Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Nevada Lawsuit Shows Bank of America’s Criminal Incompetence
Source:
Naked Capitalism
URL Source: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011 ... icas-criminal-incompetent.html
Published: Aug 31, 2011
Author: Yves Smith
Post Date: 2011-09-01 12:51:51 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 5835
Comments: 15
It’s pretty remarkable that Mr. Market shrugged off the devastating implications of the amended lawsuit filed by the Nevada attorney general, Catherine Masto against various Bank of America entities. As we’ve stated before, litigation by attorney general is significant not merely due to the damages and remedies sought, but because it paves the way for private lawsuits. And make no mistake about it, this filing is a doozy. It shows the Federal/state attorney general mortgage settlement effort to be a complete travesty. The claim describes, in considerable detail, how various Bank of America units engaged in misconduct in virtually every aspect of its residential mortgage business. The case argues on two tracks: it seeks to overturn the legal shield provided by a 2008 consent decree with Countrywide, since, in simple terms, Countrywide and BofA have flagrantly disregarded it. The case argues a separate series of claims, based on the same fact set, in case the consent decree is deemed to be operative. The complaint describes abuses from the very outset of the securitization process: how borrowers were mis-sold mortgages (it describes how entire products were effectively predatory), how investors were misled as to their quality, how they were not conveyed properly to securitization trusts, how borrowers were subject to abusive servicing (as in charged improper and impermissible fees), how promises made under the old consent decree regarding mortgage modifications were violated (for instance, even though interest rate reductions were promised, instead modifications often resulted in HIGHER interest rates), and the filing of fraudulent paperwork to execute foreclosures.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lucysmom (#0)
I am STILL waiting for BoA to show me that they hold the title to my house.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Be patient, I'm sure they'll find it.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
At 41: COUNT I - VIOLATIONS OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT At 44: COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT JUDGMENT At 45: PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For some reason material linked to Scribd doesn't show up on my computer.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Let me know if this is better, or if you can at least view it at the scribd link. This is in Flash format, the previous in HTML5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/63745572/Doc-63-Nevada-v-BoA-DCNV-3-11-cv-135-SECOND-AMENDED-COMPLAINT Doc 63 - Nevada v BoA, DCNV 3-11-cv-135, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Thank you, but they don't work either. Bottom line, I think I'm gonna have to update my OS.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
It may be a security setting associated with your browser, security add-on, or security software. I can read these in IE9 and Firefox 6.
Here are the pages I referenced with the two COUNTS and the PRAYER FOR RELIEF. 152. The State re-alleges all preceding paragraphs in their entirety. 153. Countywide engaged in deceptive acts or practices by originating mortgage loans that misled consumers, among other things, about (a) the actual interest rate and the interest and monthly payment owed on their loans; (b) the likelihood that the borrower would experience negative amortization; (c) the likelihood of payment shock when the loan reset or recast; and (d) their ability to refinance their loans to avoid unsustainably higher payments. 154. Countrywide engaged in deceptive acts or practices by steering consumers, without their knowledge, into more expensive and risky products than those for which they would have qualified. 155. Countrywide engaged in deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose and affirmatively misrepresenting to investors the characteristics and riskiness of the mortgages that backed the securities they purchased. Countrywide assured investors of their "high quality" loans while failing to disclose, among other things, that: (a) borrowers' incomes and property appraisals often were inflated; (b) Countrywide used multiple layers of risk to qualify uncreditworthy borrowers; (c) Countrywide eroded and regularly departed from underwriting guidelines to approve loans to borrowers; and (d) Countrywide failed to effectively transfer mortgage Notes to the securitization Trusts, creating a significant risk that investors would not be able to enforce the Notes. 156. Countywide engaged in deceptive acts or practices by deceptively marketing and advertising its mortgage loans by, among other things: (a) leading borrowers to believe that Countrywide would obtain for them the best possible loans terms, when, in fact it did not; (b) emphasizing the initial "teaser" rate and minimum payment and failing to disclose the long-term interest rates and payments owed [41] - - - for ARM loans products; (c) misrepresenting that refinancing into certain riskier loan products could save the borrower money; (d) failing to inform borrowers of the likelihood of negative amortization and payment shock; and (e) suggesting that borrowers could refinance to avoid higher payments. 157. Countrywide engaged in deceptive acts or practices during the servicing of residential mortgage loans, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) seeking to collect impermissible and inflated fees and payments from Nevada consumers in default, foreclosure and bankruptcy; and (b) misrepresenting the amount paid or owed by Nevada consumers. 158. Bank of America engaged in deceptive acts or practices during the servicing of residential mortgage loans, including but not limited to, the following: (a) promising to act upon requests for mortgage modifications within a specific period of time, and then failing to do so; (b) promising consumers that they would provide permanent modifications upon successful completion of trial modifications that then failing to do so; (c) falsely assuring consumers that their homes would not be foreclosed while their requests for modifications were pending, but sending foreclosure notices, scheduling auction dates, and even selling consumers' homes while they waited for decisions; (d) falsely notifying consumers or credit reporting agencies that consumers are in default when they are not; (e) misrepresenting the eligibility criteria for modifications and providing consumers with inaccurate and deceptive reasons for denying their requests for modifications; and (f) offering modifications on one set of terms, but then providing consumers with agreements on different terms, misrepresenting that consumers have been approved for modifications, or revoking or failing to honor modifications. 159. Bank of America engaged in deceptive acts or practices in servicing of residential mortgage loans by representing that it had authority for enforce mortgage Notes and foreclose on behalf of certain Trusts, when it had knowingly failed to properly transfer the interest in the relevant Notes to those Trusts. 160. Bank of America engaged in deceptive practices by engaging in collection and foreclosure practices in violation of the FDCPA and SCRA. 161. Defendants' deceptive conduct breached their obligations under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq., including, but not limited to: [42] - - - Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(5), which provides that it is a deceptive practice for a person to "[k]nowingly make[] a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services for sale or lease ... " Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(9), which provides that it is a deceptive practice for a person to "[a]dvertise[] goods or services with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised;" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15), making it a deceptive trade practice for a person to "[k]nowingly maker] any other false representation in a transaction;" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.092(5)(a), making it a deceptive trade practice for a person to advertise or offer an opportunity for investment and represent "that the investment is guaranteed, secured or protected in a manner which he or she knows or has reason to know is false or misleading;" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.092(5)(c), making it a deceptive trade practice for a person to advertise or offer an opportunity for investment and make "any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact which is necessary to make another statement, considering the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading;" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.092(8), which declares that it is a deceptive trade practice for a person to "[k]nowingly misrepresent[] the legal rights, obligations or remedies of a party to a transaction;" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(3), which makes knowing violations of "a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods or services" a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0973, allowing a court to impose heightened penalties for "engaging in a deceptive trade practice directed toward [an] elderly person or person with disability." Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0953, making evidence that someone has engaged in a deceptive practice "prima facie evidence of intent to injure competitors and to destroy or substantially lessen [43] - - - competition. " 162. On information and belief, affected consumers included consumers over the age of 60. 163. In all matters alleged herein, the Defendants acted in the course of their business or occupation within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903 to 598.0999. 164. In all requisite matters alleged herein, the Defendants acted knowingly within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903 to 598.0999. 165. In all matters alleged herein, the Defendants acted willfully in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq. as required by Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0999(2). COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSENT JUDGMENT 166. In the event that the Court does not find that Defendants materially breached the Consent Judgment allowing the State to terminate the Consent Judgment, the State pleads as follows in lieu of Paragraphs 153-157. 167. The State re-alleges all preceding paragraphs in their entirety. 168. Section 4 of the Consent Judgment requires Defendants to provide modifications to Eligible Borrowers. 169. Section 4.6(a) of the Consent Judgment provides that the foreclosure process "will not be initiated or advanced for the period necessary to determine such Eligible Borrower's interest in retaining ownership and ability to afford the revised mortgage terms, as well as the investor's willingness to accept a loan modification." 170. Section 4.9 of the Consent Judgment requires Defendants to "ensure that offers of loan modifications under this Judgment. .. are made to Eligible Borrowers, on average, no more than 60 days after such Eligible Borrowers make contact with the applicable CFC Servicer and provide any required information concerning a possible modification." 171. Section 4.3 of the Consent Judgment prohibits Defendants from increasing Eligible Borrowers' interest rates as a part of a modification under NHRP. 172. Section 4.3 of the Consent Judgment requires Defendants to provide Eligible Borrowers with "streamlined modifications." 173. Defendants have breached the terms of the Consent Judgment by: [44] - - - a. failing to provide modifications to Eligible Borrowers; b. proceeding with foreclosures while Eligible Borrowers were awaiting decisions on their modification requests; c. failing to make decisions on modification requests from Eligible Borrowers within 60 days, on average; d. raising Eligible Borrowers' interest rates despite their commitment to lowering them; and e. failing to provide Eligible Borrowers with streamlined modifications by requiring them to submit extensive documentation. 174. The Consent Judgment constitutes "a court order or injunction issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999" for purposes of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0999(1). Therefore, violations of the Consent Judgment also constitute violations of these provisions of the DTPA. 175. On information and belief, affected consumers include consumers over the age of 60. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that the Court: I. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' operation of their loan modification, loss mitigation, and foreclosure programs has violated, and continues to violate, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq.; 2. Prohibit Defendants from continuing the course of conduct alleged herein as violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq. as written now or amended in the future. 3. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed $5,000 per violation against any Defendant found by the Court to have engaged in any method, act or practice declared unlawful under the above-cited statutes; 4. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed $12,000 per violation against any Defendant found by the Court to have engaged in any method, act or practice declared unlawful under the above-cited statutes, that is directed towards an elderly or disabled person; [45] - - - 5. Order Defendants to pay restitution pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0993; 6. Issue an order allowing the State to terminate its Consent Judgment with Defendants on the grounds that Defendants have materially breached the terms of the Judgment; 7. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Countrywide's loan origination practices alleged herein violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq. 8. Order Defendants to cover the costs incurred by municipalities and other homeowners due to vacant foreclosed properties that secured residential mortgage loans originated or serviced by Countrywide; 9. Order Defendants to pay restitution pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Consent Judgment; 10. Order Defendants to pay the costs of this action; including costs of investigation, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0999(2); and 11. Order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE to Paragraphs 6 through 9 above, in the event the Court does not find a material breach allowing the State to terminate the Consent Judgment, the State respectfully requests that the Court: 12. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's operation of its loan modification program has violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq. and the Consent Judgment in the State of Nevada v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. 13. Prohibit the Defendant from continuing the course of conduct alleged herein as violating the Consent Judgment and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598, et seq. as written now or amended in the future. 14. Hold Defendants in contempt and order them to comply immediately with all provisions of the Consent Judgment pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Consent Judgment. 15. Extend the Termination Date established in the Consent Judgment and impose additional reporting requirements to allow the State to evaluate Defendants' compliance. [46] - - - 16. Order Defendants to pay a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed $10,000 per violation against any Defendant found by the Court to have violated a provision of the Consent Judgment. DATED this 30th day of August, 2011.
Thank you. Looks like B od A could be in big trouble, and if so then Wells Fargo is too.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
FHFA, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, filed 17 complaints of Securities Fraud against various financial institutes today. I posted them to a scribd collection. There are numerous named defendants on each case. They include Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, RBS, Countrywide, and GE.
Really? A couple I know who fell behind on payments for a month or two went through a similar process of who really held their mortgage. They still have their home and I suppose they eventually found out - this happened about 3 years ago.
About time.
"...all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being." Sandeep Jaitly
Literally. I believe they were running up against a three-year statute of limitations next week so they couldn't wait much longer.
I'm fine paying it. I had read that there was some mass confusion about whether or not titles got transferrred when refi's were done or mortgages were bundled and sold.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#2. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, Godwinson, go65, war, no gnu taxes, Skip Intro, ferret mike, mininggold, jwpegler, brian s, mcgowanjm (#0)
He must have got to all of them, but not Masto. And she has ruined his best wishes, not to mention the best wishes of Bank of America. They are denying any wrongdoing and still claiming that “the best way to get the housing market going again in every state is a global settlement that addresses these issues fairly, comprehensively and with finality.” Bullshit. The best way to restore the housing market, the rule of law, and faith in the American system is by rounding up criminal enterprises masquerading as banks.
#3. To: war (#1)
#4. To: lucysmom (#0)
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
#6. To: lucysmom (#5)
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
Let me know if this is better, or if you can at least view it at the scribd link. This is in Flash format, the previous in HTML5.
#8. To: lucysmom (#7)
Bottom line, I think I'm gonna have to update my OS.
#9. To: lucysmom (#7)
COUNT I - VIOLATIONS OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
Here are the pages I referenced with the two COUNTS and the PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
#11. To: lucysmom (#10)
Looks like B od A could be in big trouble, and if so then Wells Fargo is too.
#12. To: war (#1)
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
#14. To: lucysmom (#13)
About time.
#15. To: Fred Mertz (#12)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]