Thursday, June 27, 2013

Head Of Document Mill Currently Serving 40 Months To 20 Years In Michigan For Role In Cranking Out Fraudulent Foreclosure Paperwork Gets Five Years In Separate Federal Prosecution For Similar Antics

In Jacksonville, Florida, The Detroit News reports:
  • The former president of a Georgia company that filed more than 1 million forged foreclosure documents in Michigan and other states was sentenced to five years in federal prison Tuesday.

    Lorraine Brown, the former president of the DocX document processing firm in Georgia, was sentenced to five years in prison as well as two years of supervised release and ordered to pay a fine of $15,000 in U.S. District Court for the the Middle District of Florida.

    Brown already is serving a sentence of 40 months to 20 years for fraud in Michigan. The sentence was handed down in May in Kent County Circuit Court.

    “Today’s sentencing represents appropriate punishment for someone who sought to capitalize on the nation’s housing crisis,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

    Brown pleaded guilty to the charges in federal court and a related Missouri case in November, and was charged just a few days later in Michigan by Attorney General Bill Schuette.

    DocX is out of business, but its parent company, Loan Processing Systems of Jacksonville, Fla., has cooperated with investigators and is paying out millions in fines and settlements.
***
  • Complaints about DocX targeted the practice of “robo-signing,” in which legal documents required in foreclosures and other legal filings are signed with faked signatures, illegally back-dated or contain false information. Brown allegedly directed DocX workers to routinely sign the name “Linda Green” on thousands of filings in Michigan with vastly different handwriting.

    Instead of having documents properly signed and legally notarized by authorized people, Brown directed her workers — including temporary help — to forge signatures in order ram through more documents and make more money, according to her plea agreements. Between 2003 and 2009, DocX generated approximately $60 million in gross revenue, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

    The investigation into robo-signing began in April 2011, after several county clerks in Michigan examined their files following an expose of DocX in a “60 Minutes” broadcast. The Michigan Attorney General’s office found more than 1,000 fraudulent documents on file in the state.

    According to a spokeswoman for the Michigan Attorney General’s office, Brown will serve at least her minimum sentence in Michigan, and will be transferred to federal prison to serve any remaining federal time. Brown is now jailed at the Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility.
For the story, see Former executive sentenced to 5 years in prison for foreclosure fraud.

For the U.S. Department of Justice press release, see Former Executive at Florida-Based Lender Processing Services Inc. Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Role in Mortgage-Related Document Fraud Scheme (Over 1 Million Documents Prepared and Filed with Forged and False Signatures, Fraudulent Notarizations).

Head Of Conspiracy That Targeted, Then Impersonated Homeowners With High HELOC Credit Limits To Illegally Draw Down Cash From Accounts Cops Guilty Plea After Spending 4+ Years On The Lam

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Alexandria, Virginia):
  • Tobechi Eyinna Onwuhara, 33, of Dallas, Texas, pleaded guilty [] to charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and computer fraud.
***
  • Onwuhara was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and a federal warrant was issued for his arrest on Aug. 1, 2008. He was later indicted by a federal grand jury on April 21, 2011. He was arrested in Australia after more than four years as a fugitive. Onwuhara faces a maximum penalty of thirty years in prison on the conspiracy to commit bank fraud charge alone when he is sentenced on September 20, 2013.

    According to court records, Onwuhara is the ringleader of a group of Nigerians who used fee-based web databases to search for potential victim account holders with large balances in home equity line of credit (HELOC) accounts. This information included name, address, date of birth, and social security number. Once the conspirators identified a victim, they used other online databases to obtain information commonly used in security questions, such as the victim’s mother’s maiden name. The conspirators then obtained credit reports on the victims in order to verify personal information and account balances.

    Armed with a victim’s personal information, the conspirators called the victim’s financial institution, impersonated the victim, and transferred the majority of the available money from the HELOC account into an account from which a wire transfer could be sent. The conspirators would then wire transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars to domestic or overseas accounts controlled by members of the conspiracy.

    The conspirators used caller-ID spoofing services, prepaid cell phones and PC wireless Internet access cards, and transferred victims’ home telephone numbers in order to impersonate the victim and avoid identifying themselves.

    Once the fraudulently-transferred funds arrived in the destination bank, a conspirator with access to the account would withdraw funds and transfer them to other members of the conspiracy after taking a portion of the proceeds for himself.

Pair Cop Guilty Pleas For Peddling Foreclosure Rescue Program That Used Fractional Interest Deed Transfers & Bogus Bankruptcy Petitions To Scam Upfront, Monthly Fees Out Of Unwitting Homeowners While Dragging Out Repo Process

In Sacramento, California, The Sacramento Bee reports:
  • Two men have pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud in connection with a foreclosure rescue scheme.

    Jesse Wheeler, 36, of Roseville and Brent Medearis, 46, of Modesto entered guilty pleas today in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, according to a federal Department of Justice news release.

    On Dec. 1, 2011, a federal grand jury indicted Wheeler and Medearis along with Jewel L. Hinkles, also known as Cydney Sanchez, 63, of Los Angeles, and Cynthia Corn, 60, of Oakland, for a scheme allegedly run by Hinkles. According to court documents, Wheeler operated JW Financial Solutions in Roseville, and Medearis worked out of a Modesto office, both as affiliates of programs that Hinkles created.

    Hinkles was the founder and general manager of Horizon Property Holdings LLC, in Beverly Hills, according to court documents. From 2008 through 2010, Hinkles offered a service called "Save My Home" or "Homesaver" that promised to rescue financially distressed homeowners from foreclosure and reduce the principal on their mortgages. Horizon offered the program directly to clients and also through "affiliates", who promoted and sold the program to clients, mostly in Northern California. Corn sold the program through Property Relief!, a South San Francisco affiliate, authorities said.

    The defendants allegedly told homeowners that they would save their homes from foreclosure by arranging for investors to purchase their existing mortgage at a discounted price, thereby reducing the homeowner's principal and monthly mortgage payment.

    To prevent foreclosure and to defraud the existing lenders, the defendants allegedly filed fraudulent deeds transferring an interest in the homeowner's property to a fictitious entity called Pacifica Group 49/II.

    In many instances, the defendants also filed fraudulent petitions in bankruptcy court, often naming both the homeowner and Pacific Group 49/II as the debtor. The purpose of these petitions, authorities said, was to invoke the automatic provisions of federal bankruptcy law and bring an immediate halt to any foreclosure actions against a debtor's property.

    Because the fraudulent deeds and bankruptcy petitions delayed foreclosure proceedings, the defendants were able to pretend that they were providing a legitimate service and continue to collect fees from defrauded homeowners, according to federal authorities. To enroll in the Save My Home program, clients were required to make an initial payment of approximately $3,500 and pay monthly fees of up to $1,500. The Homesaver program required an initial payment ranging from $1,750 to $6,500 and monthly fees up to $850.(1)

    In all, the scheme collected at least $5 million from more than 1,000 clients.

    According to court documents, the defendants never arranged for the purchase of a mortgage from any of the clients' lenders and never negotiated a mortgage principal reduction for any of Horizon's clients.

    Wheeler and Medearis are to be sentenced Sept. 16 by U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb.

    Hinkles and Corn are scheduled for trial Aug. 6.
For the story, see Roseville, Modesto men plead guilty to foreclosure rescue scheme.

For the U.S. Attorney (Sacramento, California) press release, see Two Plead Guilty To Foreclosure Rescue Scheme.

(1) See Final Report Of The Bankruptcy Foreclosure Scam Task Force for a discussion of fractional interest deed transfer scams and other foreclosure rescue rackets involving the abuse of the bankruptcy courts.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Shameless Arizona AG OKs Use Of Fraudulent Documents In Foreclosures As Acceptable "Shortcut" Where No Injustice Exists In Underlying Transaction??? Says "The Fact That There Is A Fraudulent Document May Or May Not Mean That The Foreclosure Is Wrongful!"

In Phoenix, Arizona, KNXV-TV Channel 15 reports:
  • Thousands of Arizona families have lost their homes to illegal foreclosures. Illegal foreclosures are based on forged, faked and phony documents.

    According to Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, “There’s been a major, really major effort to clean up that situation.”

    But that's not what we found. The ABC15 Investigators spoke to victims and their attorneys who say bogus documents are still being used to put people out of their homes right here in the Valley. We wanted to know why laws that make it a crime to submit forged documents in court don’t apply to those who are using phony records to foreclose on Arizona families.

    A VALLEY COP AND A DEVOTED MOTHER FINDS FORGED DOCUMENTS

    Gabriella Westfall has served her community as a police officer for more than 25 years. She says she contacted Horne’s office when she discovered that forged documents were being used in an effort to throw her out of her home. “I contacted the AG to say, ‘Look, I’m a victim,' but I have not heard from anybody in the attorney general’s office,” Westfall said.

    Westfall said she faithfully paid her mortgage every month until the bank inexplicably raised her monthly payment and told her she needed a modification. She could only get one if she defaulted. Until then, bank records show she had never missed a payment.

    But during the process the former detective says she discovered her lender was relying on a forged and fabricated document in an effort to foreclose on her home. Westfall says she was shocked to find the now-infamous signature of Linda Green. “I’m a victim of the system and a victim of fraud,” Westfall said.

    Linda Green was, at one time, an employee of a mortgage document processing company called DocX. Public documents show Linda Green’s name was forged on tens of thousands of foreclosure documents across the country. Her name was signed as if she was a vice president of dozens of different banks.

    According to public records, DocX ran a fake document mill set up to fabricate bogus records to be used in court to foreclose on families and push them out of their homes.
***
  • Westfall says as a law enforcement officer, she cannot understand why the courts are letting lenders use forged documents -- and as a mother she cannot explain to her daughters why the laws don’t seem to apply equally to all.

    The ABC15 Investigators sat down with Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne to find out.

    ARE FORGED DOCUMENTS AN ACCEPTABLE SHORTCUT?

    We were surprised to hear Horne characterize the use of forged documents as a “shortcut." “Maybe a document was signed, somebody signed someone else’s name as a shortcut, but in the underlying transaction, there was no injustice,” Horne said. Referring to the homeowner facing foreclosure, Horne said, “That person didn’t pay.”

    The ABC15 Investigators pressed Horne on why the laws against forgery and fraud don’t seem to apply equally. “If the homeowner is going to come in and fight their foreclosure and forge their own documents, they are going to jail," we said. "So I don’t think they are going to be so sympathetic to your argument that the underlying premise is that they still didn’t pay. Because many of these people did pay and they were still foreclosed on with fraudulent documents.”

    Attorney General Horne replied, “Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not being sympathetic with fraudulent handling of documents. What I am explaining to you is that the fact that there is a fraudulent document may or may not mean that the foreclosure is wrongful.”

    That answer didn’t sit well with attorneys we spoke to who have been fighting illegal foreclosures in court.

    Dan McCauley says he represents homeowners who are clearly the victims of fraud. He told us, “Every case I have taken, all of the cases I have reviewed, all of the documents are absolutely forged and fake and that needs to be addressed by the system.” Beth Findsen is another one of the small handful of lawyers fighting for families victimized by illegal foreclosures. She said, “Public records are a disaster area." And she warned that the fraud she has seen could have ramifications for years to come.

    McCauley added, “It throws everybody’s chain of title into question now. We don’t know who owns what.”

    Gabriella Westfall is living through the legal nightmare the attorneys describe. She says six different banks have appeared in court and in filings to claim they own her house. “I don’t know who I am supposed to pay my mortgage to,” she explains, “because we don’t know who owns the mortgage”.
For the story, see Arizona homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure through forged documents.

Thanks to Cynthia Stephens for the heads-up on the story.

Failed Foreclosure Fraud/Robosigning Scandal Settlement Reignites Old Feelings Of Anger, Frustration As Victimized Homeowners Continue To Be Left To Fight Battle On Their Own

From a recent USA Today article on the foreclosure fraud/robosigning scandal settlement:
  • The payouts, meant to close the books on an economic catastrophe that staggered millions of American households, have instead reignited feelings of anger and frustration.
***
  • Regulators initially promised independent case reviews to millions of homeowners involved in foreclosures in 2009 and 2010. They abandoned that pledge this year when they renegotiated the 2011 settlement with the banks, a trade-off they said was necessary to get money in borrowers' hands faster.

    Nearly $3.4 billion has been paid out to 3.9 million borrowers since mid-April. An additional 300,000 or so borrowers will get their payments in the coming weeks.

    The payouts, far from closing the books on an economic catastrophe that rocked millions of households in the worst years of the Great Recession, have instead reignited old feelings of anger and frustration.
***
  • The renegotiated settlement created a $3.6 billion pot to compensate borrowers for shoddy foreclosure practices that ran the gamut from wrongful foreclosures to lost consumer documents.

    About two-thirds of the recipients received $300 — the smallest possible amount. Fewer than 1,200 got $125,000, the most allowed. The rest fell into one of 10 other categories for compensation, mostly in the $400 to $7,500 range.

    How exactly individual borrowers' compensation was determined is just one of many questions being asked about the settlement's design and fairness. Regulators defined the categories for compensation, set the amounts and laid out the rules for mortgage servicers on how to slot people. Those who fit in more than one category were assigned to the one paying the highest amount, regulators say.

    Some critical details about the settlement remain a mystery to the public and even to members of Congress, including how many foreclosure errors were discovered in a limited number of cases that were actually reviewed.

    "I am deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding this settlement and by the fact that we still have no idea how many illegal foreclosures each bank committed," says Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has criticized regulators for allowing companies that allegedly broke mortgage servicing laws to assign borrowers to the various compensation categories for payment. "I just find this one amazing," Warren said at a recent Senate hearing.

    The agreement the government made with the banks leaves consumers little recourse. They cannot appeal their payouts to banks or the regulators. But they can still sue their servicers.
***
  • Settlement critics question the size of the settlement pot, given that so few reviews were actually done.

    It's impossible to draw any conclusions from the completed reviews about error rates at particular companies, testified Lawrance Evans of the Government Accountability Office at a Senate hearing in April. Not enough reviews were done in a statistically valid way, he said.

    Consumer advocates question how good the actual reviews would have been, given that servicers were paying for them. But they would have provided more insight into foreclosure errors than is known now, housing advocate [Bruce] Marks says.

    The settlement "was going in the right direction. They were going to find harm and provide restitution," he says.

    Instead, just as before the original settlement was announced, borrowers who think they were harmed are left to fight that battle on their own.

Big BofA Shareholder Dumps On Current Chairman, CEO, Saying It's "Deeply Concerned That This Corporate Culture Of Deceit Has Continued To Exist Under Brian Moynihan & Charles Holliday’s Board Of Directors"

In Charlotte, North Carolina, The Charlotte Observer reports:
  • An institutional investor is calling on Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and the bank’s board to investigate allegations from former employees that they were encouraged to deny mortgage modifications to homeowners.

    In a letter filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the shareholder, Houston-based Finger Interests Number One, blasts the board and the company’s management in light of the employees’ claims, saying “nothing has really changed” under Moynihan and the leadership of Chairman Charles Holliday.

    “The case and, more importantly, the affidavits … say volumes about the failures of senior management and the board of directors to materially change the corporate culture that has long existed at Bank of America prior to Brian Moynihan’s ascendance or most of this board of directors’ inauguration,” says the letter, which the SEC posted on its website Monday.

    “Each new headline chips away at the company’s image and damages its standing with customers and potential customers. In consumer perception of reputation among banking companies, Bank of America ranks dead last.”

    According to securities filings, Finger Interests owns roughly 1 million Bank of America shares, or less than 1 percent of the bank’s outstanding shares. The company’s two key leaders could not be reached for comment Monday because they were traveling, company officials said.

    The letter comes on the heels of statements – six from former employees, one from a contractor – filed this month in federal court in Boston, where class-action status is being sought for a lawsuit against the bank over the federal Home Affordable Modification Program.

    The homeowners in the lawsuit claim that the Charlotte-based bank wrongfully denied them modifications under HAMP and violated the program’s rules. Bank of America, the lawsuit says, would “string homeowners along with no intention of providing actual and permanent modifications.” Among other things, homeowners complained the bank falsely told them their paperwork had not been received.

    According to the former employees’ statements, Bank of America employees were given gift cards and $500 bonuses if they steered homeowners into foreclosure rather than a modification.
***
  • Finger Interests said Moynihan and the board of directors should look into the employees’ claims and report to shareholders on the findings.

    “If true, the six affidavits … are damning and evidence of unethical behavior and, more importantly, point to a corporate culture of not just ‘short termism,’ but of outright corruption and a disregard for laws, regulation and, of course, customers,” Finger Interests’ letter says.(1)

    Finger Interests sold Charter Bancshares in 1996 to NationsBank, which later acquired BankAmerica Corp. in a deal that led to the bank’s name being changed to Bank of America.

    Over the years, Finger Interests has been a frequent critic of Bank of America’s leadership, even before Moynihan took charge in 2010. The firm opposed Moynihan as a successor to Ken Lewis, saying Moynihan was part of the leadership team involved in the bank’s 2009 purchase of Merrill Lynch.

    Finger is also among investors who sued Bank of America over the Merrill Lynch purchase, an acquisition that angered investors who said they were misled about Merrill’s declining financial health. A federal judge in New York in April approved a $2.42 billion cash deal to settle the claims.

    In its letter, Finger Interests says Bank of America has “made great strides in cleaning up its balance sheet and building capital.”

    But, the company says, it is “deeply concerned that this corporate culture of deceit has continued to exist under Brian Moynihan and Charles Holliday’s board of directors.”

    The firm says it worries Bank of America “will never be a great company until the corporate culture has changed.”

    It’s unclear how much the HAMP case might cost Bank of America. An attorney for homeowners suing the bank said the class members could total in the hundreds of thousands.

    In August, a judge is expected to hold a hearing on the request for class certification.

(1) Affidavits from the Bank of America Employees:
William Wilson, Jr.,
Simone Gordon,
Theresa Terrelonge,
Steven Cupples,
Recorda Simon,
Erika Brown.

Affidavit from Bank of America Contractor:
Bert Sheeks

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Clock Runs Out On Snoozing Bankster Holding Delinquent Mortgage; Wakes Up After Foreclosure Statute Of Limitations Expires, Leaving It Holding The Bag On Unpaid & Now-Uncollectible $750K Home Loan Secured By $1M Condo

In Miami, Florida, The Miami Herald reports:
  • It is a condominium association’s version of winning the lotto. A big bank missed its deadline to file for foreclosure on a million-dollar condo unit by 10 days.

    As a result, Peninsula Condominium Association in Aventura will get to keep the condo — a fancy three-bedroom, three-bathroom bayfront pad that it took ownership of three years ago in its own foreclosure over $61,313 in unpaid fees.

    “They got a free condo,” said Michael Cotzen, partner at Hollywood law firm Mansfield Bronstein, which represents the condo association. “You don’t get anything free in this world — but they did.’’

    The condo association’s winning argument: The five-year statute of limitations for U.S. Bank to file for foreclosure had passed. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter R. Lopez agreed.

    “We are utterly and completely delighted,” said Edward Steinberg, president of the Peninsula Condominium Association. “It’s a profoundly positive impact for the association.’’

    “This is a significant loss for the bank, an example of a bank getting slapped upside the head,” said Ronnie Bronstein, a partner with Mansfield Bronstein. “I think this is an appropriate remedy in this type of situation where associations are left holding the bag.’’

    The saga over Unit 2507 at 3201 NE 183rd Street in Aventura began in 2007 when Rivka Bichler fell behind on the mortgage and condo fees, according to court papers. Bichler paid $1.5 million for the 3,273-square-foot unit in the frothy days of May 2005.

    In December 2009, the condo association filed to foreclose and was awarded title to the unit in October 2010.

    Since taking possession, the association has rented the unit for much of the time, fully expecting the bank would eventually bring its own superior foreclosure claim as holder of the first mortgage.

    “Twenty-nine of 223 units were in default at one point,” Steinberg said. “Through the legal process, we were able to rent many out, which had a profound positive impact on our cash flow. The banks were in gridlock.”

    U.S. Bank, as trustee for certificate holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc., Prime Mortgage Trust Certificate Series 2005-4, had filed an earlier foreclosure suit on Bichler’s unit in 2008.

    But the lender failed to show up for trial in February 2011, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the lender could refile later.

    According to court records, the bank was represented in that case by the law offices of Marshall C. Watson, a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure mill, whose owner last year agreed to Florida Bar disciplinary action that included surrendering his license and shutting down the firm.

    A REFILING

    When U.S. Bank finally refiled for foreclosure on Nov. 19, 2012 — claiming it was owed more than $752,000 in principal, interest and fees for its mortgage on the unit in a bid to wrest ownership from the condo association — Peninsula fought back.

    Both sides agreed the statute of limitations for foreclosure actions is five years, but they disagreed over when the clock started ticking.
***
  • At a hearing May 8, the judge ruled in favor of Peninsula, dismissing the bank’s foreclosure as “untimely.” A 30-day deadline for appeal passed with the bank taking no action.

    While it isn’t uncommon for a homeowner to raise the statute of limitations in a foreclosure case, Bronstein said, he hasn’t seen the law used by a condominium association.

    “What makes this unique is it’s an association arguing the statute of limitations. Associations have really gotten slammed [in the foreclosure crisis,] and there could be 100 other associations in a similar situation,” Bronstein said.
***
  • The condo association has yet to determine what to do with its windfall. The unit, which isn’t currently rented, would fetch roughly $5,000 a month in rent, according to Steinberg.

    Similar units are selling for $1.1 million to $1.2 million, according to Bronstein.

    While the condominium association’s board is aware of the court win, other unit owners will be notified in an upcoming association newsletter, Steinberg said. “It’s a seismic shift, and we’re elated,” Steinberg said. “We’re deciding how to proceed.”

Loan Modification Scammer Cops Guilty Plea For Pocketing Upfront Fees In Exchange For Phony Foreclosure Avoidance Promises

In San Jose, California, the San Jose Mercury News reports:
  • A real estate agent who targeted the Spanish-speaking community in the South Bay with a refinancing scam has been convicted of what prosecutors called "a vastly underreported crime."

    Michael Mendoza, 56, pleaded guilty this month to accepting advance fees for loan modifications and performing unlicensed real estate activity, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office.

    According to prosecutors, Mendoza, who owns San Jose-based Broker's Mortgage Investment, would collect $3,000 from victims with a promise that he would negotiate a more affordable home loan, but then do nothing and stop returning calls after a few months.

    Mendoza's employee Maria "Marilou" Jackson, 59, also pleaded guilty. They were sentenced to three years of probation and fined. Mendoza also had to reimburse the victims for their losses.

    Prosecutor David Lim of the county's Real Estate Fraud Unit said it's a common scam, particularly within the Latino community. "I wish I could tell all the victims of this crime that they are not to blame, there are no immigration consequences and to come to us," he said in a news release. "We are only here to stop these financial predators and help victims get their money back."

    In addition to Broker's Mortgage, the pair ran the affiliated Tical Trading Company. They advertised on Spanish-language radio and television channels and promised that they could help homeowners from falling into foreclosure. Anyone with information about a similar refinancing scam can contact prosecutor Lim at 408-808-3754.

Closing Agent Faces Grand Theft Charges After Allegedly Ripping Off Premiums Paid For Title Policies Issued With Expired Insurance License

In West Palm Beach, Florida, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports:
  • Homeowners and sellers from Jacksonville to Plantation were left swindled out of more than $11,000 in title insurance fees after putting their trust in a Coral Springs woman and her Boca based business, according to a Florida Department of Financial Services Fraud Division report.

    The five victims assumed the policies from Dawn Maria Smith, 44, were legitimate but investigators said otherwise and arrested her on five counts of grand theft [...].

    Despite an insurance agent license that expired in June 2009, investigators said Smith continued to act as a title insurance agent for Fidelity National Title Group Corporation/Common Wealth Land Title Insurance Corporation based in Jacksonville, according to the report.

    Investigators said Smith defrauded her victims by using falsified titles that showed the houses involved were clear of liens and other issues through 24 Hour Title, her suburban Boca business.

    Smith used an old policy number with Rollie Dudik, of Ormond Beach, to defraud him out of $1,550 in title insurance fees. But when he never got his title search or insurance policy, he contacted Fidelity only to find out there was no record of his purchase.

    An investigation into Smith was launched the same month.

    A representative with Fidelity National Title Group confirmed an investigator's suspicions, telling them she never saw any funds from Smith, the home owners and sellers in her policies.

    Smith was booked into Palm Beach County Jail on Wednesday and released the next day after posting $22,500 bail.

Monday, June 24, 2013

1st Circuit: Lower Court Erred In Setting Up Procedure For Forcing Banks, Borrowers Together To Work Out Home Loans In Default; Successful R.I. Foreclosure Mediation Program May Now Be In Jeopardy; Appeals Panel Nixes Outright Reversal & "Chaos," Instead Opts To Boot Case Back To Trial Judge To Fix Problem

In Providence, Rhode Island, The Associated Press reports:
  • A federal appeals court threw more than 700 Rhode Island foreclosure cases into uncertainty by concluding that there are problems with how a judge set up a program designed to force homeowners and banks into mediation.

    The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge John McConnell did not follow the proper procedures when he instituted his unique order governing foreclosures. A lawyer who represents hundreds of families suing to stop from being foreclosed upon says he fears the appeals court is jeopardizing a program that is helping people.

    McConnell signed an order on Aug. 16, 2011, in which he took over all mortgage foreclosure cases in federal court in Rhode Island. The order halted the cases, suspended all deadlines and required homeowners and financial institutions to engage in ‘‘directed and serious settlement discussions’’ before he would allow any individual case to proceed. He placed no time limits on the discussions.

    The following January, he appointed former bank CEO Merrill Sherman to serve as a special master to help oversee the process and reach settlements, saying that the cases were problematic for both sides.

    ‘‘Plaintiff homeowners are confronted with the emotional and economic devastation of losing their homes to foreclosure. Defendant financial institutions are confronted with countless mortgages on which homeowners have stopped paying,’’ McConnell wrote. ‘‘The problem is exacerbated by a significant downturn in real estate values that has placed many of these properties ‘under water.'’’

    He said it was in the interest of everyone involved to find a system to ‘‘explore all possibilities for the potential settlement of these claims.’’

    About 130 cases had been settled or otherwise dismissed under the program as of April 30, according to a report Sherman filed last month.

    The June 14 appeals court decision is written by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was sitting in on the case. He wrote that McConnell’s order violated court procedures because he should have given the banks a hearing on whether the lawsuits were likely to succeed before he ordered mediation. He also said McConnell would have to establish limits on the amount of time and cost spent on mediation.

    McConnell on Wednesday set a July 8 hearing on some of the issues raised in the decision.

    Three lawyers who represented financial institutions before the 1st Circuit declined to comment or did not return phone messages seeking comment on the potential impact of the decision. Sherman also declined to comment.

    George Babcock, a Rhode Island attorney who represents more than 500 families fighting foreclosures, said many of homeowners have reached settlements with the help of the program.

    ‘‘I find it all very unfortunate that a plan that was designed to help people and is really helping people is going to be scuttled,’’ he said. ‘‘I hate to say that the banks are the bad guys, but the banks are the bad guys,’’

    Steven Fischbach of Rhode Island Legal Services, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said the program was devised by the court to deal with a flood of cases, which reflects the severity of the foreclosure crisis.

    ‘‘The program is very important because it provides a certain avenue to speaking with a lender to get a modification of a mortgage,’’ he said. ‘‘It is very hard to get someone on the phone who has authority to respond to and evaluate mortgage modifications.’’

    He said it was too soon to say whether the decision was a death knell, but said it was important to note that the appeals court could have struck it down. Instead, it gave the district court a chance to fix the problem.(1)

    ‘‘I think the court recognized that the court in Rhode Island was faced with an onslaught,’’ he said.

    He called for a state law that would force financial institutions into mediation before foreclosing.
Source: Ruling throws into uncertainty RI foreclosures.

For the ruling, see In re: Mortgage Foreclosure Cases, (1st Cir. June 14, 2013).

(1) From the court's ruling:
  • Although it would be open to this court simply to vacate the injunction and mediation orders, we fear that the practical effect of requiring such immediate action on a docket currently the size of this one would be chaos.

    If the issues resolved here had been addressed by the district court when the volume of cases was at the trickle stage, correction of the errors would have been fairly simple. As the docket now stands, however, nearly 150 cases are consolidated in this appeal, and we are told that at the time of briefing another 550 or so were governed by the orders reviewed here and subject to being affected by this court's action and by the district court's ensuing proceedings on remand.

    We therefore think the prudent course is to tolerate the status quo long enough to give the parties time to plan for contingencies.

    Accordingly, we remand with instructions to take steps expeditiously to correct the errors.

Notorious Foreclosure Trash-Out Contractor Faces Racketeering Accusation In Federal Civil Suit Alleging Repeated Illegal Break-Ins; Homeowners' Lawyer On Clients: "They Weren't Even In Foreclosure!"

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Tribune Review reports:
  • A Bethel Park couple claim in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that a national property management company that handles foreclosure services had a local contractor repeatedly break into their home in 2012.

    Alexandra and Anthony Hlista claim that Safeguard Properties of Valley View, Ohio, and the local contractor violated federal racketeering laws because they used the mail and electronic communications in setting up the break-ins and also violated state and federal consumer protection laws.

    Michael Malakoff, their lawyer, said the contractor nailed windows shut, damaged screens and storm windows and changed the lock on their back door without any type of court order. “They weren't even in foreclosure,” he said. A company spokeswoman and the local contractor couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

    The couple have a pending federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2011 against Citi Mortgage of New York, IBM Lenders Business Process Service of Oregon and a Philadelphia law firm over mortgage-related fees that they claim are prohibited by state law.

(1) For those homeowners who've been screwed over by wrongful lockouts by foreclosing lenders (and their confederates) and seek some possible guidance on how much their cases might be worth if they seek to sue, see:
For examples of filed lawsuits involving illegal bank break-in, "trash-out" lockout cases, see:

Nabbed For Proceeding With Foreclosure On Homeowner Who 'Violated' Loan Mod Terms By Paying Too Early & Too Much, Bankster Caves In, Backs Off After Local Media Report Gains Worldwide Attention

In Orlando, Florida, WFTV-TV Channel 9 reports:
  • Etienne Syldor, the hardworking father and Walt Disney World bus driver who found himself in foreclosure received good news Wednesday.

    His attorney said after Channel 9's story aired, she heard from Wells Fargo and said the bank had not only halted foreclosure, but restored his mortgage and even lowered his interest rate and monthly payments.

    Wells Fargo had begun foreclosure proceedings on Syldor's home in May because he didn't follow the fine print on his particular modification.

    Syldor would pay early, and even overpaid, during a mortgage modification with Wells Fargo. "I have never seen a case like this one before," said Syldor's attorney LaMya Henry. He couldn't understand it then, and neither could WFTV viewers.

    Emails and calls poured into the newsroom as Syldor's story was picked up by news outlets around the world. "Doesn't make any sense," Syldor said.

    Syldor was too busy working to sit down with Channel 9 Wednesday. Henry said she'd like to believe the foreclosure was a fluke triggered by a glitch in the massive bank. She said Syldor had been worried his family would be forced out on the streets, until Wednesday.

    "I really believe that had it not been for this story, we may have not gotten this outcome," Henry said.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Florida AG Tags Rogue Pool Contractor In Civil Suit Alleging It Ripped Off Homeowners By Failing To Complete Projects, Charging Illegal Fees, Stiffing Subs That Led To Mechanics' Lien Filings Against Unwitting Customers' Residences

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports:
  • Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced [] that her office is suing Nationwide Pools, accusing the Pompano Beach-based company of violating the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

    The 17-page lawsuit alleges Nationwide failed to complete construction of pools, charged illegal fees and didn’t pay subcontractors, who ended up filing liens on customers’ homes.

    The suit filed in Broward County Circuit Court seeks restitution for consumers and a permanent injunction that prevents the company and its officials, including President Keith Stuart, from building more pools.

    Dozens of South Florida homeowners have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, which gave the company an “F” rating. Some customers say Nationwide took thousands of dollars but didn’t complete the projects. Others say the company never delivered on promises to fix construction defects.

    “Floridians should be able to trust the companies they do business with, and they should receive the services advertised or promised,” Bondi said in a statement. Stuart could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

    The suit said the company stopped operating in late May. But in its last few weeks and months, Nationwide improperly demanded “progress payments” from customers, according to the suit. “When customers who paid those monies complained about additional delays, (Nationwide) engaged in a series of lies and misrepresentations about ‘supply shortages’ and ‘damaged items’ in order to string them along,” the suit said.

    The suit also accuses the company of selling pools, obtaining new permits and digging up customers’ backyards with no intention of ever finishing the jobs.

    “I’m glad (the state) stepped in; I wish it was sooner,” said Donald Pittman, 45, of Royal Palm Beach. Pittman said he filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau about two years ago. Nationwide finished his pool, but the concrete deck started cracking and pool tiles fell off. He said he won a $7,300 award in arbitration, but hasn't been paid.

    Last month, the Broward County chapter of the Florida Swimming Pool Association canceled Nationwide's membership and fined the company a maximum $1,000 for ethics violations, said Wendy Parker, executive director of the statewide association.

    Nationwide has been named as a defendant in a dozen lawsuits in Broward County in recent years, records show.

Daughter Pinched For Allegedly Ripping Off $150K+ From Since-Deceased Elderly Mom By Improperly Pocketing Cash From Victim's Home Equity Line Of Credit

In Toms River, New Jersey, the Asbury Park Press reports:
  • A Barnegat woman was indicted Friday on charges she stole more than $150,000 from her mother over four years.

    Evelyn Hendershot, 59, was charged with one count of second-degree theft and one count of second-degree financial facilitation of criminal activity, according to a news release from Ocean County Prosecutor Joseph D. Coronato.

    According to the indictment, from April 2005 until 2009, Hendershot withdrew and transferred $150,400 from her mother’s home equity line of credit to various accounts under Hendershot’s control. She then transferred the money to pay off credit cards or withdrew cash from them through automated teller machines, the indictment alleges.

    Hendershot’s mother, Mary Ann Siskoski Yakes of Manasquan, died in July 2010 at the age of 87, said Al Della Fave, spokesman for the prosecutor’s office.

    Detectives James Conroy and Lindsay Llauget of the prosecutor’s office special investigations unit of the economic crimes bureau investigated the case.

    Hendershot is free on $75,000 cash bail. A court appearance has not been set.

    The Asbury Park Press asked the Prosecutor’s Office for a photo of the suspect, but it declined. State law allows authorities discretion in releasing suspect photos, but they often refuse to do so.

Federal Prison Time Not Enough For NJ Foreclosure Rescue Equity Stripping Duo; Garden State Prosecutors Score Add'l Prison Time In State Slammer For Pair That Targeted Financially Distressed High-Equity/No-Cash Homeowners With Sale Leaseback Ripoffs

In Trenton, New Jersey, the Asbury Park Press reports:
  • A father and son were sentenced Friday to state prison for stealing more $1.3 million in a scheme that offered relief for homeowners facing foreclosure.

    Vito Grippo, 58, of Jackson, was sentenced to 10 years in state prison after pleading guilty in February to charges including theft [by failure to make required disposition of property received] and money laundering. His son, Frederick P. Grippo, 32, of Old Bridge, was sentenced to four years in prison. He pleaded guilty in January to a charge of theft [by deception].

    Both were sentenced by state Superior Court judges in Union County.

    The sentences came a week after Vito Grippo was sentenced to 96 months in federal prison and Frederick Grippo was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison.

    The state and federal sentences will run concurrently, and they will serve in federal prison first.

    According to the state:

    Vito Grippo, who had an office in Holmdel, solicited 12 homeowners facing foreclosure by offering to temporarily transfer title of their home to a company called Morgan Financial. He told them they would keep 80 percent to 90 percent interest in the home; Morgan Financial and an investor would share the rest.

    He told them to make their monthly mortgage payments to Morgan Financial, and Morgan Financial would pay the lender, reducing their payments over time and giving them back title to their homes in a year.

    Grippo also solicited investors who didn’t know they were buying the homes outright; they thought they were investing in income-generating rental properties. He used the identities of the investors to file fraudulent mortgage applications to buy the homes.

    Frederick Grippo, a loan broker, submitted fraudulent applications, the state said.

    Vito Grippo obtained more than $4.5 million to purchase 12 homes in New Jersey and New York. He stole more than $1.3 million in loan proceeds that should have been disbursed to the original homeowners as equity at the closing. And he diverted the money into his companies’ bank accounts, the state said.

    Although Vito Grippo made some mortgage payments in the names of the investors, all of the homes fell into foreclosure. The homeowners lost their properties. And the investors’ credit ratings were ruined, the state said.
For more, see Father and son at Holmdel business get state prison to go along with federal sentence.

See also, The Trentonian: Father and son real estate cheats get prison time:
  • Vito Grippo had the original homeowners and the investors sign documents without giving them time to ascertain what they were signing.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Demolition Not An Option For Mold-Infested Townhome; Couple Coughs Up $478K Over Five Years To Remediate Virginia Residence

In McLean, Virginia, The Wall Street Journal reports:
  • Jenny Guinness of McLean, Va., waited as men in moon suits cut away chunks of drywall in 2-foot increments. They would bag and seal the material, and start again. Soon they had removed the walls of an entire room. A mold remediator sat her down and said: "I have really bad news for you. This looks like it goes in every direction…I think you need to have a demolition company come in and start removing whole walls because I can't see an end to it anywhere."

    In January 2012, Jenny Guinness decided to oversee the rest of the work on her home. Drawing from her experience as a real-estate agent for 10 years, she served as her own general contractor and interior designer.

    In 2008, Ms. Guinness and her husband, Os, discovered that their townhouse in a suburb of Washington was contaminated with stachybotrys—also known as black mold. That launched a painstaking five-year renovation that cost as much as the couple originally paid for the house and involved ripping out walls, replacing many of the finishes and sterilizing nearly every surface and item they owned.

    What they couldn't clean, they threw away, including stuffed animals, sweaters and other items from their son's childhood that they were saving for his kids. "I remember standing in the snow in the street in a moon suit, throwing these precious things into a bin," Ms. Guinness says.
***
  • In 2007, Ms. Guinness was diagnosed with lung cancer. Even after undergoing successful surgery, she still had trouble breathing in the house and, in early 2008, decided to test the home for mold. She discovered that black mold had streaked the firewalls and settled in thick clumps near the floor. The breadth of the mold shocked Ms. Guinness, who says she normally keeps her home spotless. "You could scrape it off with a spoon," she says.

    John Spangenberg, production manager of Columbia Restoration, a fire and water restoration service in Jessup, Md., broke the initial news to Ms. Guinness. He says the McLean townhouse had one of the worst cases of hidden mold he has seen in his 13-year career. "Most of the time when we deal with mold, you can usually find a stopping point. In her situation, the stopping point was after every wall was out," he says.
***
  • Virginia is a "buyer beware" state, meaning that homeowners aren't legally required to disclose a mold problem. Mold can be such a detriment to a home's value, though, that homeowners are almost always better off paying to remediate or even tearing the house down and starting from scratch, says appraiser Donald Boucher, president of Washington, D.C.-based Boucher & Boucher. Often "it can cost more to renovate a house than it would cost to build it new. You're better off knocking it down," he says.

    With a townhouse, tearing it down wasn't an option, the couple says. "The simple fact was, unless we renovated it, we couldn't sell it," Mr. Guinness says.
***
  • The total renovation cost $478,500, as much as the house itself, which was $479,000, according to public records. Ms. Guinness estimates that they spent $107,000 just on getting rid of the mold alone: $17,000 on testing, $70,000 on remediation and $20,000 on cleaning. Since their insurance doesn't cover mold, the couple paid for the renovation themselves with their retirement savings.

    "We read about people who did mold lawsuits and how many lawyers you had to go through and how many experts to go through," Ms. Guinness says. "We just didn't think we could face this. We were already fighting something." Generally, mold isn't covered under most homeowners insurance policies because it's considered to be a maintenance issue, says a spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute.
For the story, see The $500,000 Housecleaning (When a Virginia couple discovered that their townhouse was infested with mold, it was the start of an arduous, expensive multiyear cleanup).

Cheap, Shoddy Rehab Work, Improvements Made Without Pulling Proper Permits, Encroachments, Unexpected Red Tags Among Potential Hazards Facing Novice Prospective Homebuyers When Dealing With Foreclosure Flippers

From the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
  • There's a surge in Bay Area homes being remodeled, as run-down foreclosures find new owners. Some of those new owners are house flippers, whose goals are to fix up and resell a property as quickly as possible. That can mean cutting corners by skipping permits and inspections for the renovations, city building officials say.

    "Time is money when you're flipping a house," said Dan Marks, Vallejo's interim economic development director. "Especially in this crazy market when we have no idea how long this (house-buying) frenzy will last. Timing is critical for these guys, and going through the permit process takes time."

    While non-permitted work is a perennial issue for cities, the sheer volume of dilapidated properties changing hands in recent years has spurred a big increase in unpermitted work, building officials say. The fallout can include slipshod construction standards, big headaches for new owners, and loss of revenue for cities. The problem is big enough that Oakland passed an ordinance requiring investors to register properties and comply with city rehab codes.

    "With the volume of (remodeling) work increasing as it is, I would expect work without permits to follow," Ed Sweeney, San Francisco deputy director for permit services, said in an e-mail. "The developer who is flipping houses is under added pressure to bring a product to market. Since the work being performed is interior ... a sense of security is there" about not being caught.

    Holding the bag

    Short-staffed building departments throughout the region said they rely on complaints from neighbors to catch unpermitted work in process, although inspectors keep an eye out when they're driving through town.

    "The house flipping is still going on here and we still find some in our travels performing inspections," Gary West, Vallejo's chief building official, said in an e-mail. "We have found contractors performing substandard work and converting unoccupied areas to living spaces. The new property owner is left holding the bag on getting the work legalized, which is sometimes a problem or not allowed."

    One contractor was found working on 12 different homes with no permits, he said. In another case, an addition to a home had to be removed because it encroached on the house's front "setback" area, even though a recent purchase had included that square footage as part of the home's value.
***
  • New Oakland ordinance

    A new ordinance requires investors who purchase foreclosures to register the properties with the city and do all rehab work to city standards, said Margaretta Lin, strategic initiatives manager for the Department of Housing & Community Development.

    "We're targeting investors who weren't planning to do the rehab work up to code," she said. "We know the foreclosure stock has a lot of deferred maintenance issues. If investors are buying a property that was in foreclosure, there's a high likelihood that it needs rehab work."

    Besides flippers, the new law targets investor landlords to make sure they don't simply rent out run-down properties without bringing them up to code.
For more, see House flippers often skip city permits (requires subscription; if no subscription, go here, then click appropriate link for story).

Slipshod Construction, Unpermitted Rehab Work Leave Homebuying Couple Holding The Bag, Facing Foreclosure; Prior Owner's Response To Inquiries On Nature Of Renovations: 'I Can't Recall!'

In Matlock, Manitoba, CBC News reports:
  • For sale: cozy two-bedroom home just minutes from the beach. Black mould, caving-in walls and crumbling foundation included. That's the property in Matlock, Man., that will be up for grabs in a foreclosure sale at the end of this month.

    Steven Tymchuk, left, and Tracey Walsh bought their Matlock home in 2005, only to find a number of issues with it. It's a property that Tracey Walsh and Steven Tymchuk fell in love with back in 2005.

    "See that robin's nest under the awning? She's got babies in there," Walsh said. "See that sign on the door next to the nest? Our house is condemned."

    It's a worst-case ending to a nightmare that began right after the couple bought the home. That's when they learned that much of it appears to have been renovated without building permits and was not up to code.

    The result? Insulation made up of beach towels, vermiculite and shavings. Sewage seeping underneath the foundation. A wall caving in, partially because a tree had fallen on it two years earlier, and a roof and foundation so unstable that both could collapse at any moment.

    "We were shocked, we were shocked," said Walsh.

    But the real shock came when they learned there was little recourse for them — systemic checks and balances they thought were in place to protect them.

    To a point, they were right. First, in most cases, the "buyer beware" rule applies: a person selling a home is not required to disclose any flaws or problems with the home.

    But there's an important exception.

    "The fundamental ancient rule is that the buyer is without a remedy and has to accept a property," said John Neufeld, who both practises and teaches real estate law.

    "But if the defect is so serious that it renders the property dangerous, then the seller could be successfully sued."

    The catch? One has to prove that the seller knew about the defects. In this case, Walsh and Tymchuk can't.

    No recollection

    When contacted by CBC News last week, the previous owner said he had no recollection of renovations done, with or without permits, and no recollection of any defects.

    That same condition applies to the real estate agent who sold the property. Walsh and Tymchuk filed a complaint against her through the real-estate arm of the Manitoba Securities Commission.

    Tracey Walsh points to black mould that covers part of the bathroom. Its conclusion was that while the agent was wrong to list the property as fully insulated on the MLS listing, she cannot be held responsible for not disclosing the other flaws of the home, as she did not know about them.

    The couple's next option was to file a claim through their title insurance policy. There are policies, while not mandatory, offered to protect buyers from things like problems over the title of the property, or problems borne of zoning violations or building code violations.

    "Our lawyer said, 'Why don't you try title insurance? It will benefit you,'" Walsh said.

    "That's why we started right with title insurance, knowing that if there was something wrong with the home, they would hire a lawyer and take care of it. Well, right from the beginning, we've been given nothing but the runaround."

    Over the years, on the insurance company's request, the couple was asked to provide proof that the home was unlivable, that the damage was due in part to work done without permits, and that they were required to repair it before they could live in it again.

    They did all of that, Walsh said, but their claim was still denied.

    "You know, what more can you do?" said Neufeld. "If I was the judge, I would make the natural conclusion — 'You gotta pay.'"

    'This is devastating'

    It's cases like these that, in part, have sparked a review of title insurance policies a few years ago.

    A report out of Saskatchewan raised questions about the validity of these policies, noting that the companies don't disclose their premium payout ratio, how much money they pay out in claims, or how long it takes to settle a claim.

    Regardless, it was the protection of last resort that Walsh and Tymchuk thought would help make right all that went wrong with the home.

    Today, thanks in part to years of going into overdraft to pay for these efforts, their home is now officially in foreclosure. "This is devastating. It is unbelievable," Walsh said.

    "This was the home we were supposed to grow old in together," said Tymchuk. "That's all been taken away from us."

Busted Single Family Home-Based Meth Labs Begin Finding Their Way Back Onto The Real Estate Market

In Ardmore, Oklahoma, KXII-TV Channel 12 reports:
  • When a meth lab is busted, law enforcement removes all the chemicals, drugs and lab components, but the meth isn't entirely gone. "Itching eyes, burning skin, it may be difficult to breathe," said Bill Coye, who is a registered nurse and owner of Apex Bioclean--a company that cleans meth labs.

    Those symptoms are just an example of what a family living in a former lab can experience, and Coye said the fix is remediation. "Anything absorbent in the home has to be removed," he said. "Carpet pad, tack strip, ceiling texture if it's very coarse. And what do you do with the furnace and the duct work?"

    Coye's company tests the level of chemical residue, scrubs the house top to bottom, and retests.But depending on the level of contamination and size of the home that can cost anywhere between $5,000 and $15,000.(1)

    Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics spokesman Mark Woodward explains that law enforcement puts a placard on the door stating that the property was a meth lab and that the owner needs to have it cleaned--but the owner doesn't always foot the bill.

    "Some we fear are taking the placard off the door when we leave, airing the house out, putting some new paint on the walls, new carpet, smells wonderful like a brand new apartment and they rent it to somebody else," Woodward said.

    That's because the law in Oklahoma doesn't require homeowners or landlords to clean a home before selling or renting. They are required by law to disclose to tenants or buyers that the home used to be a meth lab. But Rita Ponder with Frances One Realty said it can get tricky if the home was a foreclosure--and they often are. "It's just a home that's put on the market, and we try to sell," Ponder said. "But we don't know the circumstances of the home."

    Last year 829 homes were busted as meth labs in the state, and with that number on the rise, Woodward said some Oklahomans have wondered why no law exists requiring meth lab cleanup. The answer comes down to money. "Is it the Bureau of Narcotics that pays and then we recoup the loss from the defendants? Well no, because the defendants don't have any money," said Woodward.

    And OBN estimates it would cost the state between $17 million and $37 million to finance all the cleanups.

    So to avoid being stuck with the bill, Woodward, Coye and Ponder all recommend doing your homework before you move in: ask neighbors about the history of the home, ask the police or sheriff's office to look it up, or check the DEA's list of clandestine labs online. But the only way to really know is to test.

    "To make sure that that individual who moves into that house with his or her family is going to be safe," said Coye. "And that really is what this is about. This is about public health and safety."

    If you've already moved into a former meth lab and that fact wasn't disclosed by the seller or landlord, Woodward adds that you have grounds for legal action.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Civil Rights Feds Indict Missouri Woman For Alleged Intimidation Of Black Family By Torching Their Rented Home With Molotov Cocktail, Drawing Swastikas & Writing "White Power" On Their Driveway

From the U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, D.C.):
  • An Independence, Mo., woman was indicted by a federal grand jury [] for violating the civil rights of an African-American family by setting fire to their residence, announced Roy L. Austin Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.

    Victoria A. Cheek-Herrera, 33, of Independence, was charged in a three-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo.

    [The] indictment charges Cheek-Herrera with participating in a conspiracy to threaten and intimidate an Independence family from exercising their constitutional right to reside in their home because of their race or color. It also charges Cheek-Herrera with committing a racially-motivated arson and with using fire during the commission of a felony.

