Independent Foreclosure Review

[shayl475]

I received my official letter today asking if I wanted a foreclosure review. At first, I thought foreclosure was a nightmare but it ended up being the best thing that has happened to me in a very long time. For those who are fighting, however, you might want to take a look at this. Foreclosure victims get new help from feds - CBS News

[Cat Damiano]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. It seems this is too little, too late for so many homeowners that lost their homes between that timeframe already.

[DesertMe]

It is for me...Where were they 2 years ago when after 25 years with Skank of America, I was told "Sorry nothing we can or WILL do"..All PR moves from a bank under fire for it's greed, in yet another political year. Gee, what are they going to do ? Send us all a check for $50 and say "It's all good now " ?

[Annie Mac]

As I went to the Chase website to download forms to prepare yet one more application packet, I saw for the first time the small box in the margin about the Independent Foreclosure Review. During 2009, when Washington Mutual was my servicer, sure enough, they refused to accept a check, when I was late with payment, I still have the check and the envelope it came in....and the notice the following month of foreclosure. They could not provide me with a printout of fees, but, I I have been in "Active Foreclosure" more or less since then...along with several denials, at least half a dozen complete applications and the numerous faxing of the same documents over and over. After three years of run-around, how could this review board make sense of it? At the rate Washington Mutual and Chase has "lost" documents what is left? I am not sure how many of us are in this window of time, and still with the process, but I would really like to hear from others and get a perspective on whether this is worth the time, or just another hoop to distract one from the actual Loan Mod process. They have not foreclosed on me, I am still actively seeking a Loan Mod, but it is a lot of wear and tear on one's life. Is this truly a viable program, worth exploring, or is it an apologetic attempt to set things right? I invite some feedback.

[shayl475]

If you are eligible for a review you should get a letter in the mail with a mortgage loan number, reference number, address, and other information including a review form with a bunch of questions to fill out. I'm not going to do it, I'm thrilled with the end results of this nightmare and am happy it is over but I hope this works for others out there who are in need of a review.

[freedomwon]

I suspect this is another example of where the OCC will deem the bank in charge of conducting their own internal investigation. Once the investigation is complete, the bank sends a letter to the OCC of their findings. The OCC has just given it a fancy name calling it "an independent foreclosure review".

Annie Mac - Right there plain as day, Chase has a box you can check to request the "independent review"? That's not sounding so "independent" to me. That sounds like giving the bank an opportunity to manipulate files, make them disappear or whatever they deem necessary to conceal the truth.

While the criteria to request a review is made clear, the outcome & who will get financial compensation & how much they might receive is real sketchy at best. In fact, from what I gather, even if their findings from the review show harm was done, not all reviews will provide financial compensation to the homeowner.

It reminds me of when the banks received their TARP funds but there were no firm guidelines or regulations on how the money was to be used. Every once in a while as a result of the "independent review" findings, a homeowner will be thrown a bone to show the American people that something is being done about this foreclosure crisis.

[cheri]

I read something that they are doing reviews on people who were already foreclosed, they said if you were foreclosed from 2009 to 2010 to have it reviewed and you can be eligible for the banks to owe you money if they were found wrong to foreclose and you did qualify for a loan mod. I forget where I saw this article ? was it Gov site?? I have to check it out. Feedoms, I hope all is well with you!

[freedomwon]

Hi Cheri - It can be anywhere in the foreclosure process. You don't need to be already foreclosed upon. Here's the criteria to be eligible for a review:

To be eligible for the Review, interested parties must meet these three criteria:

• Their mortgage loan was serviced by one of the participating mortgage servicers.
• Their mortgage loan was active in the foreclosure process between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010.
• The property was the borrower's primary residence.

[shayl475]

It's always a day late and a dollar short. Honestly though if one person gets something from this I will be happy.

[triplesmiles]

I am in this situation with wells fargo. i qualify and will request review. i wonder how it will affect court rulings.

[shayl475]

I am in this situation with wells fargo. i qualify and will request review. i wonder how it will affect court rulings.

Let us know if you have any luck, I'm really curious to know if these programs are improving and if they will help anyone.

[freedomwon]

Here's a good link that has lots of Questions & Answers on the program. Independent Foreclosure Review - FAQ

[Fleur]

Yesterday, I called the Independent Foreclosure Review phone number: (888) 952-9105 to ask some questions and want to share with you all what I found out so far:

1.) This review board is relying on the banks to provide it with the names/addresses/loan numbers of the homeowners to mail the letters out to--each is assigned a reference number. For me, they had 2 reference numbers....I asked it each reference number represented each attempt by Chase to foreclosure on our home & the response was YES. I said, well then, your review board is missing a 3rd reference number for me. What this means is: this review board will only investigate a "reference number." So, if a homeowner has had more than one foreclosure attempt, he/she needs to request a "reference number" for each foreclosure attempt in order for this review board to get the "full picture to evaluate its findings." I hope I was able to explain this well enough...I didn't understand this "gapping loophole" as I read verbage I read on FAQs.


2) Letters are mailed out in stages (e.g. 4, 000 on one date; 8,000 on another date, etc.); my letter is scheduled to mailed out December 12, 2011, but you CAN REQUEST IT TO BE MAILED NOW. I would suggest you do this because the more time you have to prepare the answers the better for you and your possible outcome.

3.) Since "financial compensation" will no doubt be limited, try to think about other forms of compensation you want from your servicer, then request it and justify it when you return your form to this independent review board. Why not? Give them your request to consider and let them tell you no and justify why not--make them do some real work/review (also copy the OCC, Treasurey Dept. State AG, Senators & Congress man/woman. For me, I want Chase to help repair our credit scores since they helped quickly flush down the toilet. Our partipating in the HAMP Loan Mod process (reporting to credit agencies we were 180 days not paying our mortgage when we were making each trial payment on time, coupled with the BK to stop the foreclosure, which we immediately had dismissed after finding out the mod was approved) our credit worthiness both personally and for our small business. We can not get a line-of credit or an SBA loan to help us keep our business afloat. Who's talking about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?

This is just small part of my experience:
Chase attempted to foreclose on our home 3 times while being considered for a HAMP Loan Modification. The 3rd time, we were forced to tell our lawyer to "push the electronic button to declare BK" literally 6 minutes before the time of "auction/sale" to save our home. Then, 2 minutes later Chase's foreclosure-mill law firm returned my many calls & faxes to tell me the foreclosure sale was put on hold. The next day, a Chase rep returned my many phone calls & faxes to tell me the sale was put on hold and that we were "approved" for a loan modification. It took a lot of will power for me, with a doubt given from above, not to curse these folks into oblivion. The final HAMP Loan Mod was supposed to take effect December 1, 2010 but never did. Chase claimed it was not approved by the Investor (Freddie Mac), which I later learned was NOT true. I finally did get the HAMP Loan Mod, after making formal compaints to just about every local, state & federal representative and financial regulator.


Annie Mac--you hang in there; and please don't be afraid to fight back...hard.


Shyl475--You are so right. However, I honest believe "we the people" can/will benefit if they genuinely & consistantly put pressue to get positive results from this group of "financial gansters."


And, I honestly believe they're "banking" on all of us now being so emotionally, physically & financially drained that we won't have the will power to hold these financial gansters accountable for criminal deeds.

[sherby]

Hi,
I received my Independent review letter today. Honestly I don't know the entire process was horrible
and will this review be more stress? My husband and I never received help from the bank. I called several
times and all I got was 1000 questions. I was even told after they ran our income that we wouldn't qualify
for a modification because we dont make enough money even though at that point we had still been paying.
We were sinking fast and stopped paying all our other bills to pay our mortgage. The GMAC rep on the phone
Just said stop paying and maybe we will help you. Guess what we ended up having to because we
couldn't get refinanced or a loan mod and 2 months later we had a notice on our door that we had less
than 60 days to go. I contacted an attorney and he said take that letter seriously. So they got rid of us
in with in 4 months. Maybe because we put 60k down and paid faithfully for 4 years.
Then they leave it in our name for over a year and the county sends us a letter that we owe
property taxes. I call the county and even though the bank bought it back they left it in our
names. They ended up selling it to some people for 100k when we owed 240k...we didn't have
time to re-act or money to pay the mounting late fees. We ended up filing BK. It's. Horrible
I think about loosing our home and I cry, they traumatized my kids. They didn't want to
help us. We were scared and had no time to do anything.I gave up, does this mean I have no
case? I always thought we were scammed. They wanted our house they got a lot of money
out of us. Our credit is ruined, we have rent and it has made me bitter.

[overthere1]

Hello-I received my Independent Foreclosure Review this week with BoA.
My question is in 2 parts. 1) Whether I am safe from being foreclosed upon till the review board makes its
determination on my file? Up until September 2011, I was having my loan modification handled
by an attorney's office out of NY who has now been disbarred! I also had another file apparently
open due to my own efforts for a loan mod.
2) Should I reopen another request for a Loan Mod-because I am not sure where I stand with BoA as of right
now. I sent a QWR about a month ago, but haven't received any info.
Any input is appreciated.

[Tarin Myhairout]

Hello Sherby.

Welcome to the Forum - I am glad you joined us.

I am so sorry about what happened to you; and very, very angry. I don't think anyone really knows what will come out of the Foreclosure Review, and no one can promise you anything.

However; I believe there are people who should have their stories told, and you are among them.

A foreclosure should never have happened like this, and you and your family continue to suffer from it. It is clear from your post just how traumatic this experience has been.

Only you can decide whether or not it is worth it to be part of the Review. I don't know very much about the actual process at this point (nobody does) but at least in the initial stages, it appears to be simply a matter of filing that request to be made part of it.

You know pretty well what this cost you in financial terms, and the financial part is all they are going to address.

If you don't ask, no one will do anything.

As I see it,this is an opportunity for you to fight back in one of the few ways left to you without hiring a private attorney to sue on your behalf.

I don't think it needs to be an all-or-nothing-decision at this point. You could return the form and ask to be part of the Review now, and if later it gets to be too much, you can opt out.

Only you can determine what is right for you and your family. Please do let us know what you decide.

All my Best to you and your family,

Tarin

[Cat Damiano]

Hi sherby,


Welcome to the forum and thank you for joining........


The review itself shouldn't be stressful, it will however put a microscope on GMAC and other lenders and their foreclosure practices. This is your chance to have your say as to what happened. What happened to you definitely falls under what the OCC's review team will be looking for, which is, errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in these servicers foreclosure process. If the review finds that financial injury occurred, the customer may receive compensation or other remedy.

Here are the Frequently Asked Questions on the Foreclosure Review Process that freedomwon had posted above in case you may have missed it.

Independent Foreclosure Review - FAQ

[Heids]

Triplesmiles, I just got my letter from OCC today. We are with WF and will also be getting a review. Should be interesting.

[maryseas]

I received a letter today as well. No doubt I've been damaged, but due to fraud by BAC, and not by mistakes. This process requires I dig into my files to again provide hours of painful recollection of a very horrible process they put me through. And from what I can tell the Bank will provide answers to what I tell the reviewer, and in some cases the bank may call to collect more information from me at the reviewers direction. Really!!! The very Bank that screwed it up so bad in the first place is going to "collect" more information to try to correct this??? Gee, sending them the information over 15 times wasn't enough for them to get the modification done right the first time, but now the OCC and Independent Reviewer thinks the Bank will be able to correctly get the information the second time so they (BAC) can make accurate recommendations for how to repair the damage to me? OH PLEASE!!! Give me a break! How can anyone possibly take this process seriously. IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE THAT THIS PROCESS MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME GOOD TO HOLD THESE JERKS ACCOUNTABLE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Otherwise this looks like just another bureaucratic attempt to let the Treasury Department off the hook for failing to represent the interests of the American public.

[freedomwon]

maryseas & all others on this thread, I received the independent foreclosure review form as well. Please weight your options carefully before submitting. On the back side of page 1, under consent order details, pay careful attention to the following:

As part of this order, the mortgage servicer has hired an independent consultant to independently review certain residential foreclosure actions regarding individual borrowers.

So, maryseas, BofA gets to choose who they hire! Does this sound very "independent" to you? And by the way, Rust Consulting, the company we all called to get our independent review form in the first place specializes in claims administration with the goal of reducing the cost per claim for their clients. Rust was contracted by the OCC and is supposed to oversee the independent consultants (a separate company) that each mortgage servicer has hired. Here's a link to their site http://www.rustconsulting.com/Legal_.../Property.aspx

If anyone out there has the time, it would be beneficial to get the bottom of who or what company BofA has hired as their independent consultant. Ahhh darn!.....Rust just closed 10 minutes ago. Only open till 5pm eastern time on Saturdays. I think I'll call Monday & ask them. I encourage others to do the same.

[maryseas]

'freedom won', thanks for putting this up. The question I have in my mind is whether or not to do this. I'm part of a 'class' where there is a pending class action suit that is in progress. Likely it won't benefit me at all, but I can't say that for sure. It's a better bet than anything else I've seen so far. This class action suit addresses the very issues that are part of the damage they've done to me, and would be what I submit for the foreclosure review (if I even go that far). If I submit this review, and it's bogus as I suspect, they can then point to this as proof that I and others in my class haven't been damaged in defense of the class action claim. This review is a perfect way to see what evidence I would put forth as well if I were to hire an attorney and sue later, which is exactly what I'm thinking. What protection do people have in this situation? It just seems totally weighted to help the banks figure out what risk they have out there, and nothing to prevent homeowners from being further damaged. So far this administration has done nothing legitimate to hold the banks accountable. I don't see why this would be any different.

[davephx]

' So far this administration has done nothing legitimate to hold the banks accountable. I don't see why this would be any different.

The "administration" has no power to do more than it has. Treasury has required detail monthly reporting, suspended or threatened to suspend HAMP incentives to most large banks for their failures but that is counterproductive since they make more money foreclosing anyway. But Treasury has no power to force compliance with the HAMP agreements the banks were forced to sign.

Congress makes laws not the "administration" and the Republicans desperately wants to cut off all funding and get rid of HAMP since it interferes with the banks free market process. The Democrats now in 4 Congressional hearings are outraged, yelling and screaming at the banks. Obama dragged them in to the White House in the early stages and they smiled afterward at news conference saying how they were going to help home owners. All lies and deceptions and nothing Obama or "administration" can do about it since the US is ruled by laws passed by those we elect, not a dictator.

[davephx]

Now the Fed and OCC is separate from the "Administration". The OCC has set up a complaint process that the banks have to respond to. In my case 2 OCC filed complaints forced a response from the bank in my long ordeal.

Hopefully more info will come out with the issue of independence and what review is to be done by OCC or who.. many details are unknown and need to be addressed.

But at least the Fed and OCC are NOT in the control of the banks.

OCC has been in banks picking a part many business loans wanting the banks to take less risks, vs the need to make credit available which has dried up for most small and medium sized recession surviving strong companies.

More to the point the OCC issued a Consent Order to all the major banks in April 2011 directly related to their HAMP processes - basically saying GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!

For example for Citibank Consent Order see
http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/ne...c-2011-47c.pdf
I believe they are similar for each bank.

The Fed is requiring an EXTREME stress tests on the banks to prove they are not going to need another bailing out since Republicans are blocking the Frank-Dodd protections of taxpayers.

The largest banks have to pass the tests, or have to curb their high-risk activities. The 31 bank holding companies subjected to stress tests are required to submit their 2012 capital plans by January 9, and will have their plans approved or rejected by the Federal Reserve by March 15, 2012.

These tests feature a set of economic assumptions to simulate the maximum stress banks should be able to survive without a taxpayer bailout. These tests assume a worst case, highly unlikely 4% decline in the U.S. gross domestic product, 13% unemployment, a further 21% decline in home prices, and a 52% decline in equity prices.

This shows the Fed and OCC are not coddling the banks and the Fed was part of the pressure applied to banks to force them to take TARP funding along with the head of the FDIC who told the bankers at the infamous meeting, "if you don't sign I will make life miserable for you."

[davephx]

Damages - ideas
HAMP requires in most cases 3 monthly trials and then conversion to a modification. This should not take 6-24 months! The interest kept accruing and the bank benefited and we lost from the servicing fees the longer the bank could delay doing a modification. We lost since when HAMPed all this interest was added to principal.

Many of us got charged $1000-2000 for attorney fees that were not included in the deferral added to principal. In my case I was foreclosed on after repeated calls being told to be patient my modification paperwork looked fine and someone will get back to me. Instead I got a foreclosure notice. I was damaged by the fee charged and any other fees charged related to the civil fraud of telling me all was well.

Other ideas - did anyone have to go to a doctor because of anxiety. Have to get sleeping pills? Anything financial you can tie to the HAMP delay games you should include as damages.

Everyone had "pain and suffering" but not clear if or how that might be considered.

Those of us that were in the end modified may have more claims then those foreclosed on?

How is a loss determined when you are "relieved" of a home that is worth less than the mortgage especially in a non recourse state? Or if given cash for keys you had a benefit. You may have lost your most precious asset to you, your home but how is that a financial loss when you owed more than the home was worth?

If there was any compensation for "pain and suffering" it would probably wipe out the capital of most banks so many were deceived by the process.

Others may have cost of sending in the paperwork 15 times and having it "lost". If you paid Kinkos etc to fax there was that cost. But for most of us, with our own FAX machines no direct cost just our zillions of hours of time and frustration over in many cases 6 months or a year+ of lies from the banks, lost paperwork and delays so they could wear many folks down to give up and let foreclose with the high fees for foreclosing, owning and reselling the bank servicers receive.

Hopefully over the next few months their will be media pressure which we can help along by finding out more answers on the review process. But at least it is Fed/OCC directed yet the details on who, how, and what damages will be allowed needs to be made public.

On the other hand if the Fed/OCC really are sincere in a serious effort to access damages, they may not want details in public since of course they will be attacked by their Republican buddies who think HAMP is simply interfering with the free market clean up of the mortgage mess and seek a speed up i foreclosures to get rid of us irresponsible homeowners, regardless of hardships caused by the banks mortgages practices starting with sub prime etc.

Bush got his wish of an "ownership society" when he did his infamous speech before the NAACP begging banks to lend to the subprime market. However that and other actions by both parties resulted in the mortgage crisis we are still painfully in.

[davephx]

The new Independent Review seems to be an extension of the earlier Consent Orders to banks from OCC.

The extensive review required by the April 2011 Consent Order, was not homeowner based but required review of internal documents. It seems this latest action to get complaints and claims by homeowners is a rather huge expansion of the prior extensive Consent Order from OCC to each of the major banks regarding HAMP and foreclosures.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency says it has been sensitive from the beginning to potential conflicts of interest between the consultants and law firms and the banks hiring them to do the reviews.

“We did reject some consultants and law firms submitted by the banks because of conflicts,” OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard said. “We were very aware of the impact of actual and perceived conflicts of interest.”

Julie Williams, First Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel of the OCC told Congress in July that, “these firms are required to operate independently and avoid interests or priorities that conflict with areas addressed in the Orders [and] to specify in their engagement letters with the servicer that their foreclosure review work will be subject to the direction of the OCC and not the direction, control, or influence of the servicer.”

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is fearful that the quick-and-poor may prevail with mortgage servicer reviews, based on what she sees planned in response to last April’s consent orders from federal regulators.

"The only thing worse than no accountability for the banks," according to Waters, "is for regulators to create the illusion of accountability, while putting no enforcement power behind their efforts."

The accountability Waters is seeking relates to an announcement by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank last April of formal enforcement actions against 14 national bank mortgage servicers and third-party servicer providers. The regulatory actions relate to findings of for unsafe and unsound practices involving residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.

The enforcement actions require the servicers to: promptly correct deficiencies; significantly improve practices, including communications with borrowers and dual-tracking; and to establish robust oversight and controls pertaining to third-party vendors, including outside legal counsel that provides default management or foreclosure services. To meet the requirements, the servicers were required to hire independent outside consultants and legal counsel directly.

Waters sent a letter On October 28 to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, signed by 15 of her House colleagues, calling on regulators to publicly release information regarding the steps that mortgage servicers are taking to investigate potential illegal foreclosure practices and prevent such acts in the future.

The OCC responded quickly about the miscreant servicers they regulate. On November 22, 2011, it issued a report on the actions of a dozen national bank and federal savings association mortgage servicers aimed at complying with the consent orders issued in April 2011 to correct deficient and unsafe or unsound foreclosure practices. (The two remaining consent order recipients — GMAC/Ally and SunTrust — have not yet finalized their terms with vendors and as a result their overseers,

"The OCC also released engagement letters that describe how the independent consultants, retained by the servicers, will conduct their file reviews and claims processes to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of deficiencies identified in the OCC's consent orders. The letters identify the names of the independent consultants conducting the reviews and include language stipulating that consultants would take direction from the OCC throughout the reviews," the OCC report said.

The disclosure of the consultant engagement letters for each servicer has already had a huge impact. The Financial Times reports that the New York Attorney General "launched an investigation into possibly unlawful foreclosures on the mortgages of active-duty members of the US military." The foreclosure review engagement letters posted by the OCC included estimates prepared by the banks and their consultants suggesting, according to the Financial Times, that 10 leading lenders may have seized the homes of about 5,000 service members in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which restricts foreclosures on the homes of active duty members of the U.S. armed forces.

According to OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard, "Limited proprietary and personal information has been redacted from the engagement letters including, but not limited to: names, titles and biographies of individuals; proprietary systems information; references to specific bank policy; fees and costs associated with the engagement; and specific descriptions of past work performed by the independent consultants."

Members of the committee, with the permission of committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), will be allowed to view the engagement letters without redactions, the OCC's Hubbard says. Congresswoman Water’s staff plans to seek a full view, but the redacted information will not be made public.

Dave notes, the Big Four audit firms are mentioned and discussion of potential conflicts. My own view is these CPA firms can be more relied upon than most anyone else. They are trusted on all SEC audits and the largest most prestige of the old "Big 8" CPA firms Arthur Anderson went down because they did not detect the Enron fraud but there was never any alleged conflict of interest or intentional misdoing. The fraud was well hidden, yet the CPA firm was blamed and went under.

Banks have very complex computer and MIS systems. Their required annual CPA audits have to in their report address the adequacy of their internal control systems. The CPA firm doing the audits would be the most likely choice since they already know the management systems required to be reviewed under the Consent order.

One tricky area for the consultants and legal counsel is attorney-client privilege. The engagement letters include boilerplate language that emphasizes the OCC is the primary director of the engagement at each servicer. However, the level of emphasis of this fine point in the final versions varies.

Some of the engagement letters invoke attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege over the whole process and confidential treatment of engagement letter itself. It appears all the servicers used their general counsel’s office to engage the consultants and outside counsel and some name their general counsel as project lead. Some servicers engaged additional outside legal counsel for the review directly rather than through the primary consultant.

OCC spokesperson Hubbard says, “although some of the engagement letters make claims of attorney-client privilege, these claims are by statute inapplicable to the OCC and FRB, which have complete access to all documents produced by the independent consultants and servicers as part of the independent foreclosure reviews required by the Consent Orders.

From various sources, mostly American Banker news articles.

[maryseas]

Isn't the OCC a regulator of the banks, under the Department of Treasury? The head of the Treasury was appointed by the Administration, and when the HAMP rules were put in place, they could have made it mandatory that the banks comply. They didn't. They had enough expertise to see that the banks would do all in their power to make as much money as possible and only comply with what they absolutely had to. It was a mistake on their part to "ask" the banks to do Hamp modifications and not require them. If the OCC is a regulator, they can also require a truly independent consultant, NOT hired by the banks. But they aren't doing this. Why? Who's accountable here? If this regulator is part of Treasury, it the Administration who's responsible because they control who is appointed to run Treasury. The congresswoman is right to go after this and do all she can to try to hold these regulators accountable for "pretending" to regulate instead of actually regulating the banks. I complained to the OCC and they passed it on to the bank for resolution. The banks are expected to regulate themselves, according to the actions of the OCC when complaints are filed. If it weren't for the Occupy Wall Street folks the absolute outrage that Americans are feeling these days wouldn't have hit the media the way it has. Good for them. Keep it up. The pressure the OCC is exerting on the banks right now is in direct response to the media coverage of the outrage that Americans are feeling and nothing more. Without a close eye, these guys will "pretend" to correct the problems and broadcast their fabulous results so most Americans will believe they've done all they can. We can't let them get away with this. HAMP so far has been nothing but a joke. We shouldn't let them get away with adding insult to injury by pretending to regulate the banks, when perhaps this is nothing but a smokescreen.

[davephx]

Where on earth to you get that HAMP is voluntary?

Have you read the participation agreements full of "will" and "shall".. I have.

The OCC issued very heavy "Consent Order" on all the major banks long before the Occupy movement - The original agreement signed by the banks in March and than part of the Order from OCC in April.

Why is HAMP nothing but a joke? It is a well thought out very good program with its 12 expansion to help more people. Some of us got our homes saved by HAMP. The problem is as layed out by many Attorney Generals and class action lawsuits is the banks not following the HAMP agreements they signed or committing fraud (per the AG's) by lies, losing paperwork even sent in by Attorney Generals and Congressional offices


The problem is not with HAMP, certainly not the Administration that has done everything possible to enforce it (with limited power since not a law). The problem is with the banks and their Republican supporters who want to get rid of HAMP to speed up foreclosures.

[freedomwon]

davephx - Do you intend to participate in the "independent foreclosure review"? It's important to understand the past history of what's led the OCC to this decision to conduct these reviews. Several of your previous posts outline the background very well. In the end, is this review process really going to benefit homeowners or is this just more of a dog & pony show?

Where on earth to you get that HAMP is voluntary?

I presume you'r speaking to maryseas here. The context of her comments leads me to believe that servicer participation in HAMP is voluntary. No need to be condescending.

[davephx]

On the voluntary issue I was responding to this totally false statement:
"and when the HAMP rules were put in place, they could have made it mandatory that the banks comply. They didn't."

Many folks seem to have this wrong idea that HAMP was voluntary, it wasn't but forced on the banks to agree to as part of TARP. The only issue is there was no cancellation clause. The banks have paid back TARP with huge profits to the taxpayers but as far as I can tell they are not arguing that the HAMP agreements are void since paid back TARP. Since the agreements are silent there legally seem binding. HAMP never was a voluntary program it was a signed agreement between Treasury and the banks.

On the "review" - Yes I intend to file a very comprehensive argument for damages but will wait to hear more info come out if it is going to since we have until end of April. Damages to claim however are minimal (maybe $2k) vs the part time job of dealing with servicer (Citi) vs making money being self employed. I have 50 pages of call by call documentation I will include over about a year of delays etc in a Word file can print out and include. But wasted time, frustration, emotional toll by the banks screwing up may not provide any actionable damages especially since in the end - after Fannie stepped in - I got HAMPed.

[Fleur]

If anyone out there has the time, it would be beneficial to get the bottom of who or what company BofA has hired as their independent consultant. Ahhh darn!.....Rust just closed 10 minutes ago. Only open till 5pm eastern time on Saturdays. I think I'll call Monday & ask them. I encourage others to do the same.

Hi, freedomwon:

I've done that. One November 21st I called to ask that same question, as well as a couple of other ones concerning the process itself and the customer services reps, even the supervisors, were clueless. The supervisor I spoke with said she'd have my questions "escalated" and it would take at least 48 hours for someone to call me back. Well, that was November 21st, and since I did not get a return call I followed up on December 7th and was told by a customer service rep the status was still "escaleated." I insisted on speaking with the supervior to whom my questions was escalated --there was much reluctance by the customer service rep but none the less I was very persistant, saying it was rediculous that 1.) the "Administrator" could not provide consumers answers to simple, straight forward questons, and 2.) it takes more than 2 weeks to consumers answers to their simple, straight forward questions. I finally got to speak with that supervisor who was handling my "escalated" questions, and after much prodding he told me he put my questions to the"Interagency Review (Federal Reserve System, OCC, Office of Thrift Supervision) as well as to my servicer, Chase, because he didn't know the answer (personaly, I believe he's seeking to get "official permission" to answer my questions.)

If you haven't done so yet, go to the thread "Following the NOT SO Independent Foreclosure Review." There are 2 articles that were recently posted on American Banker that sheds a whole lot of light on this process. And, if yo you thought the loan modiciation process was/is a mess, then start getting psychologically prepared to round 2.

[freedomwon]

If you haven't done so yet, go to the thread "Following the NOT SO Independent Foreclosure Review." There are 2 articles that were recently posted on American Banker that sheds a whole lot of light on this process. And, if yo you thought the loan modiciation process was/is a mess, then start getting psychologically prepared to round 2.

Thanks Fleur - that was definitely some good reading. Certainly confirmed what I've suspected all along. I recommend all subscribers to this thread to hop over there & read post #1.

[freedomwon]

The independent consultants retained by each servicer to conduct these reviews of
national banks and federal savings associations are:


• AllonHill, LLC, for Aurora Bank;
• Clayton Services, LLC, for EverBank;
• Deloitte & Touche, LLP, for JPMorgan Chase;
• Ernst & Young, LLP, for HSBC and MetLife Bank;
• Navigant Consulting, Inc., for OneWest;
• PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, for Citibank and U.S. Bank;
• Promontory Financial Group, LLC, for Bank of America, PNC, and Wells Fargo
Bank; and
• Treliant Risk Advisors, LLC, for Sovereign Bank

You can read the recent report& testimony here http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2011/pub-test-2011-146-written.pdf

[estela13]

I received mine today.
~Estela

[davephx]

This should show the OCC is on OUR side and serious - but results will ultimately tell.

From some reserach on the firms, they seem to be independent for example not the law firm or CPA firm that usually works with the bank. This will be a HUGE cost to the banks as it seems they have to pay for it all.

Treasury or the Admin has no power to enforce the HAMP agreements the banks signed and have repeatedly often fraudulently violated (fraud alleged in various state Attorney General lawsuits).

But as I understand it the OCC is the ultimate highest and about only effective govt office that has direct power over the banks.

When there is no HAMP law, only signed agreements but no power to enforce this seems the only last ditch effort "govenment" can do as the banks ignore all agreements, even AG settlments to make their millions by forclosing making their fees while for about 75% of 1sts the taxpayer takes the huge foreclosure losses or about 25% investors in non GSE backed loans.

The banks simply make more money by foreclosing and only the OCC has any power to make them abide by their contractual obligations including following directives under HAMP or from the GSE's.

[cheri]

Hi Cheri - It can be anywhere in the foreclosure process. You don't need to be already foreclosed upon. Here's the criteria to be eligible for a review:

To be eligible for the Review, interested parties must meet these three criteria:

• Their mortgage loan was serviced by one of the participating mortgage servicers.
• Their mortgage loan was active in the foreclosure process between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010.
• The property was the borrower's primary residence.

Thanks Freedom, I pray I dont have to use the site ! lol

[Jeffrey L. Shurtliff]

I still believe the banksters are in control as I had two complaints before the OCC and both were passed to the bank and the bank said that I was not approved for a modification. They accepted that and I have both letters. I also have a letter with an active loan number from the bank dated September 27th 2011, stating the facts on my PMI mortgage insurance and my house was sold in April. It is a fraudclosure backed by the government.

[fightforit]

I am adding some info I copied about the Co. reviewing for Chase-
JPMorgan Chase’s hiring of Deloitte to analyze foreclosure practices also raises questions. Deloitte was the auditor not only for Washington Mutual, the huge mortgage lender that collapsed in 2008, but also for Bear Stearns, another defunct firm. Both WaMu and Bear were acquired by JPMorgan, so any loans they made may come under scrutiny by the same firm that audited their books.

[montana59451]

Damages - ideas
HAMP requires in most cases 3 monthly trials and then conversion to a modification. This should not take 6-24 months! The interest kept accruing and the bank benefited and we lost from the servicing fees the longer the bank could delay doing a modification. We lost since when HAMPed all this interest was added to principal.

Many of us got charged $1000-2000 for attorney fees that were not included in the deferral added to principal. In my case I was foreclosed on after repeated calls being told to be patient my modification paperwork looked fine and someone will get back to me. Instead I got a foreclosure notice. I was damaged by the fee charged and any other fees charged related to the civil fraud of telling me all was well.

Other ideas - did anyone have to go to a doctor because of anxiety. Have to get sleeping pills? Anything financial you can tie to the HAMP delay games you should include as damages.

Everyone had "pain and suffering" but not clear if or how that might be considered.

Those of us that were in the end modified may have more claims then those foreclosed on?

How is a loss determined when you are "relieved" of a home that is worth less than the mortgage especially in a non recourse state? Or if given cash for keys you had a benefit. You may have lost your most precious asset to you, your home but how is that a financial loss when you owed more than the home was worth?

If there was any compensation for "pain and suffering" it would probably wipe out the capital of most banks so many were deceived by the process.

Others may have cost of sending in the paperwork 15 times and having it "lost". If you paid Kinkos etc to fax there was that cost. But for most of us, with our own FAX machines no direct cost just our zillions of hours of time and frustration over in many cases 6 months or a year+ of lies from the banks, lost paperwork and delays so they could wear many folks down to give up and let foreclose with the high fees for foreclosing, owning and reselling the bank servicers receive.

Hopefully over the next few months their will be media pressure which we can help along by finding out more answers on the review process. But at least it is Fed/OCC directed yet the details on who, how, and what damages will be allowed needs to be made public.

On the other hand if the Fed/OCC really are sincere in a serious effort to access damages, they may not want details in public since of course they will be attacked by their Republican buddies who think HAMP is simply interfering with the free market clean up of the mortgage mess and seek a speed up i foreclosures to get rid of us irresponsible homeowners, regardless of hardships caused by the banks mortgages practices starting with sub prime etc.

Bush got his wish of an "ownership society" when he did his infamous speech before the NAACP begging banks to lend to the subprime market. However that and other actions by both parties resulted in the mortgage crisis we are still painfully in.

Hi davephx. It's been almost two years since I have been on here and got my in-house mod (after they decided after5 trial payments I didn't qualify for HAMP because somehow they added in an additional $1300 monthly income wich didn't exist). Of course you never get to see the worksheets for the bank's method of determining inome!

Anyway got the Foreclosure Review form and was wondering if, in your opinion, financial damages would extend to the loss of time from work as an independent trucker spent waiting for Fedex'd paperwork that was suppsed to be there any day and didn't arrive for months? Was always told would be here next week (stayed home), next week came and went no Fedex, called "oh it is scheduled to be sent out in the next few days....on and on and on.

It's been a long time since I even looked at my files, but in reviewing them this morning I was rudely awakened to the fact that B of A's entire handling of my foreclosure was totally illegal. I guess I was much more concerned with saving my home than the actual legalities of the forclosure.

It appears from reading online on the procedures and engagement letter between B of A and their "Independent" Reviewer there is only a limited number of letters being sent out. I was wondering if that is of any significance or is this just a random sampling of forclosure proceedings?


I want to fill out and submit this form, but I also want to know I'm not setting myself up for yet another 8 month ordeal. In all honsety all of us who do go through the Forclosure Review should be compensated for our time at least a fair working wage and even more if we have to talk to or sumit documents to B of A or the Review firm

[davephx]

Lost wages is hardly ever a loss other than in civil case for damages for injuries.

The specific "errors" and losses are very narrow - errors in amount, fees etc., although hopefully they will get lots of claims for as I suggested above to show how consumer fraud (as sued by various State AG's) casued losses due to delays in getting reduction in interest etc.

I don't see independence as an issue per their agreements, but how far they will go to allow damages no one knows.

The mailing was very broad... but only includes foreclosure status in 2009 and 2010 as I read it. Wonder why 2011 not included.

Wonder if anyone that reads this was in foreclosure 2009-2010 and did NOT get the letter?

[Jeffrey L. Shurtliff]

As far as I can tell on this they are asking about a trial mod and if you were put on one and then denied and financial damage was caused by the foreclosure. Also if you property was sold with improper instruments paperwork ect.... and whether or not you sustained financial damage.
Looks like a very narrow doorway to get some sort of remedy. This is smoke and mirrors in my opinion and the country's governing authority is using this to sweep this festering sore under the carpet without treating the reason for the sore. It will emerge again down the road. This is wrong, very wrong and will separate a few million from their rights to participate in the economy, because for them their is no American Dream. I know for me there is no dream and probably never will be again for millions like us.