wrongful foreclosure as the note did not name BAC or MERS, and further alleging that MERS improperly assigned the note to BAC. The court cites the Reinagel holding that the assignment of mortgage presumptively assigns the note as well, and that BAC is not required to show evidence of holding the note. On these grounds, the court found the homeowner produced less than a scintilla of evidence to show BAC lacked authority to foreclose, and further failed to show the signatory at MERS lacked authority.