    According to the indictment, Cheek-Herrera conspired with others on June 26, 2008, to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate Larry Davis, Stacey Little and the couple’s minor children in the free exercise of their constitutional right to occupy and rent their home in Independence, because of their race and color. Davis, Little and their children are all African American.

    The indictment alleges that Cheek-Herrera discussed with others her desire to set fire to the home of Davis and Little, and that Cheek-Herrera and a co-conspirator drew a swastika and wrote the words “White Power” on the driveway to Davis and Little’s residence.

    Cheek-Herrera allegedly asked a juvenile acquaintance for gasoline then helped create a Molotov cocktail by filling a glass bottle with gasoline and inserting a rag into the bottle to serve as a wick. Cheek-Herrera and a co-conspirator then allegedly lit the wick and threw the gasoline-filled bottle into the side of the house that Davis and Little were renting, which set the residence on fire.

Fair Housing Feds: BofA, Fannie Screwed Over Disabled Woman By Stiffing Her On HAMP Loan Mod Request Based On Her Purported Failure To Provide Adequate Documentation On Nature Of Physical Impairment

From the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.):
  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced [] that it has reached a Conciliation Agreement with Bank of America and Fannie Mae, settling allegations that the Charlotte, NC-based lender and Fannie Mae violated the Fair Housing Act by denying a borrower’s application to modify her mortgage loan because she did not provide sufficient information about the nature of her disability. The woman was applying for a loan modification through the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

    The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to deny or discriminate in the terms and conditions of a mortgage or loan modification based on disability, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or familial status.

    “People with disabilities should not have to answer unnecessary questions about the nature of their disability when seeking a loan modification,” said Bryan Greene, HUD General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD will continue to take action against lenders that subject persons with disabilities to discriminatory practices.”

    According to the complaint, a San Bruno, CA, woman applied for a loan modification at Bank of America that would have reduced her interest rate and made it easier for her to pay her mortgage after her disability caused her to miss several months of work. During her extended leave of absence, the woman used her savings to pay her mortgage. Fearing that she would not be able to continue paying her mortgage without a lower interest rate, the woman applied for the loan modification, citing her physical “hardship.”

    In responding to her request, a loan officer with the bank asked her to provide documentation relating to her medical condition. The woman provided the loan officer with a letter from her physician, a current medical bill, and a letter from her employer certifying her approved leave of absence due to her disability.

    Still, the bank denied her application, allegedly telling her that she had not provided sufficient information about the nature of her disability. Even after the woman provided another letter from her physician and insurance records showing her medical treatment between 2007 and 2011, the bank reportedly denied her modification application and Fannie Mae allegedly stated that her doctor’s letters and other documentation were insufficient to show that she was permanently disabled.

    Under the terms of the agreement, Bank of America will pay the woman $22,449, which includes $19,349 to cover the approximate closing costs on a refinance loan, and agreed to follow HAMP and Fannie Mae’s servicing guidelines. Bank of America will also provide fair lending training to its newly-hired employees. In addition, Fannie Mae will pay the woman $3,400.

Nashville Landlord To Cough Up $170K+ To Identify, Compensate Hispanic Tenants Who Were Allegedly Intimidated, Harassed & Otherwise Screwed Over On The Basis Of Their National Origin

From the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced {[] that a Nashville, TN, apartment complex will pay more than $170,000 as part of a settlement resolving allegations that it discriminated against Hispanic tenants based on their national origin.
***
  • After being told about the complex’s discriminatory rental practices, HUD filed a Secretary-initiated complaint alleging that TriTex Real Estate Advisors, Inc., of Atlanta, and its management company terminated lease agreements, ignored maintenance requests, and intimidated and harassed Hispanic tenants.

    Under the terms of the agreement, the manager and owner will establish a $150,000 victims’ compensation fund for former residents administered by an independent agency and to pay $10,000 each to two non-profit organizations – the Tennessee Fair Housing Council and the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) – to identify potential claimants. In addition, TriTex and its management company will adopt fair housing policies and its employees will undergo fair housing training.
For the HUD press release, see HUD And Owners,  Managers Of Tennessee Apartment Complex Settle Allegations Of Discrimination Against Hispanic Tenants (Manager and owner to establish $150,000 victims’ compensation fund).

Housing Feds, County Housing Authority Settle Discrimination Suit Alleging Failure To Increase Access To Dwelling Units For Persons With Disabilities, Families With Kids Under 18

From the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced [] that it has reached a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with the Jackson County Housing Authority (JCHA) in Murphysboro, Illinois, to increase access for persons with disabilities and families with children under age 18.

    HUD reviewed JCHA’s housing programs and services and determined that the housing authority had not ensured that at least five percent of its units were accessible to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The review further indicated that JCHA had not allowed children under the age of 18 to reside in housing designated for elderly families, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Under Section 504, a public housing authority must make a minimum of five percent of its total dwelling units accessible to persons with mobility impairments.

    The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination against families with children under 18 years of age. Public housing or federally assisted housing for the elderly is not exempt from the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition against familial status discrimination.

Service Animals & Assistance Animals For People With Disabilities In Housing, HUD-Funded Programs

From the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.):
  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) [] issued a reaffirming that housing providers must provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities who require assistance animals. The “Notice on Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs” discusses how the Fair Housing
    Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) intersect regarding the use of service or assistance animals by persons with disabilities.

    The Fair Housing Act prohibits landlords from discriminating based on disability, race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and familial status. The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications, and state and local government activities. Both laws contain provisions which address the use of service or assistance animals by people with disabilities. While the Fair Housing Act covers nearly all types of housing, some types of housing, such as public housing, are covered by both laws.

    “The vital importance of assistance animals in reducing barriers, promoting independence, and improving the quality of life for people with disabilities should not be underestimated, particularly in the home,” said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "Disability-related complaints, including those that involve assistance animals, are the most common discrimination complaint we receive. This notice will help housing providers better understand and meet their obligation to grant reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities that require assistance animals to fully use and enjoy their housing.”

    HUD’s new notice explains housing providers’ obligations under the Fair Housing Act, including the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities who require assistance animals. Pet restrictions cannot be used to deny or limit housing to people with disabilities who require the use of an assistance animal because of their disability. Housing providers must grant reasonable accommodations in such instances, in accordance with the law. The guidance also describes the Department of Justice’s revised definition of “service animal” under the ADA, as well as housing providers’ obligations when multiple nondiscrimination laws apply.

    The Americans with Disabilities Act requires equal access for people with disabilities using trained service dogs in public accommodations and government facilities.

    Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers have a further obligation to accommodate people with disabilities who, because of their disability, require trained service dogs or other types of assistance animals to perform tasks, provide emotional support, or alleviate the effects of their disabilities.

    HUD’s and the Department of Justice’s Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations provides additional information regarding housing providers’ obligations to provide reasonable accommodations. The Department of Justice has also published a fact sheet on service animals and the ADA.

    Click here to read HUD’s new notice.

    Persons who believe they have been denied a reasonable accommodation request may file a complaint by contacting HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY). Housing discrimination complaints may also be filed by going to www.hud.gov/fairhousing, or by downloading HUD’s free housing discrimination mobile application, which can be accessed through Apple devices, such as the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.