CW Attorney General Settlement FAQ

[ohhhdear]

Thought I would post this-- just in case

I haven't see anyone on this forum who "qualified" for this settlement or actually got some help from this settlement.

Countrywide Settlement

Now, I understand why I don't "qualify" for this settlement.

BUT BEWARE, if you do qualify and if you become part of this settlement--, you are most likely agreeing to not sue them

[so-cal-gal]

Thought I would post this-- just in case

I haven't see anyone on this forum who "qualified" for this settlement or actually got some help from this settlement.

Countrywide Settlement

Now, I understand why I don't "qualify" for this settlement.

BUT BEWARE, if you do qualify and if you become part of this settlement--, you are most likely agreeing to not sue them

NOPE!

You apparently missed a number of my postings AND the warning I have posted on the CW thread: Countrywide California Attorney General Settlement - BEWARE of CW Cancelling Loan Modifications WITHOUT Notice

Back to my 'NOPE': Regarding having one of these blasted 'non-contracts': IT DOES NOT PREVENT ME FROM SUING, IT IS CAUSING ME TO SUE.

They gave me the 'AG mod'-finger by issuing a contract, then refusing to honor it without proper cause or communication, then they also transferred partial ownership of the note to Bank of New York Mellon (where supposedly NO MODIFICATIONS are allowed when Mellon is the INVESTOR) in an apparent effort to ensure that they could prevent any further attempt(s) at a mortgage modification, which only will make this more costly for THEM. They need to 'un-Mellon' this mellon of a loan modification tussel before it too gets splattered across the news!

The AG agreement specifically states that signing for an 'AG modification contract' DOES NOT prevent suing. The only ones that have to sign an agreement not to sue are those who take CW/BofA up on the moving fee reimbursement.

[pdsfoley]

Our loan "PayOptionARM" qualifies....dates qualify...But our investor Wells Fargo...says NO.........thats according to CW/BAC.......Ughhhhhhhhh

[so-cal-gal]

Our loan "PayOptionARM" qualifies....dates qualify...But our investor Wells Fargo...says NO.........thats according to CW/BAC.......Ughhhhhhhhh

Rats! Sorry to hear that news. You may want to double check that though. I do not trust CW/BofA. I know of far too many other statements that they have made that are FALSE.

I've noticed that some of the tactics are that certain banks offer the mods if they are the SERVICER but the SAME bank REFUSES to modify loans where they are the INVESTOR.

Servicer's are paid by the gov for each loan they have in the MHA program.

Apparently the 'investor' role is getting more payoff some how when they foreclose. Something smells. I know there are the claims that the 'securitized' notes have insurance that is greater than the face value of the note. I wonder if that can actually be CLEARLY documented?

[ohhhdear]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Something certainly does smell.

I called the Florida Atty General awhile back and asked why I didn't receive a package or letter.

The Florida Atty General advised me of the above link and said for me to look there.


What I was really looking for was the actual settlement between CW and Florida, but that has been removed from the Florida Atty General's website.

Perhaps a public records request is in order..

[caldwell02]

so cal - that last question is interesting. I am sure that I've read that foreclosed homes sometimes sell for the original value of the note (and not on the real assessment which in these times is usually quite less). I do not understand that at all. Does this investor insurance have anything to do with that?

[so-cal-gal]

so cal - that last question is interesting. I am sure that I've read that foreclosed homes sometimes sell for the original value of the note (and not on the real assessment which in these times is usually quite less). I do not understand that at all. Does this investor insurance have anything to do with that?

I think what you have heard of may be part of the same aspect but I can not be certain.

Now separately from the 'securitized note' question of insurance, SOME borrowers were required to have Mortgage Insurance (MI) which is NOT the same as homeowner's insurance.

MI is insurance that was required in the first mortgage docs if the loan was for more than 80% (or was it 75?). The idea was that this insurance would drop off when your loan balance dropped below that thresh hold percentage. MI protects the note holder. To collect that MI, the note holder forces foreclosure. I believe when the noteholder gets a payoff from the MI, it is only the DIFFERENCE between the auction price and the note balance that is paid by the MI.

The situation where the 'selling price' is the 'note value' would not seem to fit with what happens where there is this other mortgage insurance.

We need some way of researching this aspect. Maybe that guy on here who is a former banking shark would help dig the truth or find the evidence for this 'securitized loan insurance'.

[so-cal-gal]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Something certainly does smell.

I called the Florida Atty General awhile back and asked why I didn't receive a package or letter.

The Florida Atty General advised me of the above link and said for me to look there.


What I was really looking for was the actual settlement between CW and Florida, but that has been removed from the Florida Atty General's website.

Perhaps a public records request is in order..

A number of the other states' AG basically went along with the settlement filed in CA. For that reason the person who is to have that 'role' of reporting on compliance to the CA AG's office was to take complaints from BOTH CA residents AND the other state's AGs. A freedom of information act filing is needed to shake that name loose apparently. We might as well also request the copies of any reports that CW/BofA have filed to date, reporting on compliance with the settlement.