Home > Mortgages > Large Loan Servicer Found Guilty of Fraud, Lying in Court

Comments 1 Comment

CrossedFingers_Carmella_Fernando_CCFlickrA judge in New Orleans recently found one of the nation’s largest mortgage loan servicers guilty of pervasive fraud. In a scathing 26-page decision, bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth W. Wagner found that Lender Processing Services (LPS) repeated lies in her courtroom nearly ended in a family getting wrongfully evicted from their home.

Judge Wagner noticed strange things occurring in the foreclosure case against homeowners Ron and Larhonda Wilson. Option One Mortgage Corporation was trying to foreclose on the family, even though the Wilsons had proof that they had faithfully paid their mortgage. (The Wilsons, who already had nearly lost their home to bankruptcy, made sure to send each month’s check by certified mail.)

As Judge Wagner investigated the case, she found numerous problems with the testimony from a woman named Dory Goebel. While Goebel claimed to be an “assistant secretary” with an important position inside Option One, Wagner found that in reality Goebel is a poorly-trained clerical worker employed by LPS.

[Related article: Florida AG Details Forgery & Deceit in Mortgage Process]

Goebel testified that she was in charge of checking the Wilsons’ loan documents to verify they actually were behind on their payments.

But that didn’t happen, Wagner found. Instead, Goebel was instructed by her bosses at LPS to simply verify that the amounts owed on the court affidavits matched what LPS had in its computers.

The result: Nobody actually checked whether the Wilsons were behind on their mortgage, in violation of the law. And in this case, the Wilsons could prove their payments were up-to-date.

“In short, the affidavit was nothing other than a farce,” Wagner wrote.

Inflating Goebel’s job title, and claiming she worked at a different company, was a fraud intended to mask LPS’s mistake, the judge wrote.

“The abuse begins with a title. In this case, Ms. Goebel was cloaked with the position of “Assistant Secretary,” in a purposeful attempt to convey an experience level and importance beyond her actual abilities,” Wagner said in her decision. “Ms. Goebel is an earnest young woman, but with no training or experience in banking or lending.”

[Tool: Quickly assess your risk of identity theft for free]

The scary thing, judge Wagner says, is that this case is not unique. Using a glorified clerical worker to attest to a foreclosure she knows nothing about is standard procedure at LPS, the judge found.

Nor is the practice of lying to courts anything new for LPS and other mortgage servicers, Wagner found.

“The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry,” Wagner wrote. “With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality.”

LPS may face fines or other sanctions in the Wilson case. Meanwhile, Wagner’s decision was the third piece of bad news for LPS in just two weeks.

First, the company appeared in a lengthy report on 60 Minutes about how the company created a fake employee named Linda Green, and used her name and forged signature to claim she worked at dozens of different banks simultaneously and signed thousands of foreclosure statements a day. (We covered this sordid story here.)

Next came a consent decree from three federal regulators ordering LPS and other large servicers to improve their paperwork procedures to avoid accidentally foreclosing on the wrong people. The company could still face major fines, as we reported here.

[Related article: Feds Crack Down on Illegal Mortgage Practices]

Image: Carmella Fernando, 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