Daily Archives: January 13, 2015

California examiners asked Ocwen to provide info on 1,320 mortgage loans under investigation, bank repeatedly failed to respond

“They failed to comply with a subpoena for information. They violated a lawful order from the commissioner. And they failed to comply with an order from an administrative law judge.”– Tom Dresslar, spokesman, California Department of Business Oversight

From The Los Angeles Times:

California officials said the state is looking into potential violations of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights, a package of laws passed in reaction to foreclosure abuses, and the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, under which Ocwen is licensed.

An accusation detailing the state’s complaints was issued in October by Commissioner of Business Oversight Jan Lynn Owen. The dispute stems from a routine examination of Ocwen that began in January 2013, Owen said in the accusation.

By October 2013, according to the accusation, examiners were telling Ocwen that it had supplied too little information for them to determine its compliance with the Homeowners Bill of Rights. The law’s provisions include a requirement that servicers provide a single point of contact for troubled borrowers and a ban on dual tracking, the practice of negotiating over a loan modification while at the same time pursuing a foreclosure.

Despite an escalating series of demands and finally a judicial order, the agency contends that Ocwen has never provided all the information the department was seeking, including reports on a sample of 1,320 loans the company services.

Councilman Dan Johnson faces house foreclosure

A mortgage lender filed for foreclosure against Metro Councilman Dan Johnson seeking to have the property sold and the money going to pay the $158,021 the company claims it is owed.

PennyMac Loan Services LLC of Moorpark, Calif., filed the foreclosure action against Johnson in December for not paying the mortgage for the house at 5200 Rollingwood Trail.

Johnson said he has another house and put the Rollingwood house up for sale a month ago.

“We’re paying for too many houses, I guess, and we’re selling that house right now,” said Johnson, D-21st District.

He said they have been unable to make the payments on the Rollingwood house, which he said they have not lived in for more than a year. Johnson said the house is worth more than the amount the lender is seeking.

Read on.

Watch As Bank Of America Refuses Customer’s Cash Payment On Mortgage Then Calls Police


When it comes to nightmare stories pertaining to home mortgages, no other financial institution has more of them than Bank of America. The Inquisitr reported numerous times on such stories in which Bank of America had to pay a $404 million settlement over repurchased Freddie Mac mortgages. If that wasn’t enough money to pay, they also had to pay $9.5 billion to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in a settlement.

However, much of Bank of America’s woes comes from their treatment of their customers who have mortgages with them. In this case, a customer tried to pay his home mortgage at a Bank of America branch with cash. Instead of taking the customer’s payment, they rejected it and called the police on him.

Originally uploaded in Reddit two years ago, the story got a sudden spike in interest recently in which Deon Vs. Earth and many other finance news sites and blogs related the situation to the perceived view that the United States dollar will become a cashless form of money. According to the video, Robert Somerton tried to make a payment of $1,371.71 towards his $191,378.51 mortgage at a Bank of America branch located in Lakeport, California. The bank clerk and bank manager made it clear that they wouldn’t accept his payment. Instead, the bank manager kept insisting that Robert turn off his camcorder or he’ll call the authorities. Apparently, Robert did not listen as the authorities showed up to the bank. It is not shown if Robert was arrested or simply told to remain off the premises.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1752043/watch-as-bank-of-america-refuses-customers-cash-payment-on-mortgage-than-calls-police/#cjzR3dDScUpSBEvh.99


MetLife to sue government over ‘too big to fail’ label

MetLife isn’t too big to fight back.

The largest US insurance company is taking the government to court over its recent designation as a “too big to fail” institution, making it the first company to buck the label in what could be a prolonged fight to keep the Federal Reserve’s oversight.

Last month, the Financial Stability Oversight Council deemed MetLife a “systemically important” financial institution, subjecting it to greater oversight and higher standards. Those include holding a greater cushion of cash in case of a market crash, among other requirements.

The “too big to fail” label lumps MetLife together with JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and other big banks, along with fellow insurance giants AIG and Prudential Financial.

Read on.

BofA Said to Oust 150 Hedge Fund Clients Under New Rules

Bank of America Corp. cut ties with about 150 hedge funds last year in its prime brokerage group because new regulatory requirements designed to make the financial system safer are forcing lenders to reduce costs.

The second-largest U.S. bank made the decisions based on which relationships were profitable enough to keep amid new capital and liquidity rules, according to two people familiar with the bank’s strategy, who asked not to be named because details are private. The cuts included the majority of its quantitative hedge fund customers, or those that use computer programs to trade, one of the people said.

Prime brokerage, or the business of lending to and servicing hedge funds, has become less profitable as measured by return on equity under new rules known as Basel III, which are being put in place to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. The regulations have prompted the biggest banks to trim relationships or increase fees for clients that don’t meet profitability targets. Last year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. pushed some customers to move cash from the bank and cut back on some forms of client lending.

Read on.

Jesinoski vs Countrywide Supreme Court Loan-Rescission Decision

Supreme Court Backs Borrowers’ Right to Rescind Mortgages in a Unanimous Decision



WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted a borrower-friendly interpretation of a federal law that gives consumers the right in some circumstances to rescind their mortgage loans.

The case examined the Truth in Lending Act, which allows borrowers to rescind a loan within three days after the transaction is consummated, or until the lender has delivered the required disclosures about the loan agreement. The law places a three-year time limit on a borrower’s right to rescind, even if the creditor still hasn’t provided all the necessary loan disclosures.

Consumer and civil-rights groups had filed a brief with the high court supporting the Minnesota couple who sued to get out of a 2007 mortgage refinancing, saying the rescission right was an important means for protecting consumers against abusive lending practices.

The high court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia , ruled unanimously that borrowers need only notify the creditor within three years of their intent to rescind. The court rejected the position of Bank of America Corp. ’s Countrywide Home Loans subsidiary, which argued that borrowers must take the additional step of filing a lawsuit within three years if the two sides disagree on whether proper loan disclosures have been provided.