Flagstar Enters into Consent Order with CFPB

see 201409_cfpb_consent-order_flagstar

Editor’s Note: More corroboration that the goal is the foreclosure judgment rather than a work out. In a workout the servicer cannot recover servicer advances and the broker dealer who sold the false mortgage bonds would be liable for refunds and repurchase equal to many times the alleged principal due on the loan. The principal and accrued interest on the loan is Always misstated if it fails to account for service and other third party advances. Servicer advances means that the creditors got paid even though the borrower stopped paying. The truth is that most of the foreclosures are improperly brought by servicers for their own benefit, since there is no default suffered by the creditors who continue to get payments.

First, Respondent has committed unfair acts or practices by impeding borrowers’ access to loss mitigation. Respondent failed to review loss mitigation applications in a reasonable amount of time; withheld information that borrowers needed to complete their loss mitigation applications; improperly denied borrower requests for loan modifications; and improperly prolonged trial periods for loan modifications. Second, Respondent has violated the loss mitigation provisions of the 2013 RESPA Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1024 subpt. c (the Mortgage Servicing Rule). Third, Respondent has committed deceptive acts or practices by misrepresenting borrowers’ right to appeal the denial of a loan modification. Under sections 1053 and 1055 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5563, 5565, the Bureau issues this Consent Order (Consent Order).

  1. Respondent has impeded borrowers’ access to loss mitigation at every stage of the process: Respondent failed to review loss mitigation applications in a reasonable amount of time; withheld critical information that borrowers needed to complete their loss mitigation applications; improperly denied loan modifications to qualified borrowers; and prolonged trial periods for loan modifications.
  2. Respondent’s practices harmed borrowers. Respondent deprived borrowers of the ability to make an informed choice about how to save or dispose of their home. Respondent improperly closed loss mitigation applications, improperly denied loan modifications to eligible borrowers, and charged borrowers excessive capitalized interest and fees.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: