OCC Decree Examined With Strategic Implications

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

by Patrick Pulatie
>
> In April, when the OCC Consent Decree came out, I reviewed it
> extensively, and the Foreclosure Review findings previously done by the
> OCC.
>
> I adapted my foreclosure exam to meet and exceed ALL the guidelines of
> the OCC Decree. Then, I contacted the OCC personally to see what it took
> to be one of the firms that would conduct the review.
>
> The OCC explained that each lender had the discretion to hire the firm
> of their choice, so I immediately knew that the whitewash would be in.
> Even then, I contacted the lenders and servicers about my exam, and was
> told that the firms had been selected. So, that was dead.
>
> In the Decree, the lenders do not have to reveal their findings to
> anyone but the OCC. The OCC will not publish findings.
>
> Only a sampling of foreclosures will be conducted, not every foreclosure
> as the article suggests. Those foreclosures sampled will be kept secret,
> and the homeowners not notified of what is found.
>
> The program for concerned homeowners being established by the OCC means
> little. It is left up to the lenders to review complaints.
>
> Now, the important news. How to fight this.
>
> 1. You need a competent attorney.
>
> 2. You need a Foreclosure Exam, compliant with the OCC Decree.
>
> 3. You use the Exam and the Decree to allege wrongful foreclosure.
>
> Now, there are critical things in the Decree that you must be aware of.
>
> 1. Nebulous arguments are not going to work. You need to be able to
> argue your points, with proof to back them up, and to meet a heightened
> pleading standard.
>
> 2. The Consent Decree identifies that MERS is an agent for lenders. So
> attempting to argue MERS will be extremely difficult, unless you
> understand your state laws. Even then, thanks to the OCC, there may be a
> claim of Federal Preemption, but in some states, the MERS issue may be
> valid.
>
> (There are other issues, but I am not going to educate firms claiming to
> do exams that don’t have a clue how to interpret this stuff.)
>
> Know this.
>
> The lenders have arguments that they will present as to why your
> arguments are not valid. Your attorney and examiner need to know what
> these arguments are ahead of time, and how to write the complaint so as
> to avoid these arguments.
>
> You cannot do this Pro Se. An attorney is needed. Period.
>
> Damages must be specifically alleged. If you go in and cannot be
> specific, then your lawsuit will be greatly reduced in effectiveness.
>
> Don’t go in thinking that you are going to get the home for free. You
> are looking for loan modification, and nothing else. Anything else will
> be ineffective.
>
> Now, at least you have an idea how to use the Decree to your advantage.
>
> One final thing.
>
> Most attorneys go in without a clue as to what modification terms to
> seek. Therefore, they let the lender control any argument regarding such
> terms. This gives the lender all the control in the outcome. Don’t do this.
>
> FYI, I have developed and have filed for patent a new product. It
> evaluates quantitatively the Default Risk of a loan. It is used for both
> approving new loans, and for determining Risk Default of Modified loans.
> At this time, two banks are involved with the product, and a major bank
> is considering it. Meetings are being held again this coming week about
> it. (No one else has such a product. In fact, the GSE’s said that it was
> too difficult to develop.)
>
> The Modification version allows for determining the terms that will
> lower Default Risk on modified loans. Presenting this, in context with
> modification requests, or with bankruptcy proceedings offers a powerful
> and logical reason for modification, as long as it is NPV positive.
>
> Patrick Pulatie
> LFI-Analytics
> www.lfi-analytics.com
>

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |