February 8, 2012

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for Mortgage

What is the Republican plan to protect consumers from stock, credit card, mortgage fraud?

September 8, 2011 By admin

Question by ?Rich?: What is the Republican plan to protect consumers from stock, credit card, mortgage fraud?

Do you really think we should get rid of all the consumer protection agencies, the SEC, SIPIC, FBI, EPA, FDA, etc., and the State Attorney General’s and let the average citizen to the wolves?
Bill: Only Simm’s wants an educated consumer, we also need the government to educate the consumer not the cigarett companies, credit card companies, drug, food companies, not them!!

Best answer:

Answer by Rush Limbaugh
A bible in every house. You’ll just have to pray you don’t fall victim. That’s basically the republican plan.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Marketers Falsely Claimed to Be Affiliated with Federal Mortgage Relief, Operators in One Case Required to Pay $1.8 Million

August 26, 2011 By admin

The Consumers
consumer

Image by ghwpix
The Consumers
» Their MySpace page
» Their official website

Spartanburg, SC
Spring Fling 2009
Saturday, May 2

consumer-spendingThe Federal Trade Commission put an end to three schemes that claimed they would help consumers with their mortgage and debt problems, as part of settlements with defendants who allegedly claimed a bogus affiliation with government assistance programs.

Under the settlements, which are part of the agency’s ongoing effort to stop scams that prey on consumers in financial distress, the defendants are banned from marketing or helping others to market any mortgage assistance relief product or service; prohibited from misrepresenting the available terms or rates for financial products and the potential to improve a consumer’s credit history or ability to obtain credit; prohibited from representing the benefits of financial products without competent and reliable evidence to substantiate their claims; and prohibited from making misrepresentations about any good or service, including claims of an affiliation with any government entity or program.  They also are required to protect and properly dispose of customer personal information.

Truman Foreclosure Assistance, LLC.  The FTC alleged that the defendants bilked consumers out of thousands of dollars for phony mortgage relief and foreclosure rescue services. Settlement orders with two of the men behind the operation require them to pay .8 million, and ban them from marketing or helping others to market any mortgage relief and foreclosure rescue service.

The FTC’s complaint against Truman Foreclosure Assistance LLC, Eli Hertz, Benzion Jack Itzkowitz, and Richard Zafrani, along with several other defendants, was filed as part of a 2009 law enforcement sweep called “Operation Stolen Hope.”  The agency alleged that the Truman defendants charged up-front feesfrom ,500 to ,000, falsely claiming that for all or most consumers they could get their mortgage modified or stop their homes from being foreclosed.  They claimed a 90-percent success rate and a 100-percent money-back guarantee.  But in many instances, after consumers paid the up-front fees, the defendants failed to provide information about the status of their communication with the consumers’ lenders; failed to contact the consumers’ lenders or obtain mortgage loan modifications; and denied refunds to homeowners for whom they failed to obtain modifications, according to the FTC.

The settlement orders also prohibit Hertz and Itzkowitz from sharing or using customer information, such as Social Security numbers or bank account information, and require the information to be destroyed.

Fedmortgageloans.com.  In this case, the defendants marketed debt relief services as well as mortgage assistance relief services, and the settlement bans them from marketing or helping others to market both mortgage assistance relief and debt relief products or services.

In June 2010, the FTC charged the two corporate defendants and two individuals in this case with misrepresenting that the mortgage assistance and debt relief programs they marketed online were affiliated with the federal or state government, and that consumers were eligible for a federal or state government loan modification or debt relief program.  According to the complaint, the defendants used www.fedmortgageloans.com, www.fedhomeaffordableplan.com, and various other websites to market loan modification services, often displaying official government agency seals or logos and links to the websites of federal government agencies such as HUD, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the White House.  Likewise, multiple sites operated by the defendants promoting debt relief services featured federal or state government logos and seals.  Consumers who provided basic information on any of the sites were all assured that they qualified for mortgage assistance or debt relief programs.

The settlement imposes a ,080,931 judgment against all four defendants:  Dominant Leads, LLC; MAD TJ Holdings, LLC; James Rambadt, also known as James Kane; and Thomas Hayes.  Rambadt is required to pay ,000, with the rest of the judgment against him suspended because of his inability to pay.  Hayes is required to pay ,000, with the rest suspended due to his inability to pay.  If it is determined that the financial information the defendants gave to the FTC was untruthful, the full amount of the judgment will become due.

Making Home Affordable.  In its May 2009 complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants impersonated MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a federal government website that helps eligible homeowners refinance or modify their mortgages.  The FTC previously settled with six other defendants and has now reached a settlement with the final defendant, Scott Lady.

According to the FTC, consumers looking for the federal Making Home Affordable program were diverted to commercial websites that pitched loan modification services or sold consumers’ personal information to marketers that did.  Lady marketed bogus mortgage relief services through two Internet websites that he operated and through search engine advertising promoting his sites.  Making claims such as “Instantly Stop Foreclosure,” and “Guaranteed Solutions to Lower Your Rate Today,” Lady sold to third parties the personal information of consumers who responded.

In addition to the prohibitions against offering mortgage modification services and restrictions on related activities, the settlement imposes a judgment against Lady for 0,415, which will be suspended because of his inability to pay.  If it is determined that the financial information Lady gave to the FTC was untruthful, the full amount of the judgment will become due.

Source: FTC

FMD Consumer News

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arizona AG Terry Goddard Charges Bank of America with Mortgage Fraud

August 16, 2011 By admin

Attorney General Terry Goddard announced that his Office today filed a lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation and its affiliated companies (“Bank of America”) alleging violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and violations of the consent judgment entered in March 2009 between Arizona and the Countrywide companies owned by Bank of America.
Video Rating: 5 / 5

ID Theft, you sometimes forget it can happen to you, here is video I developed to protect yourself so you can take action and be in control of what’s going on around you. MUST SEE LINK: www.wreg.com
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Question by CountessN: Can you remove past information off of your Consumer Profile?
Can a previous employer remove derogatory information off of your consumer profile. My situation is that I took a check for over 300 dollars for a customer purchase and the customer forgot to sign it. I was fired and they put me in a database of some kind so every time I try to find a new job, I have cash register fraud on my background check. Is there a way to take this off of my record? Thanks!

Best answer:

Answer by Nettajay
You really need to clear this up. With internet, everything is forever. I don’t see why a customer not signing a check would be considered a fraud, all someone had to do was call the customer and ask for her signature. Is there something you left out of this story? Anyway, if the store still exist, talk to the store manager and see if you can resolve this issue. If that does not work seek legal help. You do not want this black mark to follow you forever.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Is a mortgage lender authorized to pay off consumer debt at closing out of consumer’s cash out funds?

August 16, 2011 By admin

Question by ButchB: Is a mortgage lender authorized to pay off consumer debt at closing out of consumer’s cash out funds?

Best answer:

Answer by hikerboy3
not unless you authorize them to. Check the fine print.

Give your answer to this question below!

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Wells Fargo Denies Mortgage 1 Day Before Closing To 800 Credit Score Buyer With 20% Down

July 27, 2011 By admin

After years of anything goes loans-writing, the pendulum has swung far, far, in the other direction. Patrick tells the story of how his loan with Wells Fargo was denied, 1 day before he was set to close on a new condo. Even though he has an 800 credit score and was putting 20% down, this hiccup was enough to make Wells Fargo back up. And because of it, he and his five-month pregnant wife now have one week to find a new place to live.

Patrick writes:

I’ve been a Wells Fargo customer for 15 years. Recently, I applied for a home loan with Wells Fargo. I’m a well-qualified buyer and planned on putting 20% down on the condo. I did all my paperwork, turned it into WF one month prior to close. I prepared to move. I packed, and filled out the exit paperwork to my current apartment. My wife and I where excited to be home (condo) owners! We we’re buying it because we needed more space as my wife is 5 months pregnant. As the closing date neared, the lender said everything was in order, but they would need to check to see whether the Home Owners Association of the condo association carried Fidelity Insurance.

Fidelity insurance is a small part of overall insurance. It’s like flood insurance for your home; if you’re not in a flood plane, the flood insurance is somewhat optional. I live in Texas, and it is not a law to carry Fidelity insurance. Fidelity covers the loss of embezzlement by employees. In this case, the HOA does not personally handle any of the money sent to them each month. Oftentimes, it is common for HOAs to use a vendor for accounting and billing and money-handling. This vendor has proof of Fidelity Insurance. The HOA does not handle the money, and therefore does not carry the insurance. They have the 3rd parties insurance covering it.

Wells Fargo denied my loan 1 day before closing because of this. The felt it was too risky. Apparently 20% down, 800 credit score, and almost 30K in the bank is too risky for Wells Fargo. What is truly risky is being a customer of Wells Fargo, as I did everything right with the loan, the HOA did due diligence, the 3rd party had the correct insurance, and now I have to tell my pregnant wife we have one week to move out.

- Patrick

The Consumerist

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

This Is Why You Need To Double Check Your Statements After Prepaying Your Mortgage

January 30, 2011 By admin

Consumers Launch Build It Now! Campaign to Highlight How Reform Helps Ohioans
consumer

Image by ProgressOhio
Today, health care consumers gathered at the Statehouse to celebrate how health care reform is helping Ohioans and to launch the “Build It Now!” campaign. Two years after launching its successful “Fix It Now!” campaign, Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage switches its focus to educating the public and building a strong foundation for the new health care system.

“We are celebrating that health care reform is already helping Ohioans,” said Col Owens, co-chair of Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage. “As we celebrate, though, we must work hard to ensure that the right kind of health care system is built.”

For those who try to prepay their mortgages, here’s a cautionary tale from reader RM. Basically every single time that he’s prepaid his mortgage, there’s been a big problem. The bank keeps applying it to the future interest instead of the existing principal. The future interest is calculated based on the current principal, so that means they’re having him paying extra interest that would have never accrued if they had subtracted his payment correctly!

By the way, publishing sibling Consumer Reports ran a few statistical models and found that you’re probably better off financially putting extra money in a mutual fund than prepaying a mortgage.

But, if prepaying gives you peace of mind and investing in your emotional satisfaction is more important than the financial benefit, go for it. It’s kind of like a conservative investment. Just keep RM’s story in mind. He writes:

I have had a mortgage with Chase for nearly 4 and a half years. In that time, I have been able to cut the principle owed by more than half by paying a little extra each month with sporadic larger lump sums as I am able. The extra amount was always applied to the principle until I made an extra ,000 principle payment last year, paid at the same time as my usual principle and interest payment. Inexplicably, Chase decided to apply nearly 00 of the extra payment to principle and interest for following month (due date 34 days away). The interest calculated into that extra payment was calculated without the extra ,000 removed from the principle.

Fortunately, they reversed the funds when I called them on it and the ,000 was appropriately applied entirely to the principle. The amount of interest initially paid as part of the extra monthly payment was 68.16. When I actually paid one month later (and interest had accrued on my principle, now ,000 lower), the amount paid to interest was only ,240.66. Had I not forced them to apply the extra payment completely to principle, Chase would have “earned” an extra 7.50 of pure profit.

Fast forward to more than a year later, when I was fortunate enough to be able to pay another ,000 toward the principle. We made the payment of ,000 plus the usual monthly payment 13 days early, figuring that 13 days of interest on ,000 was worth saving. Today, I received the statement showing credit for an extra monthly payment (not due for 45 days), again effectively having me prepay a month’s worth of interest that would never otherwise accrue on that ,000. The interest charged for the extra month was 95.20. When I pay next month on a principle balance ,000 smaller, the interest would be 9.90. Again, Chase tried to charge me an extra 5.30 interest on money that I no longer owed them.

Each time, Chase has been good about reversing the charges and applying the payments correctly. But I am certain that they are counting on most people to not realize that they are getting scammed out of a month’s worth of interest on the extra payment if some of it is applied to their next payment more than a month in advance.

This is pretty common occurrence with all kinds of loans, including student loans, so you better check your statements carefully after prepaying, and call the bank immediately if it looks like they applied your extra payment to future interest instead of paying down the principal.

The Consumerist

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Free legal help for avoiding mortgage fraud

November 3, 2010 By admin

Not sure who declared this as Mortgage Fraud Prevention Week, but area groups are offering some free legal help for those who are buying a home or refinancing.

Participants in the week of workshops are Civil Justice, Howard County Office of Consumer Affairs, Howard County Department of Housing and Community Development and Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition.

Workshops scheduled:

Nov 4 — "More in the Middle – Financial Fitness" at Impact Pentecostal Fellowship Church in Essex, sponsored by Associated Black Charities and Church of God in Christ. 6 to 8 p.m.

 Nov. 6 — What’s In Your Loan?" Bain Senior Center, Columbia  From 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. you can ask attorneys questions about buying a home and mortgages. For a one-on-one meeting with a lawyer, you must register in advance at mfp@civiljusticenetwork.org or call Erica Evans at Civil Justice at 410-706-0174.

 

Consuming Interests

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Mortgage fraud thrives in good and bad times

August 21, 2010 By admin

Mortgage fraud thrives in good and bad times
The house on the 53rd block of South Wood Street in Chicago’s Back of the Yards doesn’t look like a 5,000 home. There is no front door and most of the windows are boarded up. Chicago – Business – United States – Financial Services – Mortgages
Read more on MSNBC

BofA’s Lewis Seeks End to New York Attorney General Fraud Suit
Bank of America Corp.’s former Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis asked a judge to throw out the New York attorney general’s lawsuit accusing him of fraud when he led the bank’s purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co.
Read more on Bloomberg

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , ,

Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million

July 29, 2010 By admin

Eight marketers are banned from selling mortgage modification or foreclosure relief services under settlements with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC alleged that the marketers charged homeowners up-front fees and falsely claimed they could get their mortgage loans modified or prevent foreclosure on their homes. The settlements in three separate actions are part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts against scams that target financially distressed consumers.

The FTC settled with the following defendants:
Federal Loan Modification Law Center. Steven Oscherowitz settled FTC charges that he and others advertised and sold a so-called “Federal Loan Modification program.” They charged up to ,000, much of which they required up-front, but Federal Loan Modification often failed to live up to the promised results, according to the FTC’s complaint. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm). The settlement order against Oscherowitz permanently bans him from selling mortgage relief services and from telemarketing any good or service. Under the order, Oscherowitz also is prohibited from misrepresenting any good or service, selling or otherwise benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly. The order imposes an .5 million judgment against Oscherowitz, which represents the amount consumers paid to the defendants while he was involved in the alleged scheme. Any money collected to satisfy the judgment will be paid to injured consumers if practicable, or to the U.S. Treasury as disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Two individual and three corporate defendants already have settled charges against them in this case, and the FTC continues to pursue its case against five other defendants.

Loss Mitigation Services. Dean Shafer, Marion Anthony “Tony” Perry, and Bernadette Perry, also known as Bernadette Carr and Bernadette Carr-Perry, settled allegations that they falsely promised that a loan modification was assured or virtually assured if consumers paid an advance fee of up to ,500. Shafer and the Perrys, who were principals of Loss Mitigation Services, Inc. (LMS) and Synergy Financial Management Corporation, doing business as Direct Lender or DirectLender.com (Direct Lender), also allegedly misrepresented that the companies were a department of, or affiliated with, the consumer’s lender or mortgage servicer. In addition, Shafer and the Perrys falsely claimed that consumers would receive refunds if LMS or Direct Lender failed to secure a loan modification. In many cases, the defendants failed to obtain loan modifications for consumers, and some consumers lost their homes while waiting for the promised results. (7/15/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm.) Under the settlement orders, Shafer and the Perrys are banned from selling mortgage relief services. The orders also impose a .2 million judgment that is suspended due to their inability to pay. In addition to the orders against Shafer and the Perrys, the FTC obtained a default order against LMS and Direct Lender, banning them from selling mortgage relief services and ordering them to pay .2 million.

Hope Now Modifications. Brothers Salvatore and Nicholas Puglia, Hope Now Modifications LLC, and Hope Now Financial Services Corporation settled FTC charges that they falsely claimed that they could obtain mortgage loan modifications in all or virtually all cases and would refund consumers’ money if they failed, and that they were affiliated with, or part of, the HOPE NOW Alliance, a free federal homeowner assistance program. (3/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/newhope.shtm). In addition to banning the defendants from selling mortgage relief services, the settlement order against them permanently bars them from misrepresenting any good or service, violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule, selling or otherwise benefitting from their customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of their customer information properly. The order also imposes a judgment of almost .3 million, which will be suspended when the defendants surrender all of the funds in their bank accounts, which were frozen by the court.

The Commission votes to authorize staff to file the stipulated final orders in Federal Loan Modification Law Center and Loss Mitigation Services were 5-0. The orders were entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 12, 2010, and July 14, 2010, respectively. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order in Hope Now Modifications was 5-0. The order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 12, 2010.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

FMD Consumer Blog

Filed Under: Consumer Economic News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by Yahoo! Answers