I just watched a man reduced to tears after Wells Fargo refused $40,000 check to avoid eviction...

[Earth_First]

It brought me to tears.

Today we participated in an eviction defense to support a local family who has been attempting to work out a mortgage modification on 4 different occasions where Wells Fargo backed out in the 11th-hour each time.

Today he and his wife, local clergy members; were denied their last attempt to stay in their home after Wells Fargo REFUSED to accept a $40,000 check which would have allowed them to stay in their home of 12 years.

Tommorrow, the U.S. Marshall's service in cooperation with the Monroe County Sherriff's office will attach an eviction notice to the front of their property in which they have 72 hours to vacate the premises.

Want to know what OWS is all about?

THIS is what OWS is all about!

What.The.Fuck.Is.Wrong.With.These.Banks?!

[villager]

1. Additionally, what is wrong with the Marshalls and Sheriffs that they betray their fellow citizens?

:shrug:

[xchrom]

3. The Rot in our land runs Bone deep. Nt

[Aerows]

133. No doubt

Not a doubt about it in my mind :mad:

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. How do Marshalls and Sheriffs decide who to evict?

[villager]

33. "Sheriff in Ill. county won’t evict in foreclosures"

From 2008:

Sheriff in Ill. county won’t evict in foreclosures

From Associated Press

CHICAGO — Residents of foreclosed properties in Chicago and other parts of Cook County don’t have to worry about deputies forcing them out. Sheriff Tom Dart says that starting Thursday his office won’t take part in evictions.

Dart says he’s concerned that many of the people being evicted are renters who were unaware that their landlords have been failing to pay their mortgages. He says his deputies have no way of knowing whether they’re removing someone who has defaulted on a loan or someone who has been faithfully paying rent.

Dart says he thinks he’s the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop such evictions during the ongoing foreclosure crisis.

Dart says the number of mortgage foreclosures in Cook County has skyrocketed and will probably keep rising.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/forum/2008-10-08/ap-news-article-chicago-area-police-refuse-to-evict-tenants

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Sheriff Who Refused To Evict Foreclosed Homeowners Forced To Resume

CHICAGO — An Illinois sheriff who halted foreclosure evictions last month because some bank employees weren't following the proper procedures said Friday he's been forced to order his deputies to carry them out, but he will continue investigating the matter and could charge banks and their employees with crimes.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he is only ordering evictions to resume because county prosecutors told him that he was legally bound to carry out foreclosure eviction orders signed by a judge.

"For the people who have been involved with this and think now that because the (Cook County) State's Attorney's office has ordered me to go ahead with the evictions that everything's fine . . . No, we are going to be looking at you for criminal violations," Dart said. "You may have got through one storm now, the other one is coming."

Dart singled out Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and GMAC/Ally Financial last month for problems with eviction notices. He said Friday that investigators continue to find problems with bank employees signing off on foreclosure documents they haven't read, although he did not single out individual companies.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/tom-dart-resumes-foreclosure-evictions_n_786325.html

[DallasNE]

153. Sounds Like The Judges Are In The Hip Pocket

Of the banks. It looks like bank employees are not the only ones not reading the documents they are signing off on. I would think there would be a hearing to show cause before the deputies were dispatched. This is being handled way too causally considering how dire the consequences are.

[mopinko]

35. he has since resumed

he had specific problems with paperwork issues, and refused for a while.

[villager]

36. Perhaps -- but resuming makes it no more "right" than it was when he refused

And at some point, the police we pay will have to decide which side they're ultimately on.

[jmowreader]

57. They don't

A foreclosure has to be signed by a judge. Once that is done, the judge's office issues an order to the sheriff informing him to go to the house in question and remove the occupants.

Here's the problem: Judges, by and large, are elected. Most people have no fucking idea who judges are. They don't campaign like city councilmen or mayors do. (I know a judge who won re-election five times with the same campaign signs: "Re-elect Judge X because she's doing a good job.") The people who know judges are lawyers, bankers and repo companies. If a judge is easy to get a foreclosure out of, the banksters are going to pound serious bucks into their reelection campaigns. There were ways to do it before Citizens United, and now it's legal to do anything you want.

[valerief]

102. Seems like they only protect their own wallets filled with bribe money. nt

[No Joe]

114. Enforcing the Agenda of the Elite

This is sad. And enraging.

[dotymed]

141. All of them use the "Nuremberg Defense."

"I was just following orders."

[xxqqqzme]

149. What is wrong w/ the courts?

That eviction notice had to be signed by someone w/ judicial authority before it was handed to a marshall or sheriff.

[MADem]

2. OWS needs to pack up their tents and move onto those peoples' front lawn.

I'll bet they'd let 'em rent a few porta potties to stash around back, too.

Try evicting THAT group!

[Earth_First]

4. Stay tuned...

It's already in the works.

[Blasphemer]

22. Great idea! nt

[mod mom]

24. Good for you guys. Please get a lot of press on this!

[truedelphi]

116. I am loving the idea that Occupy Homes that are about to be foreclosed

And the homes that already have been foreclosed is getting serious attention.

Makes sense to me.

[slackmaster]

5. Why did Wells reject the payment?

Was it enough to bring the loan payments current?

[Earth_First]

7. I don't know the EXACT particulars of the case...

but from what I understand, yes it would have brought them up to date, however the deadline for that was last Tuesday.

Fuck that!

If they were able to come up with it, let them negotiate ONE last time...

[slackmaster]

14. One thing I learned in 8 years working for a large-ish bank...

...Many bankers are dumb.

[avaistheone1]

49. I think you speak the truth.

k&r

[Enthusiast]

119. I know he speaks the truth.

Plenty of dumb to go around.

[uponit7771]

151. +1

[Remember Me]

88. The big banks are very purposely not going through with loan

modifications, etc., IF they can make money on the home they have a chance to foreclose on. This is happening all around the country, again and again and again. The allocated Federal funds NOT being used for this are vastly more than those that are being used. They want to steal your equity or your house, period.

[christx30]

107. Wow...

that is really stupid of the bank. They could either get the money, or they could get the house. Now they have the house. It's nearly worthless right now because there isn't many people that an afford to buy them. So now they have this empty house sitting there, not doing anyone any good. The family isn't being allowed to use it (even though they have the money to pay off the loan), it's going to be used by criminals or transients. The windows are going to be broken, the grass and weeds are going to grow until someone new moves in, or until it looks like the weird family from that Tom Hanks movie, "The 'Burbs" (good flick, by the way).
There is absolutely no "win" in the way they are playing it. They get bad PR because of what they do, plus now their investment isn't going to be bringing in any money every month. And now they have either the expense of a house that THEY have to maintain, or a risk of crime there.
What needs to happen is that the local government forces the bank to be totally responsible for upkeep at the foreclosed houses, and make them responsible for crime that happens too. People break in and do drugs there, then the house is confiscated under the War on Drugs. Yard is out of control, fine them for every day that it stays that way. Make them pay to maintain it. They will lose so much that a foreclosure will cost them a hell of a lot more than simply renegotiating the terms of the loan.

I'm Chris and I approve this message.

[go west young man]

109. Haven't you heard? Banks are pushing for legislation that would give them the home to resell

and they can still go after the former homeowner for the full amount after they default. They actually can get twice the money!
When you have a bought Congress you can get whatever you want ,sadly.

[RegieRocker]

147. That is worth fighting against, big time.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

113. A lot of mortgages are insured by third party Mortgage Insurance (PMI).

If the bank forecloses, they collect on the policy. If the bank modifies the loan, it's all on the bank.

Of course, the PMI companies were underwritten by AIG - the company we bailed out with our tax money so they could make good on all those policies that they really didn't have the money to cover.

But, seeing as though they owed Goldman Sacs a bunch of dough, they needed to be bailed out so AIG could pay GS 100% so GS wouldn't take any haircuts like everyone else, including the homeowners, did.


Make sense?

[classof56]

152. Makes sense but only because it's the reality in this ugly world.

Also makes me very, very sick. I live in an area where many, many homes are in foreclosure. Their value keeps dropping, but unemployment rate keeps rising so they're not selling. And yes, the properties look awful. I'm as sad as I am sick.

Oh--and screw Wells Fargo!

Tired Old Cynic

[Enthusiast]

120. I approve your message too.

Foreclosed homes around here are quickly stripped of the copper plumbing and anything else of value that will provide the thief with couple of percocet or similar.

[Auntie Bush]

156. Nice to have some smart words, for a change, coming from Texas.

No offense for all the other smart Texans.

[harun]

126. I know a number of people personally who have tried to get modifications and they

were all denied.

Fed's helped the banks, not the people paying mortgages.

[Hestia]

159. From a thread here a couple of weeks ago, the Mortgage Insurance is paying for the entire mortgage

if it is foreclosed upon. There is no need to modify if they can just wait out the mortgage holders and foreclose on them. That's why the banks could care less about blighting a neighborhood or city, they got their full amount of the mortgage.

It's another law that needs to be changed.

(sorry, don't have a thread link - I have the worst luck searching DU for anything! I usually get threads from 2008)

[zeemike]

91. I think they want the property not the money...

The real wealth of any place is the land and it is also the best hedge against inflation.

[Volaris]

68. yeah I thought it was illegal to refuse ANY payment offered on a debt, no matter how small...

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. Possibly my own personal prejudice but is Wells Fargo the nastiest of the big banks?

Some (not all) of the stuff you hear about BoA often strikes me as being due to their just being too damn big to function. Ditto Citi. Not sure about Chase. But Wells Fargo just seems like a bunch of SOBs who enjoy being SOBs.

[FBaggins]

10. They're the best of the $1Trillion+ club.

But that doesn't say much... and I wouldn't say even that much for the segment that was recently Wachovia.

[slackmaster]

15. I've been with Wells for more than 20 years. They've treated me decently.

But I've never had any trouble making payments to them. I'm sure my experience would be different if I weren't such a golden customer.

[abelenkpe]

20. Have a friend who says the same thing about BofA

Just fail to understand why one would stay with a known bully that they know is willing and capable of turning on them if they are ever in need or show the smallest amount of weakness. I hope you are always able to be a golden customer.

[slackmaster]

25. B of A hates me, and the feeling is mutual. Read the quick version of my tale of woe if you wish...

When I got divorced in 2000, my ex-wife failed to close out a Visa credit card that had me as a co-borrower. I was added to the account without my knowledge or consent. How and when this happened, I don't really know but I am sure I never signed an application for a joint card with her, ever.

Because the statements all went to her during our marriage, I never looked at them. I knew she had a card, and she and I both thought it was her sole card. (We kept separate credit cards and checking accounts for various reasons.) When she moved out in 1998 the statements etc. all followed her. As her spouse I was legally liable for debt incurred during the marriage, but not for post-divorce debt.

Fast-forward to the summer of 2009. Bank of America bought Countrywide, and I signed up for B of A online banking for the first time in my life. My former Countrywide mortgage was visible, but so was the Visa card with a balance of nearly $12,000, showing me as a co-borrower. I could see all of the account activity. I called my ex immediately. She was not happy to learn of this situation.

The payment record was perfect at that time. There was no problem with the account, but both my ex and I agreed that I should not be able to see her stuff. We both asked B of A to take me off the card but they refused, saying that her credit wasn't good enough to take on the balance (even though she had been paying for it on time every month.)

I sent B of A a letter asking to see a copy of the credit card application from 1994 when the account was supposedly opened, which should have my signature if the account was indeed a valid joint account. B of A conveniently is not able to find an image of the application, and they have told me repeatedly that the only have to keep the paper record for 5 years. (I've worked for banks before, and I'm quite sure that a properly run records department at least microfilms or digitizes things like that before shredding them.)

I left well enough alone for a couple of years, but recently I discovered that my ex has been having cash flow problems and has allowed the Visa account to go delinquent. It's probably in 120-day status as of Saturday, 11/12. B of A has reported derogatory credit against me for this, even though they have NEVER sent me a statement or bill, and never asked me to pay the debt! I never used the account and never knew that my name was on it until more than 9 years after the divorce.

I have hired a lawyer to get this straightened out. She says B of A knows they can't collect from me because they can't come up with the signed credit application to support their claim that I am a co-borrower. But the law allows them to report derogatory credit anyway. They can't put a lien on my house, can't garnish my pay, can't go after my savings. Their only weapon is the credit reporting system, and IMO they are abusing it.

Our legal strategy is to get an addendum to my divorce settlement assigning the debt for that Visa card to my ex. That may or may not work at persuading B of A to delete the derogatory credit from my files, but it will give me a way of explaining it in the event I ever need a loan again, or a job - I've been working in IT for the last 28 years, mostly in financial services. My current position includes taking care of a database that includes several million personal credit reports. A bad blotch on my credit files could force me into a career change that would result in a big drop in income.

B of A ought to know better than to treat me this way. I've been an excellent mortgage loan customer. Messing up my credit only makes me unavailable as a marketing target for other loan products. I will not allow them to blackmail me into paying my ex-wife's debt, and I've told them so.

Bottom line - Bank of America can't prove when the account was opened or who applied for it, they have no evidence that I have ever used the account or that I was aware of it, but they can report derogatory credit against me because they say their computer records show me as a co-borrower. I can't challenge their computer records because THEY can't find any kind of document to support them.

:argh:

[abelenkpe]

38. Wow!

I hope everything turns out OK! It's stories like this that make me glad to have a credit union and only a few more student loan payments before I'm freeeeeeee.

[slackmaster]

40. Thanks for your kind words.

I've recently decided that I will never put my retirement security at risk by getting married again, at least not without a solid prenuptial agreement. I'd like to have a life partner, but I really can't trust anyone with that kind of power ever again.

[Juneboarder]

42. They are crooks

but they get away with it all the frickin' time! I used to be a bill collector for 6 years and you are in quite the predicament. They do have the right to collect from you until you can prove you are not legally liable in court. With a balance of over $12,000, you better hope your assets are hidden so they can't attach any liens; as in my past experiences, balances over $5000 were often referred to the legal department.

I am not trying to discourage you at all. I hope that your attorney is well versed in these matters and obtains a positive verdict for you! Creditors, especially BofA, are all crooks.

[slackmaster]

44. They handed the account off to Penncro when it was only in 60-day status. I've gotten conflicting...

...information about whether B of A still owns the account or sold it outright. Several Web sources say that Penncro only does assignment collections, but more than one B of A employee has told me that B of A no longer owns the account. Hmmmmmm.

Other professional collectors have told me that the normal procedure is to go after co-borrowers as soon as efforts to shake down the primary borrower don't appear to be panning out. And a big debt like that would not be farmed out unless the lender had given up on collecting. If they DID sell it to Penncro it would have been for some amount less than the face value. But I'm sure that Penncro would go after EVERY co-borrower for the full amount if they thought they could collect. I haven't heard a peep out of them yet.

I was perplexed that nobody has ever sent me any kind of demand for payment until my lawyer connected the dots - Because of the aggressive action I took when I discovered the situation the lender knows that I am going to insist on seeing a copy of the signed credit application before I'll agree to pay anything, and they know they don't have it.

Or they DO have the application and it doesn't have my signature. They have made several statements to me that are deceitful at best, if not outright lies.

With a balance of over $12,000, you better hope your assets are hidden so they can't attach any liens...

The balance is under $10K now, but unfortunately my first mortgage is with Bank of America so they know all about my house. :eyes:

In any case, a modification to my divorce should shield me from any collection attempts. My ex is cooperating, BTW.

[Juneboarder]

48. You need to go to court

to assert your point, and I do believe the end result would be in your favor. The question would be how much will it cost you in legal fees...

If it were me, I would try and see how much cash I could scrounge up and offer them a partial settlement. A settlement that will release any obligation you might have, but stick the ex with the remainder of the debt. And, if it were me, I'd offer them $500 as a start. Always low-ball; BUT a settlement can be reached to release you and you only. I know it, as I've done deals like that in the past for people.

Just mentioning, as I know attorney's can get costly, and it might be in your best interests to call BofA first, demand to speak with management until your face turns blue, and then plead your case and offer them "your last bit of cash including funds borrowed from any and all family members". Yes, they might have sent the file to a 3rd party agency, but the liklihood of them selling the paper when it's only 60 days delinquent is a little far fetched. I'm surprised it's made it to an agency; that's just poor collections practices on BofA's part.

If they won't speak with you, call and do the same pleading with the agency's management. Do make sure to take notes, date/time you speak, names, departments and anything else you feel important to the call.

And, if you're interested, I've heard all the sob stories and could paint you a really dismal picture if you needed help with a story to give the creditor.

[slackmaster]

51. I'd rather spend the whole 10K on legal fees than pay a penny of my ex's debts

:argh:

ETA she's a financial "turnip."

[Juneboarder]

55. Okay...

then you'll definitely need a good attorney to fight hard for you in court.

Best of luck to you and I wish you a positive outcome :)

[LittleGirl]

65. similar thing happened to my husband

9 months after his divorce, his ex got a loan from a bank and someone posed as my husband signed the documents (or maybe she signed them) and she claimed they were still married. Hubby didn't discover this until we applied for a home equity loan several years later. The bank told him that she had defaulted and he was asking, defaulted on what? He had to send his divorce decree to prove that they were already divorced when she opened the credit. Signatures didn't match either so they released him from the blot on the credit report and it took about 30 days for it to disappear.

I hope you get this cleared up.

[slackmaster]

78. He probably had to sign an Affidavit of Forgery, and it became a potential criminal case.

I doubt that my ex would have done that, but because B of A can't produce the document we can never be sure.

[ejpoeta]

130. why isn't she charged with forgery?

[slackmaster]

138. Probably because that would take the man off the hook

As long as the issue isn't escalated to a criminal matter, they can keep trying to extort money from him.

[LittleGirl]

145. as you can imagine

the bank will not disclose what charges they brought against her. I told him he should call the police and report her but he said the bank will handle it. My hubby really is a nice guy and he has a soft spot for humans which I love about him. But when it affected our credit, it really ticked me off. I have since softened my stance against her and hope she learned her lesson while she served whatever fine or time in jail. We'll never know and I don't care to worry about a criminal. It was about 4 yrs ago.

[ms.smiler]

67. Slackmaster, do you have any idea how much fraud may be in that

Countrywide mortgage of yours? Like most homeowners, you don’t have a traditional mortgage, you have a securitized mortgage which is a big difference.

I'm sorry but a credit card issue is not the extent of your problems.

Does any amount show for Yield Spread Premium on your Settlement Sheet? Is there a loan origination fee greater than $2,000?

Countrywide never actually passed on the Notes when the loans were sold for securitization so it’s very doubtful that your Note was ever properly & legally pledged to a Trust.

Your original mortgage lien was filed in the land records with MERS as Nominee for Countrywide. The history of the life of your loan was tracked secretly within the MERS database.

