Big Banksters In Need Of More Profit Begin Easing Into Offering High Cost, Short Term Loans To Cash/Credit Challenged Clients; Create Competition With Storefront, Online Payday Loan Peddlers

Bloomberg reports:

• Banks facing lower revenue from debit-card and overdraft fees are ramping up marketing of small short-term loans, prompting regulators to question if they carry the same risks to borrowers as other forms of payday lending.
  
  The high-cost loans offered by firms including Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and U.S. Bancorp (USB) are meant for people who can’t access other forms of bank credit, similar to the clients of storefront or online payday lenders.
  
  Scrutiny of the loans increased on Sept. 21, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asked Regions Financial Corp. (RF) to provide data showing its loans don’t violate the state’s interest-rate cap. That followed a decision in May by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to investigate payday-like products offered by banks, joining an inquiry by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  
  “They lend money at a high interest rate and get it paid back at the next paycheck,” Cooper said in an interview. “We want to come at this from all angles to prevent these kinds of loans in North Carolina.”
  
  The matter also has found its way into the judicial system. In August, a private lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio, claiming that Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) deceived customers about the true costs of its short-term loans.
  
  Traditional storefront payday loans are secured by a check, post-dated to a borrower’s next payday. Online versions require clients to have payments directly debited from their bank account. Consumer groups have charged that the loans prey on low-income people by concealing costs and ensnaring them in an expensive debt cycle.

For more, see Banks Pushing Into Small Loans Compete With Payday Shops.

'Phantom' Online Lead Generators Using Sneaky Ways To Peddle Payday Loans

The Los Angeles Times reports:

• The envelope looked official enough. "Confidential materials enclosed," it said on the outside. "Unauthorized use strictly prohibited."
  
  Evelyn Potter, 81, could feel something the size of a credit card within. Opening the envelope, she found a plastic card with her name and a "reservation number" printed on it. The card invited her to "get up to $500 in your checking account by tomorrow."
  
  Unsure what to make of the offer, the Valley Village resident handed an accompanying letter to her husband, Brent, who'd been a banker for about 30 years. "Did you know you can use this cash any way you like?" the letter said. "You can. It's your money."
  
  Not really.
  
  What we're actually talking about is a sneaky way of pitching payday loans that can come with annual percentage rates as high as 700%. We're also talking about a cunning ploy to get people to disclose sensitive information that can end up in the hands of marketers.
  
  "I've never seen anything like this before," Brent Potter told me. "They're not even disclosing an interest rate. Someone who needed money could very easily get into a terrible situation."
  
  In the Potters' case, the pitch was from a website called NeedRapidCash.com, which makes clear in its fine print that it doesn't actually give loans. What it does is "submit the information you provide to a lender."
  
  Or to whomever is willing to pony up the most money for your Social Security number, bank account number and other personal info.
  
  "They're auctioning off completed loan applications to the highest bidder," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America. "Some might be real lenders, some might not. It's very dangerous."
  
  NeedRapidCash.com and similar sites serve as so-called lead generators for payday lenders, which pay about $100 for people's loan applications, regardless of whether they end up making the loan.
  
  Fox said online payday lenders are proliferating as their storefront counterparts shrink in number amid more aggressive regulation by state and federal regulators. Frequently, it's unclear what state online payday lenders are operating in — or even whether they're in the country.
  
  The NeedRapidCash.com website offers no clues about its whereabouts. Nor does it provide any way to contact the company other than an email address buried deep in its privacy policy. My email to the address went unanswered.
  
  The site's Internet Protocol address, which marks its real estate in cyberspace, leads to a data center in Las Vegas, where employees told me they'd never heard of NeedRapidCash.com. They figured the site must be based on one of the various Internet services using the data center's equipment.

For more, see Don't be tricked into applying for an online payday loan (So-called lead generators have sneaky ways of pitching payday loans with annual interest rates as high as 700%).

Empty Nesters: The Latest Group Finding Themselves Feeling The Squeeze By Delinquent Student Debt

The Wall Street Journal reports:

• After years of facing all sorts of financial pressures they never expected, from adult kids moving back home to their own parents needing help to retire, empty nest parents are struggling with a new headache.
  
  Thinking it was only natural to want to help children and grandchildren, many co-signed student loans. Now, they're becoming the latest victims of the nation's mounting problem with student-loan debt, which surpassed the $1 trillion mark last year.
  
  At a growing rate, young graduates who are either out of work or who didn't land high-paying jobs find themselves unable to pay their loans. When primary borrowers stop paying, co-signers are expected to pick up the tab—and soon find themselves fending off debt collectors.
  
  "People are confused about what it means to co-sign, and their ongoing obligation," says Deanne Loonin, director of the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project at the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer-advocacy group in Boston. "When they come to understand that they are equally liable, the regrets set in."

***

• It is almost impossible for someone who co-signed a private student loan to escape the debt. A bankruptcy-code change in 2005 made it much tougher for borrowers or co-signers to discharge private student loans in bankruptcy. The main avenue for ending the payments is to prove "undue hardship," and the hurdles are high, says William Brewer Jr., president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, a trade group in Washington, D.C. "The court can take the position that all you need to do is sell your house," he says.

For more, see New Peril for Parents: Their Kids' Student Loans (May require paid subscription; if no subscripton, GO HERE, then click appropriate link for story).

Early-Arriving Craigslist Crowd Breaks Into & Ransacks Temporarily-Unattended Home In Response To Foreclosed Couple's 'Free Yard Sale' Ad

In Woodstock, Georgia, WXIA-TV Channel 11 reports:

• A family in Woodstock, who just lost their home of 20 years to foreclosure and are preparing to move out, lost even more [...]. And it was all because they inadvertently triggered what they now call "mayhem" when they posted a craigslist ad [...].
  
  Their online post was just a well-meaning ad for a giveaway of furniture and other household items in their driveway outside the small house, a giveaway scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Wednesday.
  
  But big crowds showed up early, while the family was out, breaking into the house and taking practically everything inside, in part because the way that the craigslist ad was written gave them the idea that everything on the property was up for grabs.
  
  Wednesday night, Michael Vercher walked 11Alive's Jon Shirek through his family's almost empty soon-to-be former home.
  
  "Well, when we got to the house, I mean, pretty much -- this," he said as he stepped from the foyer into the living room. Their home -- ransacked, ravaged, raked over. Almost everything inside -- gone. "They came in and just tore the place up," he said.
  
  People who responded to the family's craigslist ad showed up at the house earlier than 10 a.m., before Vercher arrived there from work to supervise the giveaway. And when he drove up to the house, he said, they had already broken into it, helping themselves to almost everything inside.
  
