Home > Mortgages > Botched Paperwork Makes Foreclosures Invalid, Judge Rules

Comments 0 Comments

In what could become a major decision for homeowners trying to keep their homes from going into foreclosure, and maybe even those trying to win their former houses back, a Massachusetts judge decided this week that banks must actually prove they own a mortgage before they can foreclose on it.

And if a bank does foreclose on the basis of shoddy paperwork, the whole process is legally invalid, as if the sale did not happen. Which could mean that former homeowners may be able to reclaim their lost houses.

Selling a house the bank cannot prove it owns makes the sale “void,” according to a decision by Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Ralph D. Gants.  That means the banks in the case, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo, had no legal right to foreclose on the two homeowners who brought the case.

“This is the first court to say directly, ‘it doesn’t matter if there are large dollars involved or if it is convenient to ignore governing laws. You are bound to the laws just like the rest of us are,'” said Paul Collier III, a lawyer who represented the homeowners, told American Banker. Collier did not return our calls seeking comment.

The reasoning behind the decision is layered in the complexities of the mortgage securitization process, but it could have big implications. On July 5, 2007, U.S. Bank foreclosed on the mortgage of Antonio Ibanez, and bought his house in Springfield, Mass., at auction. The same day, Wells Fargo foreclosed on Mark and Tammy LaRace.

The problem: Neither bank had the documents to prove that it owned either loan, and thus had the power to foreclose. What each one had instead were hundreds of pages of documents showing how the mortgages passed from the original mortgage broker all the way to the bank investors who eventually came to own them.

In the case of Antonio Ibanez, the process looked like this: His mortgage for $103,500 on a house at 20 Crosby Street in Springfield, Mass., originally came from Rose Mortgage, Inc. Several days later, Rose Mortgage passed the mortgage on to Option One Mortgage Corporation, which passed it to Lehman Brothers Bank, which passed it to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which passed it to Structured Asset Securities Corporation, which finally packaged it together with 1,220 other mortgages and sold them all to a trust owned by U.S. Bank.

At each point in that six-step process, both parties had to sign an “assignment letter” to document the sale from one owner to the next. Some of the assignment letters controlling the transfer of the Ibanez mortgage were done “in blank,” which means the line where the new owner’s name should have appeared as left blank.

Other letters are simply missing.

“U.S. Bank did not provide the judge with any mortgage schedule identifying the Ibanez loan as among the mortgages that were assigned in the trust agreement,” Judge Gants wrote in his decision. A similar breakdown in the documentation process prevented Wells Fargo from proving that it owned the mortgage on the LaRace house.

The decision strikes a major blow to the central argument by banks and the securitization industry in such cases, that contracts passing mortgages from one owner to the next show the general intent of everyone involved, and are enough to prove ownership. We called the American Securitization Forum for comment, but they did not respond.

Wells Fargo’s stock price dropped $1.10, or 3.4%, after the decision was reported. US Bancorp’s stock fell 28 cents, or 1.1%. Both banks released statements disagreeing with the decision, saying that the documentation failures affected the parties that came before them in the securitization process.

“The issues addressed by the court revolved around the process of servicing the loan on behalf of the securitization trust, which was performed in this case by the servicer, American Home Mortgage,” US Bancorp said.

Image: Taber Andrew Bain, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team