5 ms·

The article seems vague (like when one is too lazy to do real research and so things are kept wishy washy.) However the key paragraph was this: >>> Warren has

The article seems vague (like when one is too lazy to do real research and so things are kept wishy washy.) However the key paragraph was this: >>> Warren has been fighting Wells Fargo’s misdeeds for more than a decade, as she reminded Nevadans at the Democratic primary debate on Feb. 19, harking back to a 2008 meeting with Las Vegans who’d lost their houses in the mortgage crisis. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robo-signer.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robo-signer.asp https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo-signing-settlement-2013-02-28 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-breaks-down-93-bln-robo... For those not familiar with this scandal, the banks signed false legal documents attesting to reviewing documents which in fact they had not. Real reviews would have revealed errors in some cases. Accordingly, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were unjust. However, without adequate legal funds, homeowners could not fight the foreclosures and ended up losing homes w/o cause in many cases.

pjc50 7y ago
Everyone involved in the robosigning process should have gone to jail for fraud. Everyone at any point in the management chain who was aware that the company was obtaining a financial advantage by knowingly making false statements to a court is guilty of an offence.
jl2718 7y ago
I understand how an injustice was committed upon whoever was underwriting the loan, but please explain the injustice of foreclosing on someone who isn’t paying their mortgage? What would justice look like to you? If it’s not foreclosure, then who should pay for the house?
- elliekelly 7y ago
  > but please explain the injustice of foreclosing on someone who isn’t paying their mortgage You can read more about the fraud here[1] but in short Wells Fargo (and others) wrongfully foreclosed on homes that were owned by someone who: - was not in default. i.e., They were, in fact, paying their mortgage or in some cases had even completely paid it off. - was entitled to protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Most often, active duty military personnel stationed overseas. - was entitled to foreclosure protection under federal bankruptcy laws. - had entered into a written modification agreement with the bank and had been abiding by the terms of that agreement. - was wrongfully denied a mortgage modification or requested a mortgage modification and received no response. In addition, there were many cases where the institution had an obligation to engage in loss mitigation efforts with the borrower (modification, short-sale, cash-for-keys, etc.) and failed to do so. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/independent-foreclosure-review.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/independ...
- techsupporter 7y ago
  1) They were lying about what documents they did or didn’t have so Wells (and others, but largely Wells) were foreclosing on the wrong house—like borrowers who previously had a Wells loan but paid it off—or on people who were not past due. That’s unjust. 2) Play by the rules. If the rules say you have to have a documented chain of title and transfers of ownership of deeds of trust, do it. You and I would be laughed out of court at best, arrested and charged with fraud at worst, for doing what these people did. But they, because they did it at the behest of a large bank and “who could really know any better?”, got almost completely away with document fraud. Even if someone didn’t pay, the bank had no right to foreclose if Wells couldn’t prove it owned or had the right to enforce the loans. Everybody playing by the same rules and being rewarded or punished under them is just.
- watwut 7y ago
  They were foreclosing people who were paying. Thus the name robosign - signing foreclosure without proper review.
- jellicle 7y ago
  You're assuming your conclusion there, buddy. The point of the robosigning scandal was that Wells Fargo (and a bunch of other banks) were often swearing in a court of law that a) Fargo owned the mortgage and b) the homeowner was in default on the mortgage when one or both of these things was not, in fact, true. It continues today: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-supposed-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past-but-it-happens-every-day/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-sup...
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  In many cases the logical answer to this question is that the home owner would still pay. There is a process that is to be followed that gives the home owner a chance to explore options or simply to get through a temporary financial crisis. In some cases they actually foreclosed on houses that did not actually have mortgages. Bet a review would have caught THAT.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  If the loan was fraudulent then it's unjust to enforce it. Don't want to lose billions of dollars? Don't give out fraudulent loans. Is it tough to avoid incentivising your employees to commit fraud? Aw, you might need to spend some money on combating that, or be less greedy.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Pay whom, though? Foreclosure gives the value of the house to someone else. It's entirely reasonable that, before confiscating someone's life savings and throwing them on the street, a document is presented to a court that isn't a forgery. It's not their fault that the loan got sold into a complicated system of securitisation. In fact, some of the victims didn't owe money and were foreclosed anyway!

pjc50 7y ago

Everyone involved in the robosigning process should have gone to jail for fraud. Everyone at any point in the management chain who was aware that the company was obtaining a financial advantage by knowingly making false statements to a court is guilty of an offence.

jl2718 7y ago

I understand how an injustice was committed upon whoever was underwriting the loan, but please explain the injustice of foreclosing on someone who isn’t paying their mortgage? What would justice look like to you? If it’s not foreclosure, then who should pay for the house?

elliekelly 7y ago
> but please explain the injustice of foreclosing on someone who isn’t paying their mortgage You can read more about the fraud here[1] but in short Wells Fargo (and others) wrongfully foreclosed on homes that were owned by someone who: - was not in default. i.e., They were, in fact, paying their mortgage or in some cases had even completely paid it off. - was entitled to protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Most often, active duty military personnel stationed overseas. - was entitled to foreclosure protection under federal bankruptcy laws. - had entered into a written modification agreement with the bank and had been abiding by the terms of that agreement. - was wrongfully denied a mortgage modification or requested a mortgage modification and received no response. In addition, there were many cases where the institution had an obligation to engage in loss mitigation efforts with the borrower (modification, short-sale, cash-for-keys, etc.) and failed to do so. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/independent-foreclosure-review.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/independ...
techsupporter 7y ago
1) They were lying about what documents they did or didn’t have so Wells (and others, but largely Wells) were foreclosing on the wrong house—like borrowers who previously had a Wells loan but paid it off—or on people who were not past due. That’s unjust. 2) Play by the rules. If the rules say you have to have a documented chain of title and transfers of ownership of deeds of trust, do it. You and I would be laughed out of court at best, arrested and charged with fraud at worst, for doing what these people did. But they, because they did it at the behest of a large bank and “who could really know any better?”, got almost completely away with document fraud. Even if someone didn’t pay, the bank had no right to foreclose if Wells couldn’t prove it owned or had the right to enforce the loans. Everybody playing by the same rules and being rewarded or punished under them is just.
watwut 7y ago
They were foreclosing people who were paying. Thus the name robosign - signing foreclosure without proper review.
jellicle 7y ago
You're assuming your conclusion there, buddy. The point of the robosigning scandal was that Wells Fargo (and a bunch of other banks) were often swearing in a court of law that a) Fargo owned the mortgage and b) the homeowner was in default on the mortgage when one or both of these things was not, in fact, true. It continues today: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-supposed-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past-but-it-happens-every-day/ https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-sup...
michaelmrose 7y ago
In many cases the logical answer to this question is that the home owner would still pay. There is a process that is to be followed that gives the home owner a chance to explore options or simply to get through a temporary financial crisis. In some cases they actually foreclosed on houses that did not actually have mortgages. Bet a review would have caught THAT.
tialaramex 7y ago
If the loan was fraudulent then it's unjust to enforce it. Don't want to lose billions of dollars? Don't give out fraudulent loans. Is it tough to avoid incentivising your employees to commit fraud? Aw, you might need to spend some money on combating that, or be less greedy.
pjc50 7y ago
Pay whom, though? Foreclosure gives the value of the house to someone else. It's entirely reasonable that, before confiscating someone's life savings and throwing them on the street, a document is presented to a court that isn't a forgery. It's not their fault that the loan got sold into a complicated system of securitisation. In fact, some of the victims didn't owe money and were foreclosed anyway!