  And as the family was calling 911, he could not stop them. "Everyone was inside the house; they were taking out items," he said. "There were cars around the block. It was like ants in and out of the house."
  
  He spoke of how they took, from inside the house, the only items that the family wanted to take with them as they moved out -- family keepsakes, and all their clothes -- everything but a few of their books, which were left scattered across the carpet.

For more, see Foreclosed family watches helplessly as craigslist crowds strip house bare.

Gun-Wielding Cops Disregard Court Order, Storm S. California Home To Carry Out Eviction Of Wheelchair-Bound Cancer Victim

In Orange County, California, OC Weekly reports:

• On the morning of October 10, Niko Black was alone and ill when deputies from the Orange County Sheriff's Department arrived to evict her from her Garden Grove home on Shannon Avenue. "I'm in my bed and I see them storming my property," she tells the Weekly. "I crawl to my wheelchair."
  
  The 37-year-old Mescalero Apache woman, who suffers from a rare, malignant and metastatic form of cancer, refused to open the door, saying that they had no legal right to be there. On the other side was a taped copy of a court order obtained from Federal Bankruptcy Judge Theodore C. Albert in late August that she firmly believes should have prevented the OCSD from carrying out the eviction. The deputies acted anyway.
  
  "They break down my door," Black recounts. "I'm sitting there in my wheel chair. I'm about 100 pounds of shriveled-up cancer and a threat to no one."
  
  What came next, she says, was much more harrowing. "Sergeant Bob Sima puts a gun to my face, finger on the trigger, no safety and walks around me," Black states, pausing to emotionally gather herself. "There's no reason, except for to threaten my life, for an intimidation factor, to put a gun to my head."
  
  With neighbors lining up outside watching, Black's health began to worsen. "I needed my medication, I couldn't breathe and I was having a seizure," she said, claiming that deputies were unresponsive to concerns about her condition; one officer even remarked that she 'looked good' to him. An ambulance finally arrived at her friend's behest and she was forcibly removed from her home and hospitalized.
  
  Sheriff's officials claim they originally arrived to Black's home on September 19 and that she served them legal documents at the time. County counsel allegedly instructed the deputies to carry out the eviction. Following the events of October 10, though, Judge Albert has ordered Wells Fargo and county officials to appear in court on November 13 to explain why they should not be held in contempt for violating the stay and be made to pay punitive damages.
  
  "Wells Fargo filed a motion about an inch thick all the reasons why they should be allowed to evict me," Black said about the court order. "The federal judge denied them and stated very clearly they are not to. The bank illegally acquired an unlawful detainer, an eviction, without due process. They did it with fraudulent paperwork."

For more, see Sheriff's Deputies Barge Into Cancer-Stricken Disabled Woman's House with Guns Drawn to Evict Her.

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on the story.

Ohio Supremes: Standing-Lacking Lender Has No Authority To Foreclose; Status Cannot Be Remedied Post-Filing; Suit Requires Dismissal, But Not A Judgment On The Merits

In Columbus, Ohio, Court News Ohio reports:

• The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled [Wednesday] that a party’s standing to initiate a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit is determined on the date the complaint is filed in court, and a party that lacked standing at the time a suit was filed cannot remedy that defect by receiving assignment of a mortgage and promissory note after the filing of the foreclosure action but prior to the entry of judgment.
  
  Applying that analysis to a Greene County case, the court dismissed a decree of foreclosure granted to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMA) against the home of Duane and Julie Schwartzwald of Xenia because FHLMA did not have standing as an actual party in interest at the time it filed the foreclosure action.
  
  The court’s 7-0 decision, authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell, reversed a decision of the Second District Court of Appeals.

***

• Writing for a unanimous court in [Wednesday]’s decision, Justice O’Donnell explained that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a trial court, a party initiating a lawsuit must have “in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action.”
  
  Justice O’Donnell wrote: “We recognized that standing is a ‘jurisdictional requirement’ in State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, (1973), and we stated: ‘It is an elementary concept of law that a party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action.’ ... And recently, in Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., (2010), we affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for lack of standing when it had been filed before the claimant had suffered any injury.”
  
  Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 holding in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that “standing is to be determined as of the commencement of suit,” and state court decisions supporting that same conclusion from Oklahoma, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Florida, Mississippi, and Nebraska,(1) Justice O’Donnell pointed out that in this case “Federal Home Loan concedes that there is no evidence that it had suffered any injury at the time it commenced this foreclosure action. Thus, because it failed to establish an interest in the note or mortgage at the time it filed suit, it had no standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court.”
  
  The justices rejected the Second District’s finding that FHLMA’s lack of initial standing to sue had been remedied by the assignment of the Schwartzwald’s mortgage and promissory note from Wells Fargo to FHLMA after the foreclosure action had been filed.
  
  Justice O’Donnell wrote that Ohio Civil Rule 17(A) allows an authorized representative of a real party in interest, such as the executor or administrator of an estate, the trustee of a trust, or a party with a shared contractual interest in disputed property to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the real party in interest, but does not “allow a party with no personal stake in a controversy to file a claim on behalf of a third party, obtain the cause of action by assignment, and then have the assignment relate back to commencement of the action.”
  
  Noting that its dismissal of FHLMA’s April 2009 complaint based on lack of standing was not a judgment on the merits of the case, and did not preclude the pursuit of a future foreclosure action, the court concluded: “It is fundamental that a party commencing litigation must have standing to sue in order to present a justiciable controversy and invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court. Civ.R. 17(A) does not change this principle, and a lack of standing at the outset of litigation cannot be cured by receipt of an assignment of the claim or by substitution of the real party in interest.”
  
  “Here, it is undisputed that Federal Home Loan did not have standing at the time it commenced this foreclosure action, and therefore it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is dismissed.”

For the story, see Supreme Court Holds Foreclosure Action Void If Party Filing Suit Did So Before Becoming Actual Party in Interest (Assignment of Note After Suit Filed Does Not Cure Lack of Standing).

For the ruling, see Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5017 (Ohio October 31, 2012).

See also, The Columbus Dispatch: High court limits foreclosure filings (Ohio justices rule lender must have paperwork in order, in its possession before taking a home).

(1) For the cases:

• Oklahoma: Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust v. Brumbaugh, 2012 OK 3, 270 P.3d 151 (Ok. 2012);
• Vermont: U.S.Bank Natl. Assn. v. Kimball, 190 Vt. 210, 2011 VT 81, 27 A.3d 1087 (Vt. 2011);
• Maine: Mtge. Electronic Registration Sys., Inc. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, 2 A.3d 287 (Me. 2010);
• Connecticut: RMS Residential Properties, L.L.C. v. Miller, 303 Conn. 224, 229, 232, 32 A.3d 309 (Conn. 2011);
• Florida: McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Natl. Assn., 79 So.3d 170 (Fla.App. 4th DCA, 2012);
• Mississippi: Burley v. Douglas, 26 So.3d 1013 (Miss.2009); and
• Nebraska: In re 2007 Administration of Appropriations of Water of the Niobrara, 278 Neb. 137, 768 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 2009).

Homeowner Could Face 'Force-Placed' Foreclosure Squeeze By Filing Casualty Claim On Home Insurance Policy; "A Real Life Halloween Trick" That Screws Consumers: Florida Consumer Advocate

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports:

• Florida's insurance watchdog Tuesday called for an investigation into companies that she says deny claims by alleging that customers misrepresented their finances when applying for policies.
  
  Insurance Consumer Advocate Robin Westcott cited repeated complaints against Fort Lauderdale-based Universal Property & Casualty in asking Florida regulators for the probe.
  
  Westcott said insurers should verify applicant's financial information within 90 days of coverage — not take premiums for years before checking credit reports and then later cancel policies and deny claims.
  
  "This tactic threatens homeowners' financial well-being as well as the state's economy and must be addressed swiftly and appropriately," Westcott said in a news release.
  
  "This is a real-life Halloween trick that does not treat consumers fairly. We must give consumers relief from this game of 'gotcha.'''
  
  Universal executives did not return phone calls or emails late Tuesday.
  
  Westcott said insurers appear to be using bankruptcy, liens, judgments and "perhaps" foreclosures as a reason to find Floridians ineligible for certain homeowners policies.
  
  When those policies are canceled, homeowners may be bound by terms of their mortgage to retroactively buy coverage under a lender-placed program [ie. force-placed insurance]. If they can't afford that program, they could lose their homes.
  
  In addition, cancellations will drive more to the state-backed insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corp., which is trying to trim the number of its policyholders, she said.
  
  Westcott asked regulators to work with insurers on "reasonable standards" for underwriting that recognize
  
  "Florida's unique circumstance with regard to the foreclosure crisis." Almost half of the mortgages in Florida are "upside down," with more owed than homes are worth, and Florida is among the hardest hit nationwide in foreclosures and bankruptcies, she said..

Source: Insurers under fire once again (Watchdog says Universal cancels policies improperly).

For the Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate's press release, see Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate Westcott Calls for OIR Investigation into Insurance Company Post-Claim Underwriting Tactics.

Go here for the Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate's letter to the state Insurance Commisioner requesting the probe.

Lenders' Role In Deal Beyond That Of Traditional Creditor May Land It In 'Fiduciary' Hot Water With Borrowers Seeking To Stiff Them

From a client alert from the North Carolina law firm Poyner Spruill LLP:

• In the wake of the collapse of the real estate market, banks across the country have seen a significant increase in cases brought by developers and individual buyers alike seeking to avoid their loan obligations on their failed real estate investments.
  
  Many of these claims rely on the argument that the appraisal on which the loan was approved over-valued the property, and that the lender knew or should have known the appraisal was inflated and breached a duty to advise the borrower of that fact.
  
  North Carolina’s courts routinely have rejected these claims, relying on long standing authority that the mere existence of a debtor-creditor relationship does not make the lender the borrower’s fiduciary and that, absent a fiduciary relationship, a lender is only obligated to perform those duties expressly provided for in the loan documents, which generally contain no obligation to advise the borrower about the appraisal.
  
  A recent decision from the North Carolina Business Court illustrates the risks a lender faces when it assumes a role in a transaction beyond that of a traditional creditor.
  
  In WNC Holdings, LLC et al. v. Alliance Bank & Trust, et al., the Business Court denied a lender’s motion to dismiss a developer’s breach of fiduciary duty claim because the lender allegedly acted as a “financial and development advisor” to the developer by completing “financial feasibility pro forma statements” on behalf of the developer; reviewing property development agreements and making suggested changes; and performing inspections of the property and development.
  
  After concluding a breach of fiduciary duty claim was sufficiently supported by the allegations, the Business Court also allowed to stand the developer’s claims of negligence, fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, constructive fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and punitive damages.
  
  Those claims were based on allegations that the lender, as a fiduciary of the borrower, had an obligation to but failed to tell the developer that the initial appraisal of the property was defective, and allegations that the lender misled the borrower into believing the property needed to be reappraised because of the economic downturn rather than because of defects in the first appraisal.

For more, see Lenders Beware: The Risks of Creating a Fiduciary Relationship With Your Borrower.

For the ruling, see WNC Holdings, LLC v. Alliance Bank & Trust Co., 2012 NCBC 50 (October 2, 2012).

Tampa Federal Jury Convicts Trio In Short Sale "Flopping" Racket That Targeted Financially Distressed Houses & Duped Unwitting Homeowners Into Participating

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Tampa, Florida):

• U.S. Attorney Robert E. O'Neill announces that a federal jury [] found John Lebron (33, Tampa), Patricia Lebron (36, Tampa), and Paul Gogolewski (31, Tampa) guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. John Lebron was also found guilty of making false statements to financial institutions. All three individuals face a maximum penalty of 30 years imprisonment. Their sentencings are scheduled for January 18, 2013.
  
  According to the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the individuals conspired together to "flop" houses. "Flopping" is a form of short sale fraud involving conducting a short sale on a property and then "flipping" the property in a non-arms' length transaction.
  
  John Lebron was a Florida-licensed realtor and worked as a loan officer. Patricia Lebron is a Florida-licensed realtor. Paul Gogolewski was the President of Synergy Solutions.
  
  Together, they targeted unsophisticated, low income homeowners, who were in financial distress and convinced them to sell their houses to a straw purchaser, in a non-arms' length transaction.(1)
  
  For a brief period of time, the conspirators would pay the mortgage payments but then stopped. They then arranged a short sale of the property from the straw purchaser to one of the conspirators. In that short sale, the lender to the straw purchaser suffered an immediate loss of approximately 80% of the original loan.
  
  Then, six days later but using deeds recorded simultaneously, the properties were re-sold to another straw purchaser for approximately 350% more than the short sale amount.
  
  In these deals, the conspirators pocketed the money that should have gone to the original distressed home owner,(2) received the mortgage broker commission for arranging the first straw purchaser's loan, and got the difference between the short sale amount and the new loan. The straw purchasers were all paid $5,000 for their role. In all, this case involved at $1.5 million dollars in loans.

For the U.S. Attorney press release, see Federal Jury Convicts Three Of Mortgage Fraud "Flopping".

(1) I suspect that, in this non-arm's length transaction, the homeowners may have been duped into participating in the ripoff with promises that they could save their homes from foreclosure by engaging in a purported sale leaseback arrangement.

(2) Ibid.

C. Fla. Real Estate 'Land Trust' Operator Cops Guilty Plea In 'Reverse Staging' Short Sale Flipping Scam; Intentionally Trashed Homes To Drive Down Appraisals Prior To Purchase, Then Flipped For Profit

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Orlando, Florida):

• Guerard Wallace Howard (63, Melbourne) pleaded guilty [] to one count of wire fraud, he faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2013, before Senior U.S. District Judge G. Kendall Sharp.
  
  According to the plea agreement, between November 2007 and August 2011, Howard operated an illegal real estate short sale flipping business, Provincial Real Estate Administrative Services, Inc. (“Provincial”).(1)
  
  Using Provincial, Howard made properties appear to be in poor condition during appraisals, through a scheme known as reverse staging.
  
  Reverse staging is a process wherein someone manipulates the short sale price by intentionally downgrading a property's appearance and falsely representing the condition of a property in advance of bank appraisals. Reverse staging is done in an effort to acquire the property at below market price.
  
  In this case, it included Howard removing receptacle plates and pulling wires from the walls to falsely represent to an appraiser that the house required rewiring; falsely representing that the house needed electrical service upgrades, and repair work.
  
  In some instances it also involved spraying the house with a foul-smelling prank product, and falsely representing to an appraiser that the odor was due to mold or other potential biohazard issues that required expensive remediation costs.
  
  The reverse staging effectively caused the lender to agree to the below market offer made by Howard through Provincial. The property was then immediately resold at a profit.

For the U.S. Attorney press release, see Melbourne Man Pleads Guilty To Short Sale Mortgage Fraud.

For the factual basis and plea agreement, see U.S. v. Howard.

(1) According to the factual basis filed in this prosecution:

• Howard and Provincial, doing business as a real estate management company, approached and/or were approached by distressed sellers and negotiated a land trust agreement with the Provincial as trustee.
  
  Howard then had the seller execute a warranty deed to the trustee, Provincial. The deed effectively transfened title of the property to Provincial. However, rather than record the deed immediately, Howard waited to record it until just before closing the short sale transaction.
  
  When negotiating the short sale with the lender, Howard did not inform the lender of the land trust agreement nor provided the warranty deed to trustee, but acted under the auspices of representing the  seller. This tactic concealed from the short sale lender the fact that Howard, through Provincial, was contracting to purchase property for which he already held the title.

***

• Howard scheduled both closings for the same day, or as close together as possible, and paid cash-obtained through investor funds-for the short sale purchase. Howard then resold to the end buyer who financed through one of two end buyer lenders who calculated the seasoning period in Howard's favor.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Faces FBI Probe For Reportedly 'Dancing' The 'Short Sale Shuffle' While Trying To Unload Underwater Home; Speeds Off In 'Getaway' Car To Dodge Local TV News Reporter's Questions

In Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan, WXYZ-TV Channel 7 reports:

• State Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway is under investigation by the FBI, according to law enforcement sources.
  
  The probe comes as a result of a 7 Action News investigation into a dizzying property shuffle Hathaway made prior to her bank granting a short sale.
  
  Hathaway's lawyer Steve Fishman said [] by phone that he was unaware of any federal investigation.
  
  Justice Hathaway had previously refused multiple requests for comment about the property transfers, and ultimately sped away in her car when approached by 7 Action News Investigator Ross Jones last May. She may have a harder time dodging the feds' questions.
  
  A short sale allows a homeowner to sell his or her property at a loss rather than go into a foreclosure. It can save the owner hundreds of thousands of dollars in mortgage payments, but he or she needs to prove a hardship to their bank, like a loss in income.
  
  But prior to Hathaway’s short sale, she shuffled two homes out of her name: a Florida home valued at almost three-quarters of a million dollars went to her stepdaughter, and one in Grosse Pointe Park went to her stepson.
  
  After the bank agreed to the short sale on Hathaway’s Lake St. Clair home, that Florida house went back into Hathaway’s name.
  
  The home where the Justice currently lives was recently put into her name, but its first owner was Hathaway’s stepdaughter. According to records, she bought it for $195,000 cash around the same time Hathaway’s bank was mulling over the short sale that they ultimately approved. Hathaway won’t say whose cash was used to buy that home.
  
  "It raises questions," said Howard Young, a Bingham Farms attorney who reviewed the timing of the property transfers without knowing they were Hathaway's.
  
  "It just sounds like, listen I’m going to park these assets in your name for a while, there’ll be deeds recorded, you’ll own them for all intents and purposes but our deal is, because you’re my child…when the trouble passes, you’re going to transfer the property back to me," he said.
  
  It’s not clear when the FBI's investigation began, but 7 Action News has learned that grand jury subpoenas have already been issued. Even though the feds are investigating, it does not mean that charges are imminent.
  
  A call to Hathaway for comment was not returned.

Source: State Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway under FBI investigation (Probe sparked by 7 Action News).

For the earlier WXYZ-TV Channel 7 story, see Did a Michigan Supreme Court Justice play a shell game to get out from her underwater home?

California Appeals Court Belts Borrowers With Personal Liability On Non-Recourse Mortgage For Committing 'Bad Faith' Waste

From a client alert from the California law firm Farella Braun & Martel LLP:

• Borrowers and their constituents generally benefit from certain limitations on personal liability for indebtedness secured by California real property. California’s one action and anti-deficiency rules require a lender faced with a borrower default to proceed against the real estate first and prohibit a deficiency judgment following a nonjudicial foreclosure or in the case of a purchase money loan.
  
  In addition, various corporate forms generally provide principals and employees with comfort that they will not be personally liable for an entity’s debts. A recent California appellate court decision, however, delivered a sobering reminder that, despite these protections, even the well-intentioned may face unexpected (and involuntary) liability.
  
  In Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 284 (2012), the appellate court considered whether a borrower corporation, its sole owner and certain of its key employees could be held liable to a foreclosing purchase money lender for a deficiency relating to nonpayment of a loan where the borrower demolished a building prior to securing construction financing for the redevelopment.
  
  The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to all claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the borrower, as well as its representatives, could be held liable to its purchase money lender for “bad faith” waste.
  
  The court relied, in part, on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cornelison v. Kornbluth¸ 15 Cal.3d 590 (1975), holding that the anti-deficiency rules (i.e., California statutory rules barring a deficiency judgment following a nonjudicial foreclosure or in the case of a purchase money loan) would not bar recovery against the borrower where the borrower has committed “bad faith” waste as opposed to waste resulting from “the depressed condition of the general real estate market.”
  
  In ruling that the borrowers (and its owners and representatives) could be liable, the Fait court adopted a more expansive interpretation of “bad faith” waste, stating that “‘bad faith’ waste . . . is any waste that is not the result of economic pressures of a market depression” and noting that it did not require a showing of reckless, intentional or malicious conduct.
  
  The court found that the developer’s decision to demolish the building before it had the financial means to complete development or repay the promissory note was not comparable to a mere decline in property value due to market forces.

***

• The Fait case serves as an important reminder to real estate professionals that the risk of personal liability to lenders for property damage should not be taken lightly.

For more, see Hidden Liability Traps in Real Estate Loans.

Bay State High Court: Uncontroverted 'Affidavit Of Sale' OK In Moving Forward With Carrying Out Post-Foreclosure Boot; 100-Year Old Process Still Viable In Mass.

In Boston, Massachusetts, The Boston Globe reports:

• The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court [] affirmed a lower court decision in favor of mortgage giant Fannie Mae that removes a legal challenge for borrowers fighting foreclosure.
  
  The state’s top court ruled that a so-called “affidavit of sale [under Power of Sale in Mortgage]” is enough for a lender to prove it has the right to seize a home. The affidavit is used by a lender during the auction process to prove it has complied with foreclosure laws.
  
  Christopher Pitt, president of the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, said the process has been in place since 1912. A decision against the affidavits could have put the validity of tens of thousands of foreclosures into question, he said.

***

• The case was first heard in housing court where a judge ruled in favor of Fannie Mae, which was trying to evict tenant Oliver Hendricks of Roslindale who challenged the seizure claiming the affidavit was “outdated.” The top court said Hendricks’s challenge “offered nothing to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”

For the story, see State’s highest court rules for lender in foreclosure affidavit case.

For the ruling, see Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Hendricks, SJC-11234 (Mass. October 26, 2012).

Maryland High Court: Centuries-Old 'Self-Help' Remedy OK When Booting Holdover Homeowners Post-Foreclosure Sale, But Handle Occupants' Personal Property With Care

An opinion summary from a recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision reported at Justia US Law:

• At issue in this case was whether Respondents, a property management company, law firm, and mortgage servicer, committed an impermissible forcible entry when they enforced, through lock-out, the foreclosure purchaser's lawful possessory interest in a dwelling by the means of the common law remedy of self-help,(1) as opposed to receiving first the issuance of a statutory writ of possession from the circuit court.
  
  The circuit court granted Respondents' motions to dismiss, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
  
  The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the common law right of peaceable self-help permits a foreclosure purchaser to surreptitiously enter a residential property and change the locks while the resident is out; and (2) the court of special appeals erred in dismissing Plaintiff's conversion claim and in holding that Plaintiff had abandoned all personal property in the residence, as there was no adequate basis from which to conclude that Plaintiff abandoned his personalty or that Respondents acted reasonably in disposing of his belongings.

Source: Opinion Summary: Nickens v. Mt. Vernon Realty.

For the ruling, see Nickens v. Mt. Vernon Realty Group, LLC, No. 7, Sept. Term (October 19, 2012).

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on the ruling.

(1) Buried in footnote 2 of the ruling, the Maryland high court comments on the common law remedy of self-help when carrying out a post-foreclosure boot which, apparently (at least in Maryland), is still a viable method to obtain actual possession from any occupants in foreclosed-upon property (provided, of course, those occupants do not otherwise have a legal right to reside there):

• Originating in fourteenth-century England, peaceable self-help is a common law remedy that provides title owners with the right to repossess their real property from a possessor who has no legal right to reside on that property. See, e.g., Laney v. State, 379 Md. 522, 543, 842 A.2d 773, 785 (2004) ("The right of peaceable self-help, therefore, is a viable mechanism for a title owner of property to obtain actual possession of real property from a holdover mortgagor."); see also 1 Julian J. Alexander, British Statutes in Force in Maryland 247 (Ward Baldwin Coe ed., 2d ed. 1912) (explaining the common law background of the causes of action that gave rise to the self-help remedy).

Freddie's Mortgage Refinance Resistance Kept Homeowners Locked Into High-Rate Handcuffs; Some Regarded Relief As Nothing More Than Backdoor Economic Stimulus

ProPublica reports:

• Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, made it harder for millions of Americans to refinance their high-interest-rate mortgages for fear it would cut into company profits, present and former Freddie Mac officials disclosed in recent interviews.
  
  In closed door meetings, two Republican-leaning board members and at least one executive resisted a mass refi policy for an additional reason, according to the interviews: They regarded it as a backdoor economic stimulus.
  
  Freddie's policy was financially brutal: During the worst years of the Great Recession, when homeowners most needed the savings they could have gotten from refinancing to lower interest rates, Freddie helped keep millions of borrowers locked in high-interest-rate mortgages.

***

• Freddie's resistance to refis highlights a central conflict of interest that plagues both Freddie and Fannie. That conflict is even more pronounced now that they are owned by taxpayers. The companies, which own or back about 60 percent of U.S. home mortgages, have a mandate to help expand homeownership and also to generate profits. These goals can work at cross purposes.

For more, see Why Freddie Mac Resisted Refis.

Bankster Attaches 'Liability Release' As Condition To Homeowner Mortgage Resolution Refund Checks

Blogger David Dayen writes in Firedoglake:

• The failings of the 49-state foreclosure fraud settlement have by now become so obvious that even traditional media cannot ignore it. When half of the $2.5 billion earmarked as a hard-dollar penalty to states for aid and relief for struggling homeowners just gets sucked up into filling state budget holes, you can hardly make any excuses.
  
  And the other 90% of the settlement isn’t exactly destined to flow into the hands of homeowners, either; as we know, banks will probably honor up to 1/4 of their “penalty” by doing things they already do as a routine part of their business.
  
  There’s another potential element to this that we’re already starting to see. In relation to a resolution outside the settlement, Wells Fargo has been sending along refund checks to homeowners who overpaid for loans that the bank steered them into. Just one thing, though: the refund checks, if cashed, serve as a legal claim of liability release.

For more, see The Banks Devise a New Deal for Homeowners: Token Relief for Liability Waivers.

Bulk Tax Lien Purchaser Faces Threat Of Being Foreclosed Out From Under By City Over More Recent Delinquent Property Taxes

In Albany, New York, Courthouse News Service reports:

• A Florida company asked a federal judge to bar the city of Schenectady from foreclosing on tax-delinquent properties, claiming it paid the city $43 million for the right to do so.
  
  American Tax Funding, of Jupiter, Fla., says city foreclosures would thwart its own foreclosures in Schenectady and threaten its livelihood.
  
  American Tax Funding is a collections company that buys tax liens in bulk from municipalities that lack resources to recover back taxes from homeowners. American Tax pays cash up-front, then recoups its money from the property owners through repayment plans or foreclosure.
  
  The company paid more than $43 [million] to Schenectady for its tax liens between 2004 and 2009, American Tax claims in its federal complaint.
  
  But in September the city said it would conduct its own foreclosures on tax liens from 2010 and 2011.
  
  American Tax Funding claims that "would render numerous liens that the city sold to ATF worthless," because they could involve some of the same properties.
  
  "The city's threatened foreclosure action would preclude ATF's foreclosures, would preclude ATF from collecting on the payment plans that it has in place with numerous property owners, and would also preclude ATF from purchasing subsequent tax liens pursuant to its right of first refusal under the contracts," according to the complaint.
  
  "Not only would ATF be left unable to recoup its investment in the tax liens if the city were permitted to proceed, these actions on the part of the city will result in the demise of ATF, as AFT would not be able to repay its bank loans obtained to finance the purchase."
  
  ATF's website describes the company as "the nation's leading bulk sale purchaser and servicer of delinquent property tax liens."

For more, see Tax Farmer Sues NY City Over Tax Liens.

Chicago Federal Judge Gives Class Action-Seeking Suit The Go-Ahead; Complaint Alleges State Law Claims That Bankster Botched Homeowner's 'HAMP' Loan Modification Requests

In Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago Tribune reports:

• A Yorkville homeowner's lawsuit alleging that her lender botched her efforts to modify her mortgage will be allowed to proceed and seek class-action status, a federal court judge ruled this week.
  
  The [] ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, denying OneWest Bank's motion to dismiss the case filed by Stacey Fletcher, shows that the door has been opened to homeowners and former homeowners who believe their lenders mishandled applications for participation in the government's loan modification programs, according to Steven Woodrow, one of Fletcher's attorneys.
  
  "It really helps the people who are really being strung along," Woodrow said. "That person may be able to sue the bank for breach of contract."
  
  In 2009, three years after purchasing a home, Fletcher encountered financial difficulties and sought to have her mortgage payments modified by IndyMac Mortgage Services, her lender whose assets have since been acquired by OneWest. According to the suit, a bank representative suggested that Fletcher skip a few mortgage payments in order to qualify for the federal government's Home Affordable Modification Program.
  
  In February 2010 she was approved for a three-month trial payment plan and told, according to the suit, that if she was approved after making those three payments, her modification would be made permanent. Fletcher made the payments, but the bank had trouble crediting her account for the payments and reported her delinquency to credit bureaus. Conflicting letters arrived, including one that came even before the first trial payment was due. That one stated Fletcher was not eligible for a permanent modification because she hadn't made her trial payments.
  
  Two months after the trial period ended, Fletcher hadn't received any decision regarding a permanent loan modification. She filed the lawsuit seeking class action status, alleging, among other things, breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act.
  
  Fletcher remains in the home, and a foreclosure action has not yet been filed against her because of the pending litigation, Woodrow said. Fletcher declined an interview request.
  
  David Isaacs, a spokesman for OneWest, said the bank doesn't comment on pending litigation.
  
  In her opinion, Coleman cited a federal appellate court ruling in March that favored another Chicago-area homeowner who filed a similar case.(1)
  
  In that case, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling and revived a suit filed by Lori Wigod, a Chicago resident who sued Wells Fargo in 2010. She claimed that the lender broke a promise made in 2009 to give her a permanent loan modification after giving her a four-month trial payment plan.
  
  Lenders have argued that the Home Affordable Modification Program precludes consumers from filing lawsuits alleging federal law violations. But the appellate court ruled that Wigod's state law claims of breach of contract and fraud were not barred by federal laws.
  
  Fletcher's case was put on hold until the appellate court's ruling.
  
  "There's new cases being filed all the time," said Woodrow, who also represents Wigod. "The first wave got knocked off by motions to dismiss. Since the Wigod decision, that's really opened the door for more claims to be filed, rooted in state law, more breach of contract claims."
  
  Woodrow acknowledged that such cases are complex. If it becomes a class-action complaint, the litigation will have to determine the potential class of claimants. It also will have to resolve now much a time delay constitutes breach of contract and how damages would be calculated.

Source: Judge advances suit over botched mortgage modifications (Ruling allows plaintiff to seek class-action status and could help homeowners who believe their lenders mishandled applications for government loan modification programs).

For the ruling, see Fletcher v. OneWest Bank, FSB, No. 10-cv-4682 (D. Ill. October 22, 2012), which denies the bankster's motion to dismiss the homeowner's lawsuit alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

(1) See Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 673 F. 3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012). Unless ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wigod ruling supports the proposition that bankster violations of HAMP and its enabling statute, while not actionable by homeowners under Federal law, may be actionable under an applicable state consumer fraud or an unfair/deceptive trade practices statute, or through state common law claims.

See National Consumer Law Center: CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE STATES: A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes for an overview of state consumer fraud, unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes throughout the states.

The binding effect of the Wigod ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is limited to all lower Federal courts in the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, but may be considered for its persuasive effect by other courts. To find out which Federal appeals court has jurisdiction over appeals from the lower Federal courts in your state, check the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Map.

Elderly HOA Residents Stuck With Crappy Cable Contract; Face Lien, Foreclosure Threats Over Bills For Services They Don't Use

In Ocala, Florida, WFTV-TV Channel 9 reports:

• Some Ocala residents are taking on a cable company they say is forcing them to pay for services they don't use. The homeowners of the Palm Cay community said Cablevision has threatened them with liens and foreclosure.
  
  Some homeowners said they are still charged by Cablevision, even though they use a satellite TV company. The cable company said it doesn't matter.
  
  One homeowner's cable bill, which he said he hasn't paid in years, went up to $1,200 – and ended up in court Wednesday. Leonard and Annette Gaze, residents of Palm Cay, said they have to stand up for themselves and many of their neighbors. "They are afraid. They don't want to make waves. And they're too old to fight. So they just sit back and pay," Leonard Gaze said.
  
  Some residents don't want it. One said she didn't like the excuse she got when her cable went out. "The moon was in the wrong place and we lost our signal," Hill said. She said the company told her they have a contract in the community and she has to pay forever.
  
  When the community, for ages 55-plus, was built back in the 1980s, cable was considered one of the amenities -- homeowners had to pay for it.
  
  But the service has changed hands over the years. The Gaze's said the old rules no longer apply and they haven't paid their bill in years, so they took the case to court with dozens of their neighbors in tow.
  
  A letter from Cablevision's lawyers to the Gazes insists the homeowners are "contractually obligated" to pay their cable bill, whether they use the service or not.
  
  The Gazes said too many seniors in their community have been frightened into paying. "They're afraid their kids will inherit a problem when they die," Annette Gaze said. The court case resumes next Monday with one last witness -- the owner of the cable company.

For the story, see Cable company forcing payments, Ocala residents say.

Widow Finds Herself Facing Foreclosure After Being Duped By Racket Purporting To Provide Government-Connected Mortgage Help

In Omaha, Nebraska, WOWT-TV Channel 6 reports:

• An Omaha widow thought she had found a financial lifeline in the form of a mortgage refinancing company backed by the government. At least that's what it seemed. The woman's trust turned to tears when foreclosure papers came her way.
  
  When her husband Bud died, Cecelia Minshall lost her ability to live in the home they shared for 30 years. “Couldn't make the payments without him. His Social Security kept us going.”
  
  Cecelia turned to a refinancing program that promised to reduce her mortgage payments. “It's all set up to look like it’s government, but it's not.”
  
  She didn't realize she had been misled until after paying monthly fees totaling $5,000 to Financial Services Center. “I gave this company my mortgage money and they never sent it in to the mortgage company, so now I'm in danger of losing my home.” [...] The phone number for the Financial Services Center in California connects to a voice mail. Fact Finders called and it is full.

For the story, see Widow Scammed Out Of $5,000 Nearly Lost Home.

Foreclosure Rescue Operator Found Guilty In Homeowner Ripoff Involving Abuse Of Bankruptcy System, Bogus Home Buyback Promises

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (New York City):

• Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ANDREW BARTOK, a former owner of the foreclosure remediation business Revelations Consulting (“Revelations”), which was located in New Jersey and Connecticut, was found guilty [] in White Plains federal court of charges related to a scheme to defraud distressed homeowners, commit witness tampering and obstruct federal court proceedings.
  
  BARTOK was convicted after a 15-day jury trial presided over by U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel. He was remanded into the custody of the U.S. Marshals following his conviction.
  
  Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Andrew Bartok dangled false promises of relief to desperate homeowners who were trying to keep their homes, but instead, he victimized them by stealing their money and forcing many of them into involuntary bankruptcy. While Andrew Bartok vacationed in tropical locales and spent his hours in casinos gambling away his clients’ hard-earned money, his clients were losing their most treasured possessions – their homes. He will now face justice for the fraud that he committed against vulnerable and needy homeowners up and down the East Coast.”
  
  According to the Superseding Indictment filed in White Plains federal court, other court documents, and the proof at trial:
  
  From 2000 through February 2011, BARTOK owned Revelations, a company which also operated under the name “Foreclosure Club of America.” BARTOK and his co-conspirators at Revelations and Foreclosure Club of America solicited individuals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Florida who were facing foreclosure proceedings on their homes. BARTOK promised those homeowners that – in exchange for fees paid to Revelations – they would be able to stay in their homes and later repurchase their homes at foreclosure auctions for a fraction of the dollar amount of their mortgage obligations.
  
  In reality, BARTOK and his co-conspirators defrauded hundreds of homeowners of millions of dollars. None of BARTOK’s clients ever bought their homes back using the methods he advocated. Instead, BARTOK and his co-conspirators filed fraudulent bankruptcy petitions and other false documents with U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, primarily in Poughkeepsie, New York, and Newark, New Jersey. BARTOK and his employees forged the names of Revelations’ clients on fraudulent filings under penalty of perjury, subjecting these clients to potential arrest and imprisonment.
  
  BARTOK and his co-conspirators also routinely instructed clients not to attend court proceedings, and not to mention Revelations if contacted by court personnel. As a result of following this advice, at least two of Revelations’ clients were arrested by U.S. Marshals and brought before a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge in Poughkeepsie to explain false documents that BARTOK filed in their names. These clients of Revelations were released after they explained BARTOK’s role in these filings.
  
  The fraudulent documents were filed by BARTOK and his co-conspirators in U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the improper purpose of using the bankruptcy laws to forestall the foreclosure of the clients’ homes as long as possible while Revelations continued to collect its monthly fees.(1) Ultimately, the bankruptcy cases were dismissed and Revelations’ clients – who already had paid significant sums of money to Revelations – were evicted from their homes.
  
  Throughout the fraud, BARTOK collected millions of dollars in fees from his victims.

For the U.S. Attorney press release, see Owner Of Foreclosure Remediation Business Found Guilty In White Plains Federal Court For Fraudulent Scheme That Preyed On Distressed Homeowners.

(1) See Final Report Of The Bankruptcy Foreclosure Scam Task Force for a discussion of the various foreclosure rescue rackets involving the abuse of the bankruptcy court system.

Would-Be Homeowner Victimized In Rent-To-Own Racket: "If Somebody Says, 'We Finance Homes; Ugly Credit, No Credit,' Don't Buy It! Do Your Research. I Didn't, & I Got Stung!"

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, WPVI-TV Channel 6 reports:

• In a special consumer report, Action News helps some families who have fallen victim to a real estate scam and are now on the verge of losing their homes. Action News Consumer Reporter Nydia Han has been investigating the man they say is responsible for their troubles.
  
  It is a heartbreaking situation. They say they invested almost all of their money to own what they thought would be their dream home, but after putting in tens of thousands of dollars, they say they are at risk of losing everything.
  
  "We like it here," said one homeowner. "It's a nice little neighborhood. There are children around they can play with." The father of three, who has asked us to be identified as James, tells Action News he spent $30,000 making his house in Montgomery County a home.
  
  Deneane Grigger says she did the same thing on her home in Delaware County. "Fixing the light fixtures and all kinds of stuff with my money, my hard-earned money that I saved up," she said.
  
  Both say they responded to ads targeting people with Bad Credit, No Credit, or Ugly Credit, and then entered into Rent-to-Own agreements for their homes with Jimmy Zaspel of JimmyZHomes.
  
  "We buy and sell houses and we specialize in selling houses on rent-to-own programs and help people with less than stellar credit realize the dream of home ownership," said Jimmy Zaspel.
  
  James says he gave Jimmy Z a total of more than $50,000, first for rent and then to pay his mortgage. Deneane says she paid out $13,000. Both say their money was wasted.
  
  "I am a single mother with three kids, and I don't have money like that to be wasting," said Deneane. "I am out of everything that I had been saving, thinking that I was finally getting a house that I can fix up and call my own. I've been flim-flammed." The home Deneane lives in was foreclosed on this week.
  
  James is petrified he could lose his home, too, because he says Jimmy Z failed to pay the underlying mortgage. "We just sunk down roots and there's the very real possibility that they could move to foreclose on this property, and I don't have a say in it," said James.
  
  Deneane has filed a lawsuit accusing Jimmy Zaspel and his company, Tulip Enterprises, of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and violation of the unfair trade practices and consumer protection law.
  
  "I'm just looking for my money back so I can just move on and find another house for me and my family and just be done with it," said Deneane.
  
  Deneane says her house was already in foreclosure when she entered into the Rent-to-own deal with JimmyZ. When asked about it, Zaspel said, "That's what she says. She's mistaken."
  
  Action News asked Zaspel how the home could be in foreclosure when he put it under a rent-to-own agreement? His response, "Well, that's because you're not a real estate investor, are you?"
  
  But consumer advocates say it doesn't take a real estate investor to spot this kind of trouble. Ed Magedson of RipOff Report warns that all renters and home buyers must beware. "This is a tremendous problem around the country," said Magedson. "This is going on everywhere."
  
  "If somebody says, 'We finance homes; ugly credit, no credit,' don't buy it. Do your research. I didn't, and I got stung," said James.(1)
  
  Zaspel says he stopped paying the underlying mortgage on the home James lives in only after James stopped paying him. Both Zaspel and James tell me they plan on filing lawsuits against each other.(2)

Source: Nydia Han tracks down man behind real estate scam.

(1) If the allegations made against Zaspel are true, he may make for a pretty good suspect for, at a minimum, criminal charges of theft by deception/theft by false pretenses and organized fraud, charges that could be brought by local and state law enforcement authorities. The Feds could also be interested in his antics for possible violations of federal conspiracy charges, as well as federal wire and mail fraud charges if he employed telephonic communications or mail delivery in pulling off this racket.

In a similar-sounding case, the Detroit, Michigan Feds recently criminally charged a real estate operator for allegedly using dubious 'land contract' deals to peddle illusory home ownership dreams using houses in foreclosure to unwitting, would-be homebuyers. See Detroit Feds Pinch Notorious Area R/E Operator Suspected Of Screwing Over Naive Homebuyers With Land Contracts On Homes In Some Stage Of Foreclosure. (Reportedly, the victims found the property on Craigslist ads, which in part, lead to the wire fraud charges against the real estate operator. See Real estate investor charged with wire fraud in connection to homes sold through Craig's List).

In addition, the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Feds (prosecutors that may have jurisdiction in the case reported in the WPVI-TV Channel 6 story, above) have not been reluctant to bring prosecutions involving home ownership-related  ripoffs. See, for example:

• Philly 'Dream-Killing Slumlord' Cops Plea To Loan Fraud In Connection With Rent To Own Racket That Left Wanna-Be Homeowners Screwed Over,
• Use Of Novel Dual Criminal/Civil Prosecution Targeting Sale Leaseback-Peddling Racket Yields Guilty Pleas, Keeps Victims From Getting Boot From Homes.

(2) As a reminder to those who mistakenly believe that these apparent ripoff deals are nothing more than civil cases (as opposed to criminal matters), it is clear that all the sophisticated paperwork in the world (ie. business/purchase contracts, leases, closing statements, etc.) isn't enough to permit scammers to insulate themselves from criminal prosecution when they target their victims with legitimate-looking business propositions when screwing them over. Criminal prosecutors have the authority to "pierce through" such attempts to disguise a blatant criminal real estate ripoff as a common, legitimate business deal.

Clear precedent exists for such a "pierce through" approach to overcome any objections that will certainly arise when the scammers make the argument that the arrangement was just a civil transaction that, if challenged, should be done with a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. See, for example:

• People v. Frankfort, (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 680, 700; 251 P.2d 401:
  
  The simple answer to this argument is that "The People prosecuting for a crime committed in relation to a contract are not parties to the contract and are not bound by it. They are at liberty in such a prosecution to show the true nature of the transaction." (People v. Chait, 69 Cal.App.2d 503, 519 [159 P.2d 445]; People v. McEntyre, 32 Cal.App.2d Supp. 752, 760 [84 P.2d 560]; People v. Jones, 61 Cal.App.2d 608, 620 [143 P.2d 726]; People v. Pierce, supra, p. 605.)
  a
• People v. Jones, (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 608, 620 [143 P.2d 726]:.
  Defendant argues that the deal with each "seller" was a civil transaction; [...] Cloaked in the draperies of his corporation and pretending to act in its behalf, he boldly approached his unsuspecting victims.
  
  [***]a
  Although each deal in its incipiency bore the color and trappings of a normal, civil contract, yet when subjected to a postmortem it exhaled the stench and disclosed the carcass of a fraud. (People v. Epstein, 118 Cal.App. 7, 10 [4 P.2d 555].) There appears no sign of good faith at any turn. Each taking and appropriation was a grand theft.
  The use of the corporate name and the promises made in accomplishing his purpose were a camouflage of such common variety that no excess of genius was required to discern the fraud. Parol evidence of all that occurred was admissible to show the intention of defendant. (People v. Robinson, 107 Cal.App. 211, 221 [290 P. 470].)

The Looting Of The Mortgage Settlement Fund

Blogger Adam Levin writes in The Huffington Post:

• States are looting the Mortgage Settlement Fund, and the odds are good that you or someone you know is getting robbed -- for the second time.
  
  According to recent reports, politicians, not bankers, are the culprits this time around -- siphoning billions from that historic settlement and pumping it into their broken state budgets. Instead of "manning up" and changing their diet, they're taking a cue from ancient Rome: After a quick trip to the vomitorium, it's back to the banquet table. (Care for a mint?)
  
  Their willingness to play fast and loose with the settlement -- crawling through certain wiggle words in its language to circumvent the clear intent of its negotiators --- tells me they still haven't learned where "fast and loose" leads.

For more, see Back From the Vomitorium: The Looting of the Mortgage Settlement Agreement.

Disbarred NJ Attorney In More Hot Water; Pinched For Allegedly Hijacking Title To House Using Forged Deed, Then Pocketing Close To $1M Through Multi-Mortgage Refinancing

From the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office:

• Alexander Iler, 38, of Middletown, was arrested [] on a charge of second-degree theft for fraudulently converting the ownership of a Middletown property to his own name, Acting Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni announced. Iler, formerly a licensed attorney, was disbarred from the practice of law in July 2012. He previously maintained a law practice in Red Bank, N.J.
  
  The investigation undertaken by the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office revealed that
  Iler fraudulently assumed ownership of a Middletown property by recording a deed, at the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office, which contained a forged signature of the purported “seller.”
  
  Though no sale of the property had actually taken place, the fraudulent deed purported to reflect a transfer of the property from the seller to Iler for a sale price of $575,000 in December 2011. Iler subsequently encumbered the real estate with multiple mortgages, totaling approximately $1,000,000.
  
  Iler was arrested on October 24 and was remanded to the Monmouth County Correctional Institution in lieu of a $250,000 bail, with no 10% option, set by Superior Court Judge Richard W. English., J.S.C. Conditions of bail also required Iler to surrender his passport and submit to a hearing on the source of any funds posted for bail.

For the press release, see Former Red Bank Attorney Arrested for Fraudulently Converting Middletown Property.