Use your MERS MIN number which appears towards the top of the first page of your mortgage.

You can check MERS here: https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

Does Fannie own your loan? http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

Compare that information with what appears in your local land records.

Your loan would have been sold 4 or 5 times prior to supposed securitization and none of those transfers would appear in our public land records breaking the chain of Title to your property.

Do you know which Trust supposedly owns or owned your loan? Bank of America appears to be your mortgage servicer, but who owns the Note? Who actually has a lien on your property in your local land records?

It’s doubtful that Bank of America would answer a Qualified Written Request, but have you ever sent one to them?

Have you read over the Pooling & Servicing agreement for the Trust that governs how payments are applied within the Trust? Have you reviewed the full accounting of your loan rather than just the partial accounting provided to you by your mortgage servicer?

Are you aware of what impact Credit Enhancements and Credit Default Swaps have had on the actual balance due on your loan?

Do you know if your loan is in a functioning Trust or was it part of failed mortgage backed securities that were sold to the U.S. government and Federal Reserve?

I don’t expect that you have an answer for most of my questions. They are though, precisely the very things that any homeowner with a securitized mortgage should be researching.

Fraud in your mortgage can be subject to Treble damages and on that point alone, you could be relieved or your mortgage debt. Since the chain of Title has been broken, you won’t ever receive a valid Deed and clear Title no matter how much money you pay. It also means it is unlikely that any party can prove they own your Note and have a valid lien on your property.

The very fraud that took place on Wall Street with MBS investors is directly connected to your timely paid mortgage loan. Please understand that you do not have a valid mortgage, like me, you have a scam.

Is your attorney knowledgeable about securitized mortgages?

Simply, a securitized mortgage is a sophisticated Wall Street scheme enabling the banks to collect multiple times upon the same debt, via Credit Default Swaps, the American taxpayer and homeowners.


I’ve been researching mortgage/foreclosure fraud for 3 years and recently filed a Quiet Title action against my mortgage servicer. The trial is presently scheduled for May of 2012. I expect to obtain a valid Deed and money damages.

I do not like being scammed.

[slackmaster]

79. My former Countrywide mortgage is fixed-rate, 4.75% with less than 7 years on the term

I recently found out that it's actually owned by Fannie Mae at the moment. I'm not worried about that at all.

The credit card that I never consented to be responsible for is the only issue I have with B of A, other than them being generally assholes.

[ms.smiler]

82. Does Fannie Mae have a lien on your property?

I'll wager at this point that the only document filed in the public land records, is your original mortgage lien with Countrywide. If that is the case, then MERS is holding Title for Countrywide while Fannie owns your loan. You don't see a Title problem in that situation?

How did you learn that Fannie owned your loan? Do you have something in writing?

You did get a good rate, but it's still worth checking the Settlement Sheet.

[slackmaster]

99. Fannie has a Web page where you can enter your address to see if they own a loan on the property

I'll wager at this point that the only document filed in the public land records, is your original mortgage lien with Countrywide.

My original loan was with a company called Mortgage Select, which sold it to Countrywide after one month. I don't understand the point of this side discussion. I have a loan secured by my home, I'm making payments, I intend to keep doing so until I can pay it off, I see no problem with that account. I don't care who owns the note or the servicing rights. The secondary market has been around for decades, and usually it works just fine.

Public records (San Diego County Recorder) have various deeds, not any loan documents. The most recent title change is a grant deed that I wrote and printed off myself - Me, a married man as my sole and separate property deeding the property to me, an unmarried man to satisfy Wells Fargo's underwriting requirements for an equity line. :-) I have copies of all the original loan documents and correspondence for all of the transfers.

My problem is with Bank of America holding me accountable for a revolving credit line for which they have no origin document. An account that I do not believe I am responsible for.

[Enthusiast]

121. Apparently B of A is inherently evil.

Sure sounds like it.

[sunnystarr]

123. You can dispute the debt with the credit reporting agencies

I've worked with many situations identical to yours some years back when I was a mortgage loan officer. I helped many people clean up their credit with the credit reporting agencies. You can dispute the debt in writing and if BoA can't prove to them that it's your debt, the agencies are required to remove it from your credit report. I've had a boatload of credit card debt where a spouse never signed the application removed from their credit report.

[slackmaster]

139. I've just gone through Round 1 of that process. No improvement yet.

No doubt B of A told them "According to our records, he's a co-borrower..."

You are correct that the FDCPA requires the agencies to remove the item if an inquiry results in an uncertain outcome. I do intend to pursue that route.

My best bet seems to be the legal route, getting a court order assigning the debt to my ex. That is in process.

Thank you very much for your encouraging reply.

[Aerows]

137. I work in IT, as well

You are absolutely right that they should keep an image of documents before shredding them.

BoA is a disgrace.

[quakerboy]

104. Nope. Not even for perfect customers are things ok at BOA

I was not late, I was not overdrawn, I never missed a credit card payment. I had plenty of cash in my account. And they still stole money from me. Not in fee's, flat theft, shorting cash (coin) deposits.

[Aerows]

135. I'd bury my money in the back yard

before I'd do business with BoA. They are the nastiest, most evil company that ever existed.

[Politicalboi]

101. Me too

But only for a few years. And I have had times of being over drawn, and they didn't add any fees. I live check to check. And the account is free as long as I have 25 dollars every 30 days to transfer to savings account. And there have been times where I missed that mark, and they did nothing to me. They also have a way to have up to 500 dollars direct deposited in your account, and then collected when you have a direct deposit payment, or you just deposit the money to pay back. They charge $1.50 for every $20.00 loaned. It's saved my ass plenty of times.

[tridim]

23. IMO JPM Chase is the worst of the worst.

The crap they pulled during the bailout is incredible. Most people don't believe me when I tell them the story about WAMU.

[snort]

69. I'd like to hear the WAMU story.

What happened?

[tridim]

75. The WAMU story..

http://wamustory.com

[grasswire]

8. was the media there?

I would report this to Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, and I would tweet it to the skies.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Not only is it heartbreaking, it's just sick and sociopathic on the

part of Wells Fargo and anyone else who assists with the eviction.

Why are they refusing the check?

[bluestateguy]

11. Just from a business standoint that makes little sense

The bank could get $40,000 now, or foreclose on the house and then have an empty house which they will probably have a hard time selling in this market. The value of the house will likely continue to depreciate and the bank will be on the hook for the property taxes too.

[msongs]

12. won't sit empty - they will sell if for HALF what the "owner" owed and screw the "owner" nt

[Romulox]

13. The government backstops all of the banks' losses. Factor that in, and they have an incentive not

to deal.

[hughee99]

21. Could it just be that the people working on this at Wells Fargo

don't have the authority to make that deal and forgive the fact that its a few days late? Either that or they do have the technical authority to do it, but it's a lot of paperwork that they don't want to deal with so the easier thing (for them) is to just foreclose.

[Yo_Mama]

80. Yes, it does

Foreclosure is a legal process, governed by state law. Once you get to a certain point in the process, if you back off and accept payment you'd have to start the process all over again, racking up additional costs in the process.

Now, a back payment of 40K means that the borrowers must be over a year overdue. And the payment was late, so more costs have been racked up in the interim, so it doesn't even get them current any more.

If they could pay the 40K they should have done it sooner. What happened in all the intervening time?

I feel terribly sorry for those who have lost jobs and are losing homes for which they have been making payments for years, and have equity in. (Or had equity in.) But people who dally around and then make the back payments late seem more like those who were trying a unilateral renegotiation, which is not a good way to keep your home.

A lot of people are living in homes on which they haven't been paying for over a year, and then they freak out when foreclosure finally happens? And it's the bank's fault?

In a lot of cases, the entity servicing the loan doesn't have the legal right to accept a late payment once the process has been started. Those who own the loan set the terms, and servicers are acting under contracts. Creditors have already lost a lot of money by the time you get to this stage in the game, and they aren't interested in racking up additional losses.

[abelenkpe]

17. Banks are heartless corporations interested only in their bottom line

If their books didn't rely on mark to fantasy they would be shown to be insolvent. They need to be nationalized. Until they are the madness will continue.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

27. Did you know banks only make money when you're current?

If your loan is not performing, they lose thousands every month. Sure, late charges are piling up, but the likelihood of ever seeing any of that is slim to none. Then there are the attorney's fees, holding costs (taxes, insurance, sometimes property preservation).
See my post below. Foreclosures lose banks money. I've seen it with my own eyes. It is what I do for a living.

[Tsiyu]

18. And the bailouts helped these people how?

This is sickening, really.

A pox on Wells Fargo...

[YellowRubberDuckie]

28. I agree...

We should be helping PEOPLE, not banks.
And someone needs to order these banks to rewrite the mortgages. We had one property with appraisal fraud that appraised a $400,000 home at $2.2 Million. It was SICKENING.

[FarCenter]

19. How long had the house been in foreclosure?

New York Foreclosures Take 3.2 Years

The average time to process a foreclosure in New York State in the third quarter is now 986 days, the longest of any state and a new record for New York. When sales time is added, the time from default to a new owner closes is now 1179 days, or 3.2 years.

U.S. properties foreclosed in the third quarter took an average of 336 days to complete the foreclosure process, up from 318 days in the second quarter and the highest number of days going back to the first quarter of 2007. The second longest average foreclosure process was in New Jersey, at 974 days, and the third longest average foreclosure process was in Florida, at 749 days, according to RealtyTrac's latest Foreclosure Market Report.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Real-Estate/2011/10/13/New-York-Foreclosures-Take-32-Years/5091318534241

---

Wells Fargo is not the speediest bank to foreclose. My daughter and her friends at college rented a house which they found out after moving in was in the process of foreclosure by Wells Fargo. They paid the rent to an escrow account upon advice of student legal services. They lived there a whole school year.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

30. Thank you for facts!

[Lorien]

61. Ah, the 1% speaks.

[quakerboy]

111. Factual yet misleading

That 3.2 years the time from the POV of the bank, until they resell it, and counts a great deal of time with the property sitting empty. The attempted owners portion of that time spend in that home is much lower.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

26. Before you guys freak out.

Let me explain something about foreclosures (I've been working this end of the mortgage industry for over 6 years).
They weren't allowed to accept partial payment. Once a foreclosure/eviction gets so far, they can't accept anything but full payment on either the amount past due or the total pay off of the loan. I know it sucks, but it's not personal. It is business.
Those people could have gone to court when they first received the eviction notice and filed an answer. If their argument was valid, they would have gotten a stay. If not, the court grants possession and gives them a certain amount of time to get out of the property. If they aren't out by that date, they set a lock-out date with the sheriff's office. Most places are so backed up it takes MONTHS to get an eviction date these days.
All of this information is in your mortgage when you sign the papers. If you don't read them or bother to ask any questions, that is not the banks' fault. If you allowed yourself to get into a mortgage you KNEW you wouldn't be able to afford at any point (adjustable rate mortgages, etc), especially if they weren't requiring appraisals or proof of income, while that IS predatory lending, the mortgagor (buyer) is partly to blame for getting themselves into a house that was way too big and expensive for them to own. If you're unemployed, just so you know, if you have an FHA or a VA loan, they have unemployment plans. All you have to do is call them.
If you guys have any questions about this, I'd be more than happy to explain it. But the bottom line is if you don't pay for your mortgage, you can't keep your house. While I think most banks ARE the devil, I also know that they can't just give people houses. A contract is a contract and if you don't follow through with your end of the bargain, you know what is going happen. And if you get a letter in the mail advising that your rate is about to adjust and is going shoot through the roof, you normally have plenty of time to find someone to refinance you at a fixed rate.

PLEASE NOTE: For every property we foreclose on, we lose THOUSANDS of dollars. I'm not sure where the idea that foreclosures was a booming business making banks money came from, I'm not sure. I see our bottom line (we service loans for Citimortgage, Wells Fargo and others), and they lose THOUSANDS, sometimes HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS on some of these properties. Some loans have mortgage insurance, but that only covers like 25% of the principal balance). I've only seen three make money so far this year, and that was only because of insurance money. And in every case like that, we send the money over the amount of the payoff back to the mortgagor. When what we call an REO (real estate owned) property makes money, everyone gets really nervous. Seriously.
Duckie

[Defectata]

29. when business becomes predatory, it IS personal

[YellowRubberDuckie]

31. I know the people in our foreclosure department.

We don't know our customers from Adam. Maybe origination was predatory, but the back end where we foreclose and evict is not. I live it every day! We treat every single one the same. And I know they try to get them loss mitigation for MONTHS before they even START foreclosure. But a lot of these people don't want to have to do anything for the loss mitigation, like go over their income and expenses and send in documentation. And then they lose their home and flip their lid. I see it every day. While most people are awesome, I can tell you some serious stories of people who just wanted us to give them everything and not make them qualify. Then they'd think it was welfare so they'd fudge the numbers to make themselves NOT qualify. Once you tell them that they had to qualify THEN you'd get truth out of them and documentation to back it up.
I swear to you, I treat everyone who calls my phone the same. It is not personal. It is business. And while I have a lot I can do, my hands are tied by banking regulations and mortgage contracts.
Duckie

[abelenkpe]

46. I'd get another job. nt

[YellowRubberDuckie]

52. Jobs are few and far between in this economy.

And while we are the lowest paid in the industry, I just got a raise and a promotion.
Duckie

[abelenkpe]

58. Yeah I know

I just couldn't do that. No offense, it would break my heart.

I got a raise too. But I just make pretty moving pictures. Not for everyone.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

70. I don't love it.

But I do like it. I could make sure people were treated right. But do you have any idea how many times I was taken advantage of? It's a Catch 22.
Duckie

[davidthegnome]

87. So untie them Duckie

Easy for me to say, right? I don't have your job. I'm a weekend, night time dishwasher for a local restaurant in a small town. I make about 50 bucks a week, some times 65 if I'm lucky. Not too bad for a kid, not so good when you're only a couple years away from 30.

I could possibly have a job working for corporate America... for a time I did. I made a lot more money, had a car that didn't constantly break down that I didn't have to beg my friends to figure out how to fix without it costing me three hundred bucks. Yet every day the stress of my work - the knowledge that I was working for companies that were absolute slime (obviously I can't go into too much detail) was driving me out of what little sanity I still possess.

I'm always broke now, I live with mom and dad - all my financial plans for the future are in utter ruin. Yet somehow... I'm a lot happier. Perhaps I wouldn't be if I was starving, or homeless, and had no one to lean on.

If you think banks are the devil, if you hate the foreclosure business, then why are you working with them? I'm not trying to judge you, only suggesting that you could find a decent job, probably even one that pays reasonably, without having to compromise so much. A change in employment can be the difference between night and day. I hate myself a lot less than I used to.

[bengalherder]

105. I'm glad for you.

In the throes of the Reagan Years I decided I liked small restaurants better than big business. We used to joke about how we were going to have a job when everything went pear-shaped. If you like it enough, consider learning cooking. Better work, better pay, better hours and you are learning a trade. Trades are good to have, even if you wind up doing something else. Cooking allows this artist a sense of creation and the satisfaction of doing a worthwhile job.


I love the zen of dishwashing and hope to someday be the white female equivalent of the black philosopher dishwasher who gives everyone advice in the movie "Waiting". Or I wouldn't mind turning out like the guy (can't remember his name, sorry) with the hole in the wall in New York who smokes all day in his kitchen and cooks whatever he wants. Either would be fun.

[IdaBriggs]

45. You are only seeing one end of it.

The other end is where they get reimbursed for the foreclosure.

Here in the Detroit area, we had one company doing $29K in renovations to properties that were bull-dozed three weeks after the paperwork was submitted. They were reimbursed the $29K in "repair" costs, and then paid for the "increased value" of the homes. (I spoke with one of the contractors who was livid when he found out the work he had done was demolished.)

Just one of MANY stories. The problem is that scamming the government is paying better than keeping mortgages. :(

[YellowRubberDuckie]

53. THAT is not my mortgage company.

I can't speak for the stupidity of someone else. But something sounds awfully fishy and not like good business practice.

[MedicalAdmin]

127. Dearest Duck,

You only know what your division of the one company that you work for is doing. Sure they lose money on paper at this one end, but there is another division of your company that works the other end. Either in vulture acquisitions of property blocks at pennies on the dollar or some other scam. And let's not forget thatthey want those write downs - how else will they justify future bailouts?

[IdaBriggs]

169. The "interesting" part was that the figure of $29K was specifically

adhered to, as the rules for oversight change at $30K of repairs. Clever, yes?

When scamming the government out of money is more profitable than doing your business, management will change the business model to the one that a) costs less to run, and b) makes more money; after all, "everyone else" is doing it, so....

Sigh...

[progressoid]

54. So...

"Once a foreclosure/eviction gets so far, they can't accept anything but full payment"
---Cant accept or Won't accept?


but it's not personal. It is business.
---The problem with mentality is it ignores that it IS personal. There are persons involved - they aren't machines or commodities. To pretend otherwise is delusional and dishonest.


For every property we foreclose on, we lose THOUSANDS of dollars.
---If that is true, why not take the 40K offer and re-negotiate terms? The home owner can continue making payments and the bank avoids losing "thousands"?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

72. Well...

"Once a foreclosure/eviction gets so far, they can't accept anything but full payment"
---Cant accept or Won't accept?
D--Can't. THERE ARE RULES. We have rescinded a few sales, but mostly because someone in our office, normally in Loss Mitigation or Collections, screwed up.


but it's not personal. It is business.
---The problem with mentality is it ignores that it IS personal. There are persons involved - they aren't machines or commodities. To pretend otherwise is delusional and dishonest.
D--Business decisions in our office are not based on anything other than if someone is paying their mortgage or not. I'm sorry you somehow find that despicable, but that is how BUSINESS WORKS.

For every property we foreclose on, we lose THOUSANDS of dollars.
---If that is true, why not take the 40K offer and re-negotiate terms? The home owner can continue making payments and the bank avoids losing "thousands"?
D--That is what loss mitigation is for. If they can't afford to keep their house, they can't get loss mitigation and it goes into foreclosure. If they aren't proactive with the loss mitigation, then the house goes into foreclosure. Some people want you to just give them everything. Seriously. Do you have any idea how many times I have been taken advantage of? It's sickening. I am always listening to you guys talk about how horrible mortgage companies are for taking peoples' homes. Until you can see the manipulation and entitlement mentalities of some of these people, I do not think you will actually understand where I'm coming from.

Maybe sometimes it gets personal, but it NEVER starts out that way.
Duckie

[progressoid]

140. Ok...

"Once a foreclosure/eviction gets so far, they can't accept anything but full payment"
---Cant accept or Won't accept?
D--Can't. THERE ARE RULES. We have rescinded a few sales, but mostly because someone in our office, normally in Loss Mitigation or Collections, screwed up.
P--Ah, so it's a company rule then. A rule that can be changed if the company wants. OK.


but it's not personal. It is business.
---The problem with mentality is it ignores that it IS personal. There are persons involved - they aren't machines or commodities. To pretend otherwise is delusional and dishonest.
D--Business decisions in our office are not based on anything other than if someone is paying their mortgage or not. I'm sorry you somehow find that despicable, but that is how BUSINESS WORKS.
P--This is how your business works (and many others). I'm self-employed and I do not work like that. Many of my clients don't work like that. However, I do have some problems occasionally with intractable and difficult businesses to work with...they are usually financial institutions.


For every property we foreclose on, we lose THOUSANDS of dollars.
---If that is true, why not take the 40K offer and re-negotiate terms? The home owner can continue making payments and the bank avoids losing "thousands"?
D--That is what loss mitigation is for. If they can't afford to keep their house, they can't get loss mitigation and it goes into foreclosure. If they aren't proactive with the loss mitigation, then the house goes into foreclosure. Some people want you to just give them everything. Seriously. Do you have any idea how many times I have been taken advantage of? It's sickening. I am always listening to you guys talk about how horrible mortgage companies are for taking peoples' homes. Until you can see the manipulation and entitlement mentalities of some of these people, I do not think you will actually understand where I'm coming from.
P--Interesting, the answer you provided (and others down thread) shows that this is personal. Clearly you also take this personally even though you say its just business. A lot of us piled on you only because of the job you have. Good luck in your endeavors.

:hug:

[Mimosa]

142. YellowRubberDuckie, some of us understand and appreciate the information

Thanks. I'm aware there are ways to work out situations. I hope the gov will try to use some of the 'rescue' funds to do principle reductions, but it soesn't look like that will happen.

[BOG PERSON]

59. if american finance is a crocodile

then you are the crocodile bird .

[YellowRubberDuckie]

73. I don't think I deserve that.

[jtuck004]

106. I think the industry earned it.

by encouraging myths such as how the American consumer bears much, if any, of the responsibility for the fiancial crisis. The only way that is possible is to neglect the responsibility for years of ongoing fraud in the creation and foreclosure of the mortgages in the first place.

From the post above...

"...If you don't read them or bother to ask any questions, that is not the banks' fault. If you allowed yourself to get into a mortgage you KNEW you wouldn't be able to afford at any point (adjustable rate mortgages, etc), especially if they weren't requiring appraisals or proof of income, while that IS predatory lending, the mortgagor (buyer) is partly to blame for getting themselves into a house that was way too big and expensive for them to own...."

Nothing personal, but...

It's quite clear that there was massive control fraud, here, in the originations by the banks. Not ONE case has been prosecuted, even though so much is known that the FHFA recently filed a lawsuit against 17 banks for civil damages and laid out all the documents. Those fees weren't enough and we see massive fraud in transferring the properties for foreclosure (MERS), at such scale that the Attorney General of the United States is now trying to broker a deal to absolve these corps of criminal responsibility, both in the past and in the future. Aided and abetted by people in the administration such as the head of the Federal Reserve who tells us that it is "unlikely" that housing is going lower, that automobiles look like a growing area, 2005... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INmqvibv4UU">here. There were, and are, ordinary homeowners and flippers who tried, and try, to game the system, but they weren't, and aren't, anywhere near the number of ordinary people who just wanted to own a home.

By 2006, half of all subprime loans were "liars loans". What many people fail to grasp is that is THE MORTAGE INDUSTRY'S TERM FOR THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR. The borrower did not have any control over underwriting, or failure to apply standards, they didn't sit on the boards of these organizations, (who, we now know, only wanted the fees - never cared what would happen to the loan, since that was investors money). These ordinary homeowners had no input into the opinions the banks paid the rating agencies to produce. All of those areas produced the profit for the banksters and their friends, the rating agencies, some wealthy investors, and now the foreclosure industry. The homeowner gets tossed into the street. I am reminded, the criminal is, most often, the one left with the money.

Maybe these good people would not have "allowed themselves to get" into something they should not have if the above mentioned government officials had told us that they were colluding with the wealthy to strip us of our assets, that we would be losing 700,000 jobs a month within just a couple of years, that millions of people's lives would be shattered, many permanently, and that it would persist and grow worse for many in another administration. Maybe then these "buyers" who the post above calls on as being "partly to blame" could have made better decisions.

Yes, the banks lose money on assets such as these. One wonders how much of that money they stole in the first place? Crocodile tears...

(And we haven't even spoken of the harm done to perfectly innocent bystanders from the carnage visited on their neighbors as they watch their home values shrink in inverse proportion to the number of foreclosure signs in their neighborhood.)

Should these homeowners have seen through all the above, seen it coming? Realized early on that they were on their way to indentured servitude or the loss of their home?

Perhaps. Or maybe we should be thankful the President said he would protect the banks against the torches and pitchforks of the working person here?

Now, of course, it's in the hands of the foreclosers who cite policy as if it came from the Constitution. (I know, above your pay grade).

(Just fyi, it's been my experience that while it might be useful to think just picking up a fetid, brown, dripping, piece of waste may be something that is necessary to do, it may rub off on one a stink that a mere shower won't remove. Little smelly particles find their way onto your skin in places you don't think to look. It takes a while to wear off, and sometime can bring along a virus that turns the part it touches just as black and dead as the thing it came from).

I very much hate when attempts are made to shift the blame, for the theft that led to trillions of dollars of wealth disappearing from our economy to homeowners when it is clear that they have been, largely, the victims. And while I understand the reason, (it's easier to blame them than the people that provide a paycheck), I think many people have a tendancy to rationalize their part in oppression far easier than they should. Just ask Stanley Milgram.

So nothing personal, (really not - Of my neighbors next door one person works for just above min wage at a blood bank and when the partner needed a new job it was found - you guessed it - working for one of the banks in a foreclosure department. I'm just glad they found something and didn't have to move from their rental). This is directed toward an industry that may have a few decent people mixed in, though I fear they might get some of that "blaming the owners" attitude on them, not knowing, and maybe it doesn't get washed off like they think.

But it all lends understanding to the quote by Jay Gould who wasn't worried about his grab for wealth, because he could "hire one half the working class to kill the other half".

Until we figure out how to all come together, that's probably one of the truest things anyone has ever said about Americans.

[joshcryer]

64. "It's not personal, it's just business."

The single most vile concept to ever enter market relationships.

Yes, it's fucking personal, it's always personal. When you are broke, sitting with nothing, and an eviction notice is tacked to your door, it's one of the most personal, devaluing, degrading things you can ever experience.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

74. Josh, I did this personally.

Before I even request an eviction, I call and speak to the occupants of the property. We have offered up to $3000 to people if they will clean up their house to help them start over.
And do you know how many times I've worked my butt off just to be taken advantage of at some point? About 80% of the time. Honestly, people suck. It never starts out personal, but a lot of times it turns out that way. I always start out helpful and willing to go that extra mile. It doesn't always end up that way.
If people are really as desperate and degraded and devalued as you say, don't you think they'd treat that one person who is treating them with respect and trying to help them start over again great? But they don't. A lot of times they do and they're thankful and sweet. But most of the time, at the end of the day, I feel like I've been run over by a bus. It's confusing and hurtful. The truth is, you could give someone $5000, but they'd bitch that they had to do something (clean their own house) to get it.
Duckie

[JVS]

83. When you say people are taking advantage of you, what do you mean?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

128. I have made deals with people to let them stay in their homes...

...for free until they could find someplace else to live. One lady ended up destroying the place before she left. And when the agent showed the house she would be sure to just happen to come home to early and mention that it had termites or foundation issues, neither of which were true. She was never trying to find a new place, she was just taking advantage of my kindness. I eventually had to evict her.
On another occasion, I negotiated a higher amount for someone. The only thing we ask is that they leave the house in broom swept condition and take all of their trash with them. The rule with the agent who did it is if he has to remove any trash himself, the people don't get the money. They had taken everything and shoved it into a closet off the basement that was pretty much hidden. They get the check and take off. Agent goes poking around to winterize the property and starts to smell something in the basement. Does a little bit of investigation and finds all the crap in the closet, which included dog feces and rotten garbage. Luckily he put a stop payment on the check so fast they didn't have a chance to cash it.
When I worked in loss mitigation, people would get pissed off at me when I didn't treat them like they were at a car lot buying a car instead of me trying to save their house. I'm a nice person, but don't for a second think I'm going to kiss your ass so that I can save your house. My favorite one was the lady who screamed at me for ten minutes because I wanted her house, but she was the one who spent $400 a month for cigarettes. Her house payment was $379.50. She and I had a come to Jesus talk. Don't yell at me because your priorities are not your kids and a roof over their heads.
Do you want me to go on?

[JVS]

150. Thanks. I was just curious about what kinds of things you were able to offer.

It does indeed appear that these people take their frustration out on you.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

160. i think people on DU see everyone who loses their home as down on their luck, sweet individuals.

That is not the case. Sure. Most of the people are. But some of them think we owe them something. There are some really horrible people out there looking for a handout. While that is thankfully the exception and not the rule, I tend to get the worst of the worst because I get the escalated issues.
Duckie

[griffi94]

97. over 80% of the time?

that tells me it's personal to somebody, even if it is just business to you.
and the it's just business argument is why the middle class has been outsourced to places where
the prevailing wage is $3.00 a day... it's not personal, it's just business.
glad you're doing well. congrats on the promotion and the raise...i understand you're just following orders.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

129. If you will reread my post I said it doesn't start out personal, but it does turn out that way.

It's really stupid, the outsourcing, I'm not arguing that, but we were talking about mortgage companies and foreclosures and I was trying to clear it up from the normal person's perspective on the other side.

[duhneece]

131. "It's not personal" translates to you're not a person

so we don't have to treat you humanely.

[Remember Me]

93. Let ME explain something about foreclosure

They weren't allowed to accept partial payment. Once a foreclosure/eviction gets so far, they can't accept anything but full payment on either the amount past due or the total pay off of the loan.

Says who? There's no LAW that says that. It's policy, not law, and policies can be changed. And even laws can be changed -- or ignored in many cases.


I know it sucks, but it's not personal. It is business.

And explains why capitalism has to be transformed, or eradicated. This is unacceptable in a civilized world.

[meow2u3]

98. The Mafia says the same thing before they whack you

It's not personal. Just business.

But does that make it right? No. AFAIC, the banks are the Wall Street Mafia and need to be dealt with like any other organized crime syndicate.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

162. I didn't say I agree with any of it...

...I'm just telling you how it is.
There may not be a law, but there are regulations. If we accept any funds at that point, we have accepted a settlement and they can take their house back.
I think we need to get rid of capitalism. Just because I'm a cog in the machine doesn't mean I think it's all hunky dorry. I agree with you. I'm just telling you what we can and can't do.
Duckie

[quakerboy]

112. A question

Do you think the owners of these loans end up getting more of the money loaned back by

A) Booting people via foreclosure, sitting on an empty property for a year or more, and selling in the current market
b) Modifying loans via a combination of interest rate changes and writing off some percentage of the loan in order to make it affordable to a person who still has income to pay, but cannot for whatever reason manage the original payment structure?

Sure, there are some situations where a person will never, no matter how lenient the bank is in changing terms, be able to pay off the note they signed for. Sometimes people have gone from good income to absolutely no income. Some absolutely lied on their applications.

But it seems to me that most of what I have seen are people overreaching just a bit. The average home loan is something like 181k. At the 9% of 2000, that's 1,400, but if you drop it to 4%, that drops to 900. Which is comparable to what someone might pay for rent, and seems to me might be able to allow a significant portion of people to keep paying. and thats without touching the principle. Which is also possible.

If I were a on the loaning end of a mortgage I would far rather get paid back at a lower interest rate, or take a hit on the principle than to lose 3/4 of my investment outright, which is what I have watched happen around here (a place just down the street went for a few k under 1/4 of the 2007 price)

[YellowRubberDuckie]

161. We have one of the largest Loss mitigation departments in the country.

We make more money modifying loans because we get incentives from HUD, VA and our investors. If it is a fixed rate, they cannot adjust the interest rate, but they can extend the mortgage back out as long as the note has existed, like say if they got their loan in 2001, we can extend the term 10 years and add their past due balance to unpaid principal, which lowers the payment and sometimes allows people to stay in their homes. This is always the first route we choose. We send out mailers with applications for it. But in this economy, people have gone to zero income and will not qualify to keep their home and that is tragic.

We ALWAYS lose money in foreclosures. I am not sure how these other banks are making money, according to the media, because you spend more money foreclosing and selling at a loss because you are not going to sell that property for what you loaned for it. The market has tanked and in some areas continues to tank so much we have lost MILLIONS. It is insane. Yes, I do know that we deduct it as a loss on our taxes, but that's the way it works for all businesses.

I do know that institutions like Freddie Mac have started renting properties to the people occupying them for an unset amount of time.
We do honor leases. We also have a few a multiple unit properties. We allow the people to stay, draw up a new lease for the same rent as before if they were tenants and we let them stay. Multiple unit properties sell better when they are occupied. It is an immediate income source for whoever buys the property.

I think at this point in order to get out alive, the banks really need to start lowering interest rates and redoing appraisals. And they should have required the banks who got the bailouts to do just that. It would have helped everyone all around. It's just silly they gave them all that money free and clear with no caveats other than to pay it back with interest.

[quakerboy]

164. Thats what I expected

I would imagine that the money made by banks is because they are not owning, but acting as middle men, and they get a cut of whatever comes in. monthly mortgage is 1400 or so, but the foreclosure and resale brings in a bigger chunk now, even if far less than what the loan might over its natural span. And insurance of various types. But that's a guess

Curious: with the number of foreclosures, how many do you think/observe to be attached to complete loss of income? How many will not be able to afford to even rent a place, vs how many have taken a pay cut, but could still afford to pay a reasonably adjusted amount?

Also: when you say "If it is a fixed rate, they cannot adjust the interest rate", I would like more info. Is there a law that says they cannot? Or is it an internal rule? Or just operating principle?

I think it needs to be a complete haircut, all around. The banks made a bad investment, then sold it to others to take the fall. There needs to be something compelling the banks to start making deals. Adjusting interest rates on existing loans should not even be a question, much less a challenge. The loan is already made, whether it was a good loan or not, the risk of that loan defaulting is not increased by an interest reduction. But I also think they need to start doing principle reduction.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

165. I'm going to say most are loss of income.

I've seen it all over the board though. We have a lot of rentals where renters are paying their rent, but the owners are pissing it away and not paying their mortgages. We have several where people just don't have priorities. But most are loss of income. You go from $4000 a month to nothing and you are just screwed. Because we live in a society where we spend as much as we make and hardly save. Many people end up living with family or friends. They simply have no where to go. It's easier to take the time and get evicted and move in with their mom and dad than to take money and rent an apartment they can't pay for either.

As for the fixed rate, I believe it is in banking regulations. There are a lot of legalities in your mortgage/deed of trust and Note when you buy a house that dictates what can and cannot be done at any point in the life of the loan. It's an agreement between the buyer and the lender that dictates the rules. It is, of course, skewed towards the lender.

We do a lot of servicing for other companies and all of our losses on those are insured by our investor or master servicer.

I do agree with you that they need to start doing principal reduction. I think they are loathe to do that because the new appraisals are going to be so much lower I don't think they'd ever allow that to happen. California, Georgia and Florida pose some serious problems with loss of value and mortgage fraud.

[quakerboy]

168. Hmm

Your last point first: that's inane. Yeah, appraisals are going to be lower. But heres the thing. If I have a mortgage for 200k, and the market value has dropped to 100k, I am underwater. But if you drop the principal to 150, I am not more underwater, I am not more likely to default. It decreases risk.

See, what I have seen, the 5 foreclosures that I have personal knowledge of, are mostly decreased income or increased payments.

1) Persons income remained steady, bills increased
2) persons income dropped just a bit
3) persons income dropped just a bit
4) persons income increased, but not enough to keep up with payments that were initially funded out of a temporary funding source
5) person never had income, complete lie to get the place, intentional fraud.


#5 clearly was never planning to pay. They were jerks, and should be in jail for other things, but are expert in manipulating the legal system for gain and defense. I have no issue with their eviction. Then again, the banks should have maybe looked into who they were lending to before they gave away other peoples money.
1, 2, 3, 4 all would have loved to keep their homes. And would have given up a lot to do it, probably more than they should have. All of them made unfortunate decisions, 1 and 4 particularly. 1,3,4 were all radically under informed in financial circumstances and really did not understand what they were getting into.

Of those, an interest reduction alone would have kept 2,3, and 4 in their homes and paying their mortgage. 1 probably would have required a principle decrease as well.

But instead they take 50-75% cuts, with the cost of foreclosure and a year of no payments in the middle. And if business has proven anything to us, its that they can and will attempt alter contracts whenever they see a benefit in doing so. And, as I understand it, any contract between two parties can be changed if both parties agree to the change. So the argument about banking regulations does not hold much water, as far as I can tell. Especially after so many modifications on the table in connection to the government plan and approval to do them were denied for no apparent reason.

I vacillate between what I think is at the root of it. Is it banks being greedy, not caring if the actual investors(I assume most of the money actually belongs to people with accounts, pension funds invested in securities, that sort of thing rather than being actual bank money.) lose out? Is there actual high level collusion to bring down the economy and destroy any power the working class might have had? Is it purely bureaucratic idiocy, unnecessarily ruining lives rather than working out deals that would benefit both attempted home owners and investors?

[truedelphi]

117. First off, maybe your last point, that every property that your bank forecloses on

Causes your bank a loss of so many thousands of dollars may not be true. There are rumors from several legit sources that there has been insurance issued to protect the banks, so they can recoup the full value of the house when it had a higher value, via that insurance payment, but they can only recoup that value if they foreclose, and they avoid short sales, and they avoid people keeping their homes.

Maybe your department didn't get told that, just as the Hawai'i bank that employed Barack Obama's grandma as a manager back in the sixties didn't mention to her that it did a whole lot of laundering of tainted drug money.

But believe me, there are advantages to the inner directors' circle that the plebians in the various departments at the banks don't know about.

Second of all, every single person I know of that has struggled to keep their homes has been told so many different and contradictory things about what to do in order to keep their home that there really should be legislation to simply ban foreclosures. During the Great Depression, over thirty five state banned foreclosures outright (involving residences used as homes.)

You say: Those people could have gone to court when they first received the eviction notice and filed an answer. If their argument was valid, they would have gotten a stay. If not, the court grants possession and gives them a certain amount of time to get out of the property. If they aren't out by that date, they set a lock-out date with the sheriff's office. Most places are so backed up it takes MONTHS to get an eviction date these days.

On another site I saw a ten page description of how to deal with keeping your home. It was ten pages in length, that helps people wade through the various steps needed to deal with the banks.

And in the end, some people still have no relief unless they approach their local Congress person. And although it would seem to people who aren't caught up in the foreclosure process that having a year or even two years to deal with this stuff would be helpful, it often isn't. People are told that certain things have to happen. They make them happen.

Then they have to make sure that various departments at their bank record these maneuvers. The bank usually stalls. Then they finally get everything recorded properly and just as they start to relax, the banks conveniently lose the records that the family worked so hard to get in order. So they are starting out at point zero, having to do everything all over again.

One thing that can help anyone dealing with all of this is to tell whatever person at the bank they are talking to that the phone conversation is being recorded. And then make sure it is recorded. Banks are less likely to lie to you when you can prove to them that you have had someone at the bank verbally sign off on some maneuver that was required.

Perhaps later this week I will set up an OP using the statements from one of my neighbors, who narrowly avoided foreclosure, through a process that took her two and a half years!

And in conclusion, let's remember that every single person from Geithner on down, who helped set up the USA's economy so that it continually is a bubble economy has suffered not at all. (Except for Bernie Madoff and a few others.) Yep, all those who implemented policy are enjoying their their new Mercedes, the new home in Aspen, and in the case of Goldman Sachs, a brand new nature preserve in Patagonia, brought to them by the Bailout monies of those of us who are trying to keep our homes and businesses afloat.

WHY THE HELL ARE THOSE WHO SCREWED OUR ECONOMY IN GREAT SHAPE, WHILE THE mostly Middle Class FOLLOWERS ARE PENALIZED?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

163. I've done those claims to what is called PMI Insurance actually.

They only cover 25%-40% of the unpaid principal balance and they don't allow us that entire amount. And the losses are much, much higher than that.

Let me say that I'm not saying I think this is a great system. I'm a cog in a machine that I know is broken. But I just got out of the Real Estate Owned department at our bank, and I will tell you something. I have seen the losses. It was my job to help make decisions to mitigate those losses as much as possible. Yes, we have insurance policies, but none of those allow us to make money on any of them.

I would also like to point out that any property that we got from foreclosure due to the Hurricanes that we made any money on, the difference between breaking even and what we made off the property was sent back to the original mortgagor. I hope that shows you how different of a company I work for. I tracked down several people and sent one of those people $30,000 in one case. I think he about wet himself he was so shocked I called to find him to give him our profit. =)
Duckie

[truedelphi]

166. The losses you see as being tremendously significant are nothing

As compared to the losses that have been creaed by the gambles using derivatives and other exotic instruments from 1999 to last year. Our populace has suffered due to the fact that the mortgage losses may total twenty trillion, if even that. (I am estimating on the high side.)

But the losses that the world economy has suffered are believed to amount to a half a quadrillion of dollars (In terms of USA' dollars.) These were not losses that came about because foolish silly poor people bought homes when they shouldn't have. They were losses brought about because of the repeal of Glass Steagall and all the other nonsense contained in various banking reform measures that were approved as legislation from 1990 on.

A half quadrillion of dollars lost through the exotic instruments used by banks and financial firms is equal to five hundred trillion dollars of losses. Were someone to attempt to make repayment of these amounts to the big firms that holds theese losses, using paper money, there is not enough physical matter in the world to make the payment possible. You would have to knock down every tree, shrub bush and leaf of grasss and still you wouldn't have the paper to create the dollars to pay the sum back.

But people like Ben Bernnake have learned little from all of this. Ben is probably still creating digitaized accounts of tens of billions of dollars to help out his buddies on Wall Street, and his friends across the globe. And although the banks and financial firms say that they "paid back" the some nine trillions of dolalrs that the audit of the Federal Reserve showed had been created as loans to them, they use piles of investment papers as payback, which would be like me "paying off" my loans by sending the credit card companies my old telephone books.

[isuphighyeah]

32. Sickening. n/t

[Vinca]

37. Get in on the front page of the local paper and hope the national press picks it up.

Email Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow and whoever else you can think of. Ask your Congressperson to intervene (if you've got a sane one). SCREAM!

[MorningGlow]

39. The local paper can't be bothered

They're too busy doing feature stories on rich assholes in Pittsford (our wealthy suburb).

[dajoki]

41. Rotten banks have all the power, disgusting n/t

[hedgehog]

43. If nothing else, it's damn stupid. What bank needs one more foreclosed house?

[crazyjoe]

47. that means they were well over $40,000 behind in the mortgage.

how long did they live there for free? years? How long would they have to live there mortgage/tax free until you wouldn't shed a tear?
I love these "one sided" stories.

[rhett o rick]

56. And I love it when someone sides with the 1%. Poor banks. nm

[Yo_Mama]

84. The 1% don't own most the mortgages in the country

You know who does? Pension funds. So the "predatory rich" are really the retiree next door living on a modest pension.

[Remember Me]

89. No, the 1% were just the ones who devised and packaged those

"invesetment instruments" and then sold them to the pension funds, making a bazillion dollars for THEMSELVES while pawning off worthless "investments." Just another case of privatizing profits while socializing the inevitable costs when they go kaboom! and are worth nothing.

[rhett o rick]

132. You if you lose your home, you only have yourself to blame. Is this Herman Cain?

Pension funds are not predatory, it's the banksters and insurance companies. The committed fraud and are not being held accountable for it.

[Enthusiast]

124. Me too.

[joshcryer]

66. I wish we had a link, I can't find the story, but it's a perfectly reasonable concept.

Mortgage doubles because it wasn't fixed. Previously it was something like $1000 and it jumped to $2000. Volia, 3 years is close to $40,000 if you make half payments the whole time because you feel that you're being ripped off because the rate doubled and the house value dropped in half.

[Nikia]

71. A friend's family is facing foreclosure

They are about $10,000 behind, but the bank is demanding the $80,000 owed on the house. They passed the deadline for making the $10,000 payment.

[Yo_Mama]

81. Well, that is what happens

I mean, depending on the state, you are going to have a certain time to cure the delinquency, and then the mortgage is accelerated and you have to pay in full, or the creditor goes through the foreclosure process.

They probably can hire a lawyer and file BK to stop it and get more time to pay, but it depends on whether they really can pay the debt. This economy has inflicted a lot of damage on people's finances, and a lot of people can't pay the debt.

[rhett o rick]

136. It's sounding like that's ok with you. The banksters making billions off the hardship of others.

I live in a small town and work at the foodbank. The number of people picking up food at the foodbank has declined because more and more people are eating at soup kitchens because they are living in shelters, tents and cars. But the banksters are getting richer and richer. To a libertarian, the poor people should just die sooner.

So how do you feel about this?

[Yo_Mama]

158. Struggling with depression and have been since fall 2006

And I'm not talking about economic depression, either. In 2005 I was worried. In fall of 2006 I went to do an audit on a bank, looked at the split in their loan files between different types of lending, and came home in an instant depression, and I've hardly emerged since.

If you don't like my attitude of realism, tough. Wishful thinking is how we got into this mess. I've never seen it do much for anyone.

Most loans in default now (by total numbers) are "prime" loans. This wave of defaults is related to a bad economy and dropping real incomes. People giving out interest-only loans or Option ARM loans caused a lot of economic problems, and those economic problems have diffused across the economy. But those who took these types of loans are also part of the problem. If you take out an interest-only loan, you are speculating. If you take out an Option ARM loan, you are speculating.

If you speculate, sometimes you lose. That has to be true for the speculator as well as the entity providing money to be used in speculation - otherwise the inevitable crashes would be much greater.

The original post says that these people have had the house for 12 years, so they bought it before 2000. Thus they didn't buy at an inflated value, did they? Perhaps they cashed out and increased their original mortgage. Perhaps they fell into financial difficulties, and had to do so. Perhaps, as so many did, they cashed out in order to send a child to college. Perhaps they still have the original mortgage and just are having trouble paying it, as a result of a bad economy, or maybe now being retired on a reduced income.

But regardless, to place all the blame on the creditor to whom they owe the loan seems pointless, and if those who seem to think like you succeeded in allowing everyone to default and get their loans reduced, the next generation would have to come up with 50% downpayments to buy a home, so I think some of the outrage expressed in this thread is off-base and ill-considered. It's the flip-side of the bad thinking that allowed this crisis to develop.

The remedy for a national outbreak of wishful thinking and speculation is not more wishful thinking. Low interest mortgages are only available because creditors can foreclose if the borrowers cannot pay the mortgage - that is the meaning of secured credit. To attempt to frustrate that mechanism only makes mortgages more difficult to get, and ultimately will involve more people in the disaster.

I have worked in banking for a long time. In 2005, we made a decision that we would not provide these types of speculative loan instruments in our software, even though Fannie was now providing these loan programs. Because of our stand, we lost many customers. But we wouldn't do so because it ultimately would be very destructive. We did not want to be part of the destruction.

The reason we lost so many customers is that our banks (and CUs) were unable to keep selling mortgages. These "innovative" products were what the borrowers wanted.

Therefore, to put it bluntly, I do not accept that the individuals who took out these loans are free of responsibility, or that they should be able to keep their homes if it requires the creditors to write down their loans. They were irresponsible when they took out the loan, and they are not nearly as likely to pay the loan off long term as a new responsible borrower. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. There is a saying in the banking industry "Your first loss is your best loss."

Whatever you think of me, none of our banks who stayed with us has gone under. Every single one of those that left has already folded. We must have been doing something right, huh? I won't work for large banks, because I don't like them. I always worked with small financial institutions with principles. They serve an important function. I don't like to see that function destroyed, because it makes society as a whole poor. But not one of those banks could survive if people got in trouble paying their loans just stopped paying and the bank had to renegotiate. Not one. The banks don't like to foreclose. They do work with the borrower if the borrower can repay - but a lot of times now the borrower can't. It's the incomes, or the lack of them.

What's truly tragic is that the bad borrowers were allowed to push out the good. Because these types of speculative mortgages were available, many persons who just wanted to buy a home to live in were forced to buy at greatly inflated rates. Many of those people have now seen their investment depreciate, and their savings evaporate. And if they were hit in the downturn, they may have experienced foreclosure and lost their downpayments and most of their principal paid. It's awful.

I feel very sorry for the borrowers in the original post, because they are probably just caught in the general disaster. But unlike you, I have enough background to know that if they failed in the loss mitigation process four times, they either didn't have the income to pay the mortgage or weren't willing to pay what their income showed they should be able to pay, so they are doomed to lose the home anyway - and I'd rather that they walk away KEEPING that 40K than pay it over and lose the home regardless.

[rhett o rick]

167. Banks were encouraging people to "speculate" on a healthy economy. Many of us have done that over

the years. That's what you do when you take out a mortgage, you "speculate" that you will still have a job. But you seem to side with the banks that now own homes that are sitting empty while people are living in tents. The banksters all got rich and people are living in tents. I am not an expert in economics but I sure the hell know when something aint right.

[RegieRocker]

148. Certain states? In missouri you have 1 year to buy the house back

after foreclosure.

[ms.smiler]

50. Please check the local land records which can often be done online

Most likely, there are MERS documents involved. The original mortgage lien was filed in our public records and the life of the mortgage was tracked privately and secretly within the MERS database. Then, after the supposed default, the mortgage servicing company likely filed a fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage and now claims to own the loan which in this case is Wells Fargo.

If there are documents in the Title history which have anyone signing as a MERS Vice President or Assistant Secretary please find an attorney. I know the Occupy movement has attorneys working on their behalf.

A Quiet Title action can be filed on behalf of the homeowner, challenging the authority of the person who signed the documents. An attorney can determine all that should be included in the suit. It should only cost about $150 to file at the courthouse. Wrongful foreclosure is likely suitable to include in the suit which would reach about 7 figures in damages.

MERS has never legally created any Vice Presidents or Assistant Secretaries so all the signatures that appear upon any document are invalid and fraudulent. Given this was a foreclosure, there may also be Affidavits with invalid signatures.

Please contact me if you need any additional information and I'll provide my attorneys contact information. We've filed 300 such suits in PA and NJ. In 297 of the cases, the servicers are either voluntarily withdrawing their invalid liens or they will be stricken by the court. In some cases, foreclosure actions were withdrawn.

[Stuart G]

60. k and r

[davidwparker]

62. Move your money. n/t

[sulphurdunn]

63. The finest

shotguns don't cost $40,000 unless they have lots of ginger bread on them.

[Locrian]

76. Matt Taibbi

Matt Taibbi wrote an article on forclosures in Florida awhile ago. Interesting reading.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110?page=2



For most people, the former bit about homeowners not paying their damn bills is the important part, while the latter, about the sudden and strange inability of the world's biggest and wealthiest banks to keep proper records, is incidental. Just a little office sloppiness, and who cares? Those deadbeat homeowners still owe the money, right? "They had it coming to them," is how a bartender at the Jacksonville airport put it to me.

But in reality, it's the unpaid bills that are incidental and the lost paperwork that matters. It turns out that underneath that little iceberg tip of exposed evidence lies a fraud so gigantic that it literally cannot be contemplated by our leaders, for fear of admitting that our entire financial system is corrupted to its core — with our great banks and even our government coffers backed not by real wealth but by vast landfills of deceptively generated and essentially worthless mortgage-backed assets.

You've heard of Too Big to Fail — the foreclosure crisis is Too Big for Fraud. Think of the Bernie Madoff scam, only replicated tens of thousands of times over, infecting every corner of the financial universe. The underlying crime is so pervasive, we simply can't admit to it — and so we are working feverishly to rubber-stamp the problem away, in sordid little backrooms in cities like Jacksonville, behind doors that shouldn't be, but often are, closed.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110#ixzz1djXjJPA6

[tcaudilllg]

77. We need more than "banks"

We need names. Blacklists.

[varelse]

85. K&R

[Beacool]

86. Heartbreaking, I don't know what else to say.

We have become such a callous society, very depressing.

:-(

[woo me with science]

90. Enraging.

Support OWS.

[badtoworse]

92. There isn't enough information in your post to draw a conclusion.

It makes no sense that a bank would refuse the check unless there are other factors we don't know about. How could it possibly be in the banks interest to own another foreclosed home? They would very likely lose money selling the home in this market, plus they will have to maintain the home and pay taxes until it does sell

[quakerboy]

115. Banks do absolutely assinine things

about 2 years back, I tried to buy a bank owned condo(not short sale, fully bank owned). We put in an offer. Their agent let me know that if I split the difference between my offer and their price, they would accept. That was acceptable, so I revised my offer. My offer was never returned in any format. 2 weeks later it expired, and they dropped the asking price to our lower offer.

So I offered again, a bit lower yet. We did a few rounds of negotiation, and came to a price. And again, they vanished my offer into a black hole. Then they relisted with a new agent, lower yet. But we had wasted long enough. A few months later they sold it for even less than any of our offers. 15k less than our initial offer. And before anyone says anything, it is mortgaged now, not a cash sale, though I lost out on plenty of others to cash buyers.

A place near where I live was foreclosed over a year ago. They just sold it for under 1/4 of the price from 2007. I know for a fact the previous attempted owner would happily have kept making payments of up to 80% of what they had been. They took a pay cut to keep a job, and were just a bit short for the original payments.

If anyone can explain to me how either of these were in the banks interest, i would be obliged

[blackspade]

94. What is wrong with the banks?

everything.

[lonestarnot]

95. Dirty fucking bastards! More torture of the 99%, shock and awe bullshit.

[Quartermass]

96. The golden rule

Those who have the gold make the rules, for they can buy anybody they want to carry out their hearts' desires.

[LuckyLib]

100. NPR had a story today about B of A losing a family's payments, and they were

foreclosed on, evicted, and are living in a church rectory now. B of A finally admitted the mistake. Problem is, the house has been vacant for a year, the pipes burst, and it will cost $$$$ to bring back. These banks are criminal enterprises.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142300563/after-banks-mistakes-homeowners-pick-up-pieces

<snip> King says she tried to prove that she made the payment; she had the paperwork to prove it. She says she tried to talk to bank officials, and they said there was nothing they could do.
"We showed them that I had photocopies of the cleared checks, no, they refused," she says.
The Kings have eight children, which they said made this whole experience that much harder. Eventually King was told she was being evicted. Whether the bank took ownership is unclear, but King says the bank put a big foreclosure sign on the front door and changed the locks.
Today, King, her husband and their eight children are living in a local church rectory. The church is letting them stay there while they look for a place to rent.

[Enthusiast]

125. "Oh, it was just an unfortunate oversight."

:sarcasm:

[russspeakeasy]

103. Money, Money, Money.

[akbacchus_BC]

108. Why would Wells Fargo refuse the check unless they stood more

to gain by refusing it? That really is not right!

Corporatism at its best! Refuse the check and resell the house!

[caseymoz]

110. Assholes. Wells Fargo deserves to die.

It should get the Arthur Anderson punishment, ordered to cease business operations.

[Enthusiast]

118. Kicked and recommended!

"THIS is what OWS is all about!"

OWS is being evicted. Guess what people. We either join OWS now or we will be joining them later, possibly after it is too late.

[backscatter712]

122. Occupy the house!

Seriously. Bring in dozens of Occupiers.

Force the pigs to come by the dozens in riot gear if their bank fuckbuddies want to take the house.

[Donnachaidh]

134. Jail a few CEO's and you'll see this shit stop quickly

Of course, that would require an administration with a spine to do it. :shrug:

[tbartlett2]

143. To Big To Fail

This is a perfect example of to big to fail. This bank is one of the top 3 worst banks in the country. OWS will continue to be get bigger and more vocal with this kind of treatment of people. We must stand our ground and force the change that is needed. This is certainly and call for all hands on deck. If you think this couldn't happen to you think again.

[Bluzmann57]

146. Welcome to DU

And you make some good points. We most certainly have to show the bankers, etc. just who this country is supposed to belong to. As the late great Woody Guthrie said, "This land is your land, This land is my land..." You know the rest.

[DeSwiss]

144. ''What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. These. Banks?!''

- It's part of the plan........

K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x634788">THRIVE

[RedCloud]

154. Let's "Rosa Parks" this story. It is prototypical of what's wrong.

[tblue]

155. Tell Keith! It might shame Wells Fargo!!!

Remember that worked for that Window & Door manufacturing company with BofA, I think.

Write Keith. Also Rachel and/or Ed! Really! It could just save that home!!!

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
http://wegoted.com/emailEd/

[iandhr]

157. If I was banker.

Wouldn't accepting a $40,000 be in my own interest?