Home > Mortgages > Despite Controversy, Robo-Signing Still Going Strong

Comments 0 Comments

Remember the robo-signer scandal, in which major banks were accused of using forged documents to foreclose on homeowners? How about the predatory loan scandal, in which the banks were accused of using deceitful marketing to sell mortgages with illegally high interest rates and fees?

You might assume that both scandals have faded into history. If so, you’d be wrong. Mortgage servicers, many of them owned by the nation’s largest banks, are still submitting forged documents in court to prove their right to foreclose, according to a recent investigation by American Banker.

And Nevada’s attorney general, Catherine Cortez Masto, went to court this week with allegations that Bank of America has broken its promise to modify mortgages in the state, asking the judge for permission to reopen the state’s original lawsuit on allegations of mortgage fraud.

[Resource: Understand your exposure to Identity theft with the Identity Risk Score]

The resurfacing of these old scandals could mean big problems for big banks. According to a statement by Masto’s office, “Bank of America’s misconduct cuts across virtually every aspect of its operations—from originating to servicing and, all too often, to foreclosing on the loans and homes of Nevada consumers.”

The robo-signer scandal is rooted in a fundamental problem: During the housing boom, lenders made so many mortgages, and sold so many of the loans to investors, that they lost track of the paperwork documenting transfers of ownership, as required by law. We covered these problems back in January.

The result: Allegations that families were being evicted from their homes illegally. That sparked a 50-state investigation by banking regulators, which recently has bogged down over a disagreement between attorneys general like Eric Schneiderman of New York, who argues the investigation has failed to probe deeply enough, versus the Obama administration, which wants to wrap up the settlement quickly.

[Featured Product: Looking for credit cards for fair credit?]

The administration’s efforts to end the probe soon may be complicated by news that, a year after the scandal broke, banks are still employing robo-signers to forge court documents. In one document filed in a Florida court, Bank of America assistant vice president Sandra Juarez signed a mortgage assignment on July 29, 2011 that claimed to document the transfer of ownership from New Century Mortgage Corp. to Deutsche Bank.

But New Century went bankrupt in 2007. And the Deutsche Bank trust that claims to hold the loan hasn’t received ownership of any new mortgages since 2006, according to American Banker’s investigation.

On August 11, 2011, Wells Fargo assistant secretary Nancy D. Sorenson claimed to be a nominee of Fremont Investment and Loan so she could sign a document proving transfer of a loan. Fremont hasn’t existed since 2008.

Such backdated signatures are perfectly legal, bank representatives say.

“The practice of executing assignments to confirm for the public record that mortgages were previously assigned to the trust reflects standard industry practice,” Philippa Brown, a spokeswoman for American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., told American Banker.

Actually no, it’s fraud, consumer advocates say.

“It’s now becoming clear that fraud, deception and an utter disregard for accuracy are in part to blame for national foreclosure disaster,” Richard Cordray, then the attorney general of Ohio, said at a press conference last year in which he announced his lawsuit stemming from an investigation into robosigning. Cordray starts his confirmation process to become director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a hearing before the Senate banking committee today.

In Nevada, the state’s original lawsuit alleged that Countrywide Financial used deceptive marketing to sell loans to the state’s residents, and that the company lied about the interest rates and fees included in those loans. Countrywide went bankrupt in 2007, and was later bought by Bank of America.

Bank of America compounded the damage, Masto alleges, by misrepresenting whether, how and when homeowners could modify their loans, and by filing fraudulent documents in court to foreclose on families.

Together, the actions by Countrywide and BofA are responsible for “stripping homeowners of their assets (including those who do not have loans originated or serviced by Defendants, but whose property values have fallen dramatically), dislocating families, blighting neighborhoods, and deeply disrupting the State’s housing market,” according to Masto’s statement.

[Related article: Robo-signing Battle Heats Up, Again]

Image: Kevin, 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