http://www.marketwatch.com/story/b-of-a-....

Quote:

ASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Bank of America Corp. and Morgan Stanley were fined $22 million Thursday to resolve allegations that the banks wrongfully foreclosed on almost 200 active-duty military-service members without first obtaining court orders.

“The men and women who serve our nation in the armed forces deserve, at the very least, to know that they will not have their homes taken from them wrongfully while they are bravely putting their lives on the line on behalf of their country,” Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez told reporters. “They [military personnel] have our backs and they need to know that we have theirs.”

More: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/b-of-a-....

**** YOU PEREZ!

THEY MILITARY WILL DIE FOR YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T PUT ONE BANKSTER IN JAIL FOR COMMITTING FRAUD?

Yeah, I had a military client foreclosed on. (Thanks to USAA, the 2TD holder) All fraudulent, all ponzi, all bogus - the family was devastated. Career soldier, never missed a payment in his life, perfect credit, they treated him like a scum of the earth, low life, deadbeat bum. (right before he shipped out overseas) Wife crying at the kitchen table, small children peeking around the corner wanting to know "what's wrong momma and daddy?" -

These bankers should be facing a firing squad, along with the a**hold politicians like Perez who are covering up for them, while enriching themselves.

He was current on his payments and they still foreclosed?

Did the 200 military members get to split the $22M settlement? Pika, you mentioned something about $125K to the family, or did I misunderstand? If so, obviously I can't speak for others, but for $125K, they can foreclose on me any day of the week. Compared to everyday citizens who were illegally foreclosed upon, they have done incredibly well. Most have not been compensated at all, and thus far, nobody has been willing to go to bat for them. Even if the $17B settlement is closed, that will be a fraction of what these soldiers received.

I get your point, though. And absolutely agree that we need to be enforcing the law and seeing jail sentences. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm surprised (and very happy) they got what they did, and that the case was even as vigorously fought as it was, given the leeway/lack of claims by the state that has been extended to these lenders...... not that they didn't deserve every bit of it, PLUS jail sentences, nor that our soldiers don't deserve every bit of special honor they get and more for risking their lives for their country.

ETA: I would happily vote every last one of them out of office. But who will take their place? Nobody who runs is any better. Even if they say they are, once they get to Washington, their tune changes. Call me cynical, I am, but the replacements never seem to do any better. Is there a single person in Congress advocating prosecutions? If so, please tell me who. I will contribute to their re-elections.

Big - The article mentioned that the $$ for settlement of the CFC portion of claims approximately comes to $125k per wronged homeowner. So, I used that as an upside reference. Many will get substantially less than that.

Yet there are STILL people right here on TF who continue to defend their personal use of these scum sucking banks

So why do veterans get protection from illegal foreclosures? Some more equal than others?

When you volunteer to go into a war zone and put your life on the line, then talk to me about 'more equal.'

Tell me how fair it is for a bank/lender to foreclose on someone who is not present in the country to defend himself. How fair is it that our government withheld military pay and at the same time lenders foreclosed on some of them because they didn't make their mortgage payment?

go ahead pika, pick out your protected classes, pick your some are more equal than others, pick who gets the breaks and who does not. Just dont be*****ed when someone else to to pick and your not on their list.

An illegal foreclosure is wrong against anyone. ANYONE. Why do soldiers get protections that everyone should be getting? Go ahead and cheer this victory, but I wont join you.

This to me is like the waivers from health care, an "extra priviledge" for being on someones list as protected class. I think it's bull****.

What are those soldiers fighting for allegedly? Is it this?

Quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Quote:

Yeah, I had a military client foreclosed on. (Thanks to USAA, the 2TD holder) All fraudulent, all ponzi, all bogus - the family was devastated. Career soldier, never missed a payment in his life, perfect credit, they treated him like a scum of the earth, low life, deadbeat bum.

Hmmm. That's different than you stated previously. Never missed a payment? You're claiming USAA foreclosed even though they never missed a payment?
I call BS.

You were trying to negotiate with USAA to accept a lower amount than what's owed, in spite of them having a recourse loan. I don't blame USAA for not negotiating a smaller amount.
As for stating that no payments were missed, I'm calling huge BS on that.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?single....

The PROPER advice you should have given the sergeant is that he pay off the second and then short sell the house. They're still on the hook for the $44K to USAA, even after the foreclosure.

Quote:

Why do soldiers get protections that everyone should be getting?

Because they violated the SSCRA.
BAC violated the SSCRA when they foreclosed on the house we were renting. It's common practice for them to violate it; BAC's lawyer even signed a notarized statement that no one in the military lived in our house. That's perjury.

Ifly, "never missed a payment in his life" was referring to his 20+ year history of perfect credit - of course he missed his house payments (1st and 2nd TD). They wouldn't even talk to him about a short sale unless he did - those were the only payments this warrior EVER didn't make.

Ifly said:

Quote:

The PROPER advice you should have given the sergeant is that he pay off the second and then short sell the house. They're still on the hook for the $44K to USAA, even after the foreclosure.

Why would he pay off a purchase money loan (second position) to USAA that has no recourse, in an anti deficiency state? You really don't know jack about real estate, you should get professional help from those who do.

Half, i'm not going to dig through your posts; I could have sworn you stated previously that USAA wasn't playing ball because the 2d is a recourse loan.

As far as me not knowing jack about real estate, I do know this. Some sergeant who went to you for advice got foreclosed on and his credit rating's now wrecked. That's the 'professional' help you dispensed; I'll take a pass.

... and I love how the story about not missing a payment changes when you're called on playing fast and loose with the facts.

Ifly said:

Quote:

I could have sworn you stated previously that USAA wasn't playing ball because the 2d is a recourse loan.

USAA THOUGHT their 2TD had recourse and a deficiency judgement was possible, because it was taken after the time of purchase. AZ courts have consistently ruled that while if you take cash out, it's a refi and subject to recourse and deficiency judgement (as it should be), if it's only a rate and term refi with no cash out, that loan continues to exist as a "purchase money loan" with no recourse and the anti deficiency statute applies.

USAA forced forclosure, blew off $4400 (which the 1st TD holder offered), will get zero, and screwed a veteran because they are stupid and didn't get good advice. I give good advice - that's why I get paid.

Would your advice to the sergeant be to continue to pay on a 200K loan, on a vacant home worth 100K, while he and his family are overseas? Maybe you would suggest he leave his family in the house,live in the barracks, and be separated from his wife and children, and continue to pay on an upside down home and just wait "until the market comes back" ?

Of the options available, he took BY FAR the best one, and USAA screwed him because they THOUGHT they could squeeze a nickel more from his family - I at least put $12,000 cash in his families pocket (6 mos missed pmts @2K per month), and I'm proud of it. And not that anyone cares, but I did 6 months of work and turmoil helping his family, and I didn't make a dime - doesn't matter, I gave first class professional advice, and did the right thing - that's what good Realtors do.

OK, let me get this straight. The 2d was taken out at a later date than the date of purchase for $44K and you're claiming that it wasn't a cash out.
I side with USAA. It might have been to replace a previous 2d and they didn't get any cash, but it looks and sounds like a cash out recourse loan. And I'm sure that's exactly what USAA's lawyer said. That cash may have been used to retire a previous 2d but it was executed AFTER the purchase date, making it a cash out.
And I'm sure that USAA will continue to go after him in court for the $44K. And I further bet that they get a favorable ruling.

Quote:

Would your advice to the sergeant be to continue to pay on a 200K loan, on a vacant home worth 100K, while he and his family are overseas? Maybe you would suggest he leave his family in the house,live in the barracks, and be separated from his wife and children, and continue to pay on an upside down home and just wait "until the market comes back" ?

I already told you. He should have paid off the $44K prior to trying to do a short sale. It doesn't matter if USAA ultimately loses; the cost to the sergeant is now far greater than $44k.
First, USAA will continue to go after him for the money and at the very least, he'll be out legal fees. But more than likely, he'll have his wages garnished. That is until he loses his security clearance and gets kicked out of the Air Force.
If he loses his security clearance (decent probability), this will have been FAR MORE expensive than $44K.

You went off half cocked trying to screw over both banks that loaned him the money in good faith. They didn't trick him; they gave him loans. But your desire to screw over USAA more than likely cost the guy his job.

Nice realtard advice you gave; ACES! (my best Weiner impression)


... and you wonder why I put almost all of the blame for the housing bust on realtors!

Ifly said:

Quote:

He should have paid off the $44K prior to trying to do a short sale.

And where would he get 44K from?

Loses his security clearance? - you don't know the changes the military has made, do you?

You sound just like a bill collector for the banks who say: "borrow it from your mom, your 401K, sell your wedding ring, I don't care, just follow Ifly's "good" advice and give us all your money".

Ifly, not only are you a life long leech****, you're also a moron.

He should have gotten it from anywhere he could. You've already pointed out that he 'pocketed' $12K. He'd have only needed $32K from there.

You created a train wreck in these peoples' lives and you're taking zero responsibility. Typical.
The wife knew what was going to happen; why do you think she was crying in the kitchen? Because they 'pocketed' $12K?
But you've washed your hands of this and in your mind's fairy tale ending, everything will be OK for them because nothing else is going to happen. It won't be; USAA will be pursuing them legally. And the military isn't going to like the circumstances of the foreclosure - I'm well aware of what they'll accept and what they won't; I've seen someone go through that song and dance. You, on the other hand, are going to bury your head in the sand.

Great realtard advice you gave; ACES!

I’ve taken some time to reflect on this subject. Halfbrite, you need to be banned from providing your 'professional help' to military members because you have no idea how badly this is going to end for the sergeant’s family and you don't care.

Half made a statement that the military has changed how they view foreclosures. That is incorrect on a couple of counts. The military has a security clearance appeals process that MAY take foreclosure into account but nothing is guaranteed. And proposed legislation does not require the military to renew security clearances for people foreclosed on. Link: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/mi.... Quite frankly, I suspect that the proposed legislation will never be enacted into law, but even if it does, it has no protections for any military member who’s been foreclosed on.

The military is about to go through another RIF (reduction in force) which will result in many military personnel being involuntarily separated. I went through a few of those in my 30 year career. I expect this round to be even more brutal than the one in the early 90s. Anyone with even a minor blemish on their record was involuntarily separated back then. So for halfbrite to post that this isn't going to hurt the sergeant tells me that halfbrite has no idea what he's talking about.
And even if the sergeant survives a RIF, this foreclosure will appear somewhere in his records. When the sergeant meets promotion boards for senior enlisted ranks, the board sees his entire record from the first day he entered the military. With this type of blemish on his record, he will never be promoted to E-8; the competition is too great and outstanding airmen with spotless records are not promoted - someone with a foreclosure in their personnel file stands zero chance of promotion.

What is extremely troubling about all of this is the lack of homework that halfbrite did for the sergeant. Even a cursory search of 'USAA foreclosure' would tell anyone that USAA is extremely aggressive in pursuing anyone who tries to walk away from their mortgage. USAA offers attractive interest rates because they have an extremely low default rate. As a 25+ year USAA member, I appreciate USAA's aggressiveness - they pass those lower costs onto their members.
Let us be clear on what occurred to this sergeant. He was assigned to Luke AFB and decided to buy a house. For some reason, the realtor that he went to talked him into buying MUCH more house than he could afford. Let's do the math. half stated that the family saved $2K/month in mortgage payments. I'll assume that the sergeant was an E-7 with 16 years of service putting his gross pay at $4024.50/mo. Add in housing allowance ($1410.) and BAS ($325.04). That's $5759.54 and the very highest amount he could have been making, according to halfbrite's information. That's a front DTI of 34.7 on the mortgage alone; forget about any other debt. Throw in a couple of car payments and his back DTI was probably greater than 50. The realtor most likely pulled some bookkeeping stunts (I suspect lofty income estimates for the wife) to get them into this house.
Bottom line is that the realtor who worked with this sergeant stuffed him into MUCH more house than he should have qualified for. And that's what happens when realtors' commissions are based on home sale prices.
Were the banks at fault here? No; they were given documentation that qualified the family for the loan. BAC and USAA issued mortgages based on the information provided and were innocent of any coercive behavior. In USAA's case, the 2D was refi'd, making it a recourse loan (half asserts it's nonrecourse but a refi is not ‘purchase money’; the critical component of AZ nonrecourse law).

What is particularly troublesome, and a huge negative for the sergeant, is that he simply stopped paying his mortgage and pocketed $12K of mortgage legally due to the banks. That will reflect very poorly on him when a security clearance review is done. And USAA likely knows the exact state of the family's finances and the reason why they were not budging on the fact that the loan is recourse. I fully expect USAA to sue the sergeant for $44K and they will likely win. That will force the sergeant to either pay in full or declare bankruptcy; another strike on his security clearance.
There is no mention of the sergeant seeking assistance under the Housing Assistance Program (HAP). I can only assume that halfbrite’s never heard of it and and never recommended that the sergeant seek help through Expanded HAP (from the American Recovery and Assistance Act of 2009).

halfbrite wrote..

Maybe you would suggest he leave his family in the house,live in the barracks, and be separated from his wife and children, and continue to pay on an upside down home and just wait "until the market comes back" ?

That would have been a much more favorable final outcome for the sergeant and his family. Take a one year remote with a follow-on to Luke. That would have been fairly easy to work. The first Air Force Core Value applies in this case: Service Before Self.
Military personnel expect to have an unaccompanied remote tour at some point in their career; the sergeant should have stepped up to the plate and gone to Kunsan for a year. And for what it's worth, the Luke AFB Wing Commander did an unaccompanied remote to Kunsan in 2008-2009.

In summary, half’s 'professional advice' has likely destroyed a career and family. The military isn’t like the civilian world; military members are expected to act in a manner where their ethics and morals are never questioned.

Halfbrite gave 'professional advice' in his capacity as a realtor, not as a career military man. OTOH, the homeowner is a military officer. My father was a naval lieutenant during WWII and he considered the consequences of his decisions to himself, or those he commanded, to be his responsibility, and his alone. Does the sergeant have responsibility for his own choices, or has he conferred the responsibility for choices that "can likely destroy his career and family" (versus available legal choices regarding mortgage, which AFAIK, was spot-on, a term/rate refi is easily verifiable, and no court will care what USAA thinks it looks like) onto Halfbrite?

Iflyzz, you portray the sergeant as a man whose allowed himself to be talked into falsifying loan docs to obtain a mortgage he can't afford. And now the sergeant has, ignorant of military policy, been convinced to commit ethical violations that will bar him from future promotions and security clearances. It's one thing for a clerk at Walmart to get hoodwinked into a subprime with a 50% debt-to-income ratio and 100% LTV, but I would hope that our military officers with security clearance have the required moral and financial integrity that you claim the military insists upon (and I don't doubt). If what you say is true, Halfbrite did the country a favor.

I pay my mortgage every month, and I'm sick of funding both banks who have stripped taxpayers of trillions of dollars AND homeowners who've decided they made a bad investment and want somebody else to eat their losses. I've made plenty of bad investments and gotten lots of bad advice (including career) over the years but I don't pawn responsibility for my choices off on anybody else. I'm free to say no.

Quote:

Iflyzz, you portray the sergeant as a man whose allowed himself to be talked into falsifying loan docs to obtain a mortgage he can't afford. And now the sergeant has, ignorant of military policy, been convinced to commit ethical violations that will bar him from future promotions and security clearances. It's one thing for a clerk at Walmart to get hoodwinked into a subprime with a 50% debt-to-income ratio and 100% LTV, but I would hope that our military officers with security clearance have the required moral and financial integrity that you claim the military insists upon (and I don't doubt). If what you say is true, Halfbrite did the country a favor.

Bigbluffer, part of the problem that I've always had with halfbrite is that I can't tell where the truth ends and the fabrications begin. For instance, halfbrite claims that the family was paying $2K/mo in PITI (or more correctly, that they 'saved' $2K/mo by not making their mortgage payments). Half also claims that the house cost $200K. Even with some rounding, those numbers don't compute. A $200K mortgage at 6 1/2% with $2K in property taxes and $600 in insurance would result in a monthly PITI of just over $1475; significantly different than $2K/mo.

Even so, I estimated a 'best case' scenario of how much the sergeant was earning/month. This post by Half: http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?singlepo.... would put the sergeant at E-6 with 8 years time in service (although likely E-5) when he bought the house. That would make the income numbers in 2007 as follows:
Basic pay: $2744.10/mo
BAH: $1255/mo
BAS: $279.88/mo
Total: $4278.98/mo
That's still a 34.5 front end DTI ratio. The wife's income would have been the only legitimate way for the family to qualify for a $200K mortgage; which is likely what happened - but they were put into a house that was at the extreme end of what they could afford.

But back to the sergeant. Note that Halfbrite asked if I thought that he should have left his family in Phoenix while he stayed in the barracks overseas - this is very likely one of the scenarios that the family discussed with halfbrite. Funny thing is, my first assignment was to Korea - every single married person there was on an unaccompanied tour. That is just part of military life. With the sergeant's situation, it would have been much better for him to take an unaccompanied tour with a followon back to Luke AFB. I don't know who talked them out of doing that but I've got a good idea.
Unfortunately, the sergeant likely didn't discuss any of this with his chain of command because he would have been counseled on various options, none of which would have been pleasant but I doubt that they would have suggested a strategic default.

Bottom line as far as military vs civilian: I trust everyone in the military until they prove unworthy of that trust. I don't trust any civilian until they prove worthy of trust. Those of us active/retired military want to make sure that military personnel never (as individuals and collectively) have our ethics questioned.

I'm still trying to figure out why the sergeant would have opted to refi the 2d when he only lived in the house for 4 years unless it was a cash out refi.
Also note from the link to Half's previous post that the sergeant was offered out of the 2d mortgage at 75% ($33K), not the 100% ($44K) portrayed most recently by Half - again more of the 'where's the truth end and fabrications begin' with Half's posts. But it sounds like USAA gave the sergeant multiple options; none of them great but a helluva lot better than what's going to happen now.