Ocwen Boarding Process Was Shot Down Last Year

As foreclosure defense lawyers have been saying for years, the Ocwen Boarding process is a sham. “This boarding process is a legal fiction, and it means something different to every entity,” Butchko ruled from the bench during a March 17 hearing.

Ocwen does not verify any of the data. It downloads it and then “calls it a day.”

“I have done this investigation for a long time,” he said, noting, “The appellate courts are going under this presumption that there is some type of meaningful auditing and verification.” But Jacobs maintained, “You just heard it from a lawyer who knows how to properly phrase the questions that she’s basically testifying to all — all of this is still hearsay.

”Butchko granted an involuntary dismissal in HSBC Bank USA’s suit against Miami homeowner Joseph Buset, whose loan was initially serviced by Litton Loan Servicing LP, which Ocwen acquired in 2011.

We can help evaluate your options!
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

See Home Foreclosure Fails on OCwen Servicing Records

Bruce Jacobs, a Foreclosure defense lawyer won this case. It was in 2016 and was, as usual, under-reported. The case hinged on the prior records of Litton Loan Servicing that Ocwen had acquired. The robo-witness could only testify that Ocwen employees had matched fields and columns on the payment history and had done nothing else. Hence verification was nonexistent.

[Judge] Butchko had to decide how to treat loan documents that became part of Ocwen’s business records but remained subject to hearsay objections unless the company could show it independently verified the data after transferring the loans. She considered evidence on Ocwen’s boarding process — the procedure by which financial services companies transfer account data from one lenders’ management system to another after trading loan portfolios.

Witnesses for lenders in foreclosure cases must show they did independent fact-checking to qualify their files as business records and not hearsay.

All records in  digital or hard copy are hearsay by definition. The only issue is whether a proper foundation has been offered by the robo-witness to claim that the “documents” qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule and that therefore they should be admitted into evidence. This case on Ocwen clearly shows that the testimony by dozens of Ocwen robo-witnesses has been false.

Based upon information I have received from credible sources I think the problem is worse than that. My sources tell me that the records are not uploaded or transferred. The only thing that happens is that the user name and password is changed. That is why the records of the prior servicer are NEVER introduced. It may be that Ocwen changes the fields and columns to make it appear that the records have been processed, but based upon my information the Ocwen records are often taken from the same database. That being the case, the robo-witness should have been an employee of the former Litton servicing.

 

 

Ocwen to Shell Out $56 Million in Class-Action Settlement

Ocwen to Shell Out $56 Million in Class-Action Settlement

July 20th, 2017  |  by Alex Spanko

Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE: OCN) on Thursday announced that has reached a $56 million settlement over a federal class-action lawsuit, the latest in a line of issues for the troubled servicer.

The lawsuit stemmed from alleged problems with restatements in Ocwen’s 2013 and 2014 financial statements, as well as a 2014 consent decree from the New York State Department of Financial Services that prohibited the company from gaining additional mortgage servicing rights in the state.

The West Palm Beach, Fla.-based Ocwen originates and services reverse mortgages under its Liberty Home Equity Solutions subsidiary.

“While the company believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of the trial and the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management,” the company wrote in an 8-K filing.

The settlement includes $49 million in cash for the plaintiffs, along with an additional 2.5 million shares of Ocwen stock that the company pegged at about $7 million; under the terms of the agreement, the servicer can also elect to simply pay the additional amount in cash.

After insurance covers a portion of the outlay, Ocwen will end up taking a financial hit of $34 million to $36 million, which the company intends to record in the second quarter of 2017. Ocwen warned that that the decision isn’t final and remains subject to a judge’s approval.

“In the event the settlement in principle is not ultimately finalized and approved, the litigation would continue and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen,” the company wrote.

Back in March, Ocwen made a major move to extract itself from the terms of the 2014 New York order, reaching a deal with the Empire State to remove a mandatory third-party monitor and create a potential pathway to begin acquiring servicing rights once more. The state had forced Ocwen to pay $150 million in fines stemming from record-keeping failures and improperly handled foreclosures as part of the consent order.

But Thursday’s settlement announcement still marks the most recent step in Ocwen’s ongoing regulatory woes, which remain ongoing on several fronts: The servicer must currently contend with a lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and cease-and-desist orders from up to 30 states that bar Ocwen from gaining new mortgage servicing rights. Those orders generally did not affect Liberty’s operations, as RMD reported at the time.

Ocwen had attempted to shed the CFPB lawsuit by requesting an immediate ruling on the bureau’s constitutional authority, but in June a judge rejected that argument. Based on these challenges, Moody’s downgraded company’s outlook and projected more woes to come.

“The negative outlook reflects the expectation that Ocwen will continue to experience elevated legal and regulatory costs that negatively impact its profitability,” Moody’s wrote in its release announcing the downgrades.

:)

NO TRUST ASSETS: In the eye of the storm

This is one more nail in the coffin of false securitization: the only assets attributed to apparent “Buyers” were those related to and including servicer advances. By severing the investors from their positions as creditors, the banks were able to create the illusion that they — or their “originators”, brokers, nominees, fronts and sham operators — were the owners of the debt. NONE of the “transfers” of the “loan documents” involved a purchase and sale of a loan. NONE of the original “loan documents” referred to an actual transaction between the homeowner and the originator. That is because at the base of the paper chain was an entity that served only as a conduit for the paperwork and which had nothing to do with the advance of money to or on behalf of any homeowner. The paper trail and the money trail diverged the moment the loan papers were executed.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip to CC who wrote to me with the following:

In the eye of the storm

I also wanted to share with you the LinkedIn career history of a young “document specialist” who claims familiarity with executing and creating loan documents. (Document specialist Matt Byas maintains a profile on LinkedIn.) He worked his way up through such foreclosure/loan mod fraud luminaries as Saxon Mortgage (Dennis G. Stowe, COO, later acquired by Ocwen), Bank of America (where his job was “filing back several file folders containing loan information and processing them at various points along the line as well”), Homeward Residential, Inc. (later acquired by Ocwen, received $1.31B in TARP money, disbursed $280M) where his job included “creating allonges”), Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (plaintiff in the successfully appealed judgement above, beneficiary of Geithner’s first, entirely bogus PPIP auction and another less well-known, similar sweetheart deal with Tim and Amtrust’s loans in 2010, which led to the $2M verdict for the Illinois widow in Hammer vs RCS, receiver of $43M in TARP money, $6.6M spent aiding borrowers, dissolved in 2016 by 2013 acquirer MTGE after non-stop quarterly losses from the point of acquisition onwards, and again featuring Dennis G. Stowe, CEO). His services were also utilized at a law firm that collapsed into a spectacular heap of revealed fraud, Butler & Hosch, P.A., and a loan servicer prone to deals so distant from comprehensibility that they had to issue this clarification to a press release in 2009:
No actual mortgage loans were part of the transaction. The acquired assets consisted principally of advances made on behalf of borrowers who are in arrears and of the Master Servicing Rights pursuant to which the loans are serviced. (e.s.) Mortgage servicing consists of collecting payments from homeowners, remitting them to appropriate parties and managing the default cycle. The transaction with Citi Residential Lending is similar to AHMSI’s earlier acquisitions from Option One and other sellers of servicing. In addition, while $1.5 billion has been described in a number of media reports as a “payment” in the transaction for the Master Servicing Rights, the vast portion of this amount is related to outstanding servicing advances.”
That loan servicer, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. eventually changed its name to Homeward Residential, and the document specialist no longer names it as a separate entity on his LinkedIn profile.

US Bank v Mattos: Ocwen’s Witness unable to collaborate U.S. Bank’s Records

Thanks to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for the heads up on this case.  Furthermore if you are suing U.S. Bank please note that THERE ARE NO RECORDS KEPT BY US BANK OF ANY KIND other than receipt of a monthly fee.  Bill Paatalo will be dropping a bombshell on these findings in the next month.

Please see ruling:  US Bank v Mattos – No Standing 06-06-17

The Supreme Court of Hawaii on certiorari to the Hawaii Court of Appeals reversed a prior summary judgment when it was determined that Ocwen’s witness was unable to speak for the validity of U.S. Bank’s records.   Hawaiian attorney Gary Dubin did an exemplary job demonstrating why the fraudulent assigments were void, not just voidable and that US Bank could not prove standing to foreclose.

The Defendants complained that the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment when there were genuine issues of material fact including two mortgage assignments that were robosigned by persons with insufficient authority or personal knowledge as to what they swore to.  There were also two assignments to the securitized trust in the chain of US Bank’s alleged ownership that were only supported by hearsay declarations inadmissible pursuant to Hawaii’s Civil Procedure Rule 56 and Evidence Rules.  Therefore, the court ruled that the Defendant’s loan violated the requirements of the securitized trust’s Pooling and Servicing agreement.

U.S. Bank’s declarants also had no idea how earlier business records had been compiled in regards to the two invalid mortgage assignments allegedly assigned to the securitized trust.

It was ruled that the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) incorrectly concluded that the declaration of Richard Work, the Contract Management Coordinator of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), rendered him a “qualified witness” for U.S. Bank’s records under the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence Rule 803(b)(6)- hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted activity.  In addition, U.S. Bank failed to establish that it was a holder entitled to enforce the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed(see Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawaii(2017)).

 

Unfortunately in regards to the first issue on certiorari, the court was unfamiliar with the term “robosigning” and ruled that since the legal effect of “robo-signing” was not necessary to  the determination of the case, the court sidestepped the issue and set aside the ICA’s holding that, “conclusory assertions that fail to offer factual allegations or a legal theory indicating how alleged “robo-signing” caused harm to a mortgagee” are insufficient to establish a defense in a foreclosure action.

 

Addressing the factual allegations underlying the “robo-signing” claim, however, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ocwen had the authority to sign the second assignment of mortgage to U.S. Bank. With respect to the second issue on certiorari, the court affirmed the ICA in part and followed the majority rule in U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salvacion (Hawaii App. 2014) and held that, “a third party unrelated to a mortgage securitization pooling and servicing agreