Then Sen Byron Dorgan got it right: warned that banks would become “too big to fail”

Federal judge rules Bank of America hurt Jacksonville couple, must pay $204,000

You have the read this story. My hats off to the judge for sticking it to Bank of America!

ORDERED:

1. Bank of America’s Motion to Amend Pleadings (Doc. 102) is DENIED.

2. The Court intends to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ronald and Deborah Goodin and against Bank of America in the amount of $204,000 once attorneys’ fees have been decided. The Goodins have until July 15, 2015 to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and Bank of America has until August 10, 2015 to respond.

DONE AND ORDERED.

And here is the court information. Click here.

Aug. 08–A Jacksonville federal judge has issued a sharp critique of Bank of America in a case involving a Jacksonville couple where the bank mishandled court filings and began a years-long process of trying to collect a non-existent debt and falsely filing for foreclosure.

Bank of America ruined their retirement, Deborah and Ronald Goodintestified, and it may have ruined their marriage, too.

The Goodins, like many American families, made a bad business decision just as the Great Recession began. By 2009, they filed for bankruptcy. They never missed a payment into a bankruptcy trust that was supposed to take care of their mortgage.

But then a year after taxpayers gave Bank of America a $45 billionbailout, that bank took over the mortgage from another lender in August 2009, and Bank of America, which handles trillions of dollars of deposits, failed to file a routine legal motion that would give it access to the bankruptcy trust.

Instead, the Goodins kept paying some $1,200 every month to the bankruptcy court. They finished their bankruptcy plan by December. The money Bank of America wanted was sitting in a trust that the bank could access if only it filed a routine document.

By October 2010, the bank told the Goodins they were in default.

Read on.

Everybody Does It: Convicted UBS Libor “Ringmaster” Tells It Like It Is On Wall Street

And he is correct. Unfortunately, Wall Street is in bed with the government and vice versa. The little fishes go to prison. The big fish bankster execs buy their way out of prison.

One of the most striking aspects of the recent criminal trial of Tom Hayes, former UBS trader, was his defense that everyone knew Libor rates were being manipulated.

At his trial for colluding with others to rig the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) while at UBS, Hayes testified the practice was “industrywide.”

I acted with complete transparency to my employers. My managers knew, my manager’s manager knew. In some cases the CEO was aware of it.”

. . . It was so endemic within the bank [at UBS], I just thought … this can’t be a big issue because everybody knows about it . . . . [It was] such an open secret.”

His statements reflect a mindset that is incredibly – and sadly – common in cases of significant financial and corporate fraud. In my practice as a whistleblower lawyer, I have seen “industrywide practice” used to rationalize all kinds of illegal corporate activities, from bribing foreign officials to get business to the manipulation of benchmark rates to the marketing of prescription drugs for unapproved, “off-label” uses.

Hayes was willing to break laws to make money, he suggested, because everyone was doing it. Traders and their supervisors looked the other way and comforted themselves that because the executive suite knew that traders were manipulating Libor, “it can’t be a big issue.” The “transparency” of criminal activity occurring in plain sight made it okay to rig a widely used benchmark that is used to set adjustable rate loans, credit card rates and more.

Read on.

Federal law suit filed against Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Las Vegas, NV. Homeowner Michael Bondi has filed a federal law suit against Bank of America and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC claiming Fraud, Civil Conspiracy, Misrepresentation, Violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

An 8 and ½ year battle over a foreclosed home loan has compelled Las Vegas resident Michael Bondi to file a Federal Law Suit against Bank of America, N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The lawsuit claims Fraud, Civil Conspiracy, violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and Misrepresentation.

Bondi’s problems started with Bank of America in 2008, when BofA took over Bondi’s Countrywide Home Loan. Bondi was in a car accident in 2007, leaving him unable to work and losing his savings. Bondi had over 5 valid short sale offers on his home that BofA refused to accept because Bondi would not sign a blank Promissory Note. Bondi’s home was ultimately foreclosed in June of 2009.

Bondi continued to have several problems with BofA after the foreclosure. BofA incorrectly reported Bondi’s credit as an “Open foreclosure” which made it appear Bondi was still missing monthly payments on a home that he no longer owned. Bondi contacted BofA a year after the foreclosure in 2010. Bondi found several violations of Federal Law, about which he confronted BofA. BofA in an effort to avoid litigation from Bondi, offered to correctly zero out Bondi’s credit report and to change his report as a foreclosure with a zero balance, per Federal Law.

– See more at: http://www.merinews.com/article/federal-law-suit-filed-against-bank-of-america-and-nationstar-mortgage-llc/15908052.shtml#sthash.FpNtx0lL.dpuf

Foreclosure Sales and Deficiency Judgments in Tennessee

When a lender forecloses on a parcel of property, it is not unusual for the property to sell for an amount that is less than the amount owed. In that instance, the lender often seeks a judgment for the difference or the deficiency. In Tennessee, a statute directs that the deficiency judgment shall be the total amount of the debt less the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale. (Tenn. Code Ann. Section 35-5-118.)

The sale price at the foreclosure is presumed to be the fair market value absent fraud or irregularity in the sale process. But, the debtor can overcome that presumption by showing that the sale price is “materially less” than the fair market value of the property.

In Cutshaw v. Hensley, No. E2014-01561-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2015), the court of appeals held that a price at the foreclosure sale that was 78% less than the fair market value of the property was “materially less.” That conclusion is not surprising. The court of appeals found that the fair market value was the price that the lender (who purchased the property at the foreclosure sale) sold the property 49 days later.

Read on.