NYC Foreclosure Rescue Operator Back In The News

In New York City, WABC-TV Channel 7 ran a follow-up story on Monday on the now well-known area foreclosure rescue operator, Brooklyn based Home Savers Consulting Corp. Two separate criminal investigations are reportedly (still) underway into the rescue firm. Channel 7 investigative reporter Sarah Wallace speaks with two more homeowners who fell victim to the alleged equity stripping scam orchestrated by Home Savers' principal, Phil Simon, by unwittingly signing over their homes to a straw buyer.

Channel 7 was able to catch up with Phil Simon (I mean, they literally caught up with him - when Simon saw the Channel 7 camera, he started running away. Wallace, with microphone in hand and camera person in tow, chased Simon down a Brooklyn street before he relented and consented to speak to her). Simon had little to say, however, other than to refer questions to his attorney. Home Savers' co-principal, Garth Celestine, was conspicuous by his absence in this report.

For the transcript of the story, and a link to the Channel 7 video, see Homes stolen by 'Home Savers'? (Heartbroken people lose homes, equity to "Home Savers").

For the earlier Channel 7 report on Home Savers which aired in late November, see A Home Mortgage Mess.

Go here for other posts on Home Savers Consulting Corp, including links to a couple of the civil lawsuits it has been recently facing.

For a related post, see Foreclosure Rescue - For Criminal Prosecutors Only.

Editor's Note:

According to the law of the State of New York at one time (see Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N. Y. 39 (NY 1899)):

• fraudulently procuring the signature of another to an instrument which he has no intention of signing constituted forgery on the part of the procurer. It was not necessary that the act of forgery be done by the hand of the person being charged. It was sufficient that the forgerer caused or procured it to be done; and


• if the scammed homeowner, during all the time covered by the fraudulent transactions, was in possession of the real property in question, the legal effect of the homeowner's possession constituted notice of the homeowner's rights to the property to all the world, including subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers.

If this is still the law in New York, state and local law enforcement authorities may have grounds to charge these foreclosure rescue operators with forgery. Further, inasmuch as it is generally considered that a forged deed is void, it conveys no title. Accordingly, the scammed homeowners would still own their homes. The burden of the foreclosure rescue scam would be borne by the foreclosure rescue operator, the straw buyer, and the financial institution who financed the equity stripping transaction (and, possibly, the title underwriter who issued the title insurance policies). If anyone knows for sure that Marden v. Dorthy no longer is reflective of New York law, please drop me a line at HomeEquityTheft@yahoo.com and tell me specifically why not (while I understand that the case is over 100 years old, that in itself doesn't make the case obsolete. Unlike a loaf of bread, court decisions of the highest court of the state don't grow stale by the mere passage of time).

One final note. Even if the deed is not considered a forgery, the foreclosure rescue transaction would still have to withstand scrutiny as an equitable mortgage (and, depending on how much profit the operator pocketed, the claim may be that of a usurious equitable mortgage). Possession by the homeowner throughout the transaction would appear to, as noted above, constitute "notice to the world" of the scammed homeowner's rights in the home, thereby denying "bona fide purchaser / encumbrancer" status to the straw buyer, the lending institution financing the deal, or anyone else who subsequently acquired an interest in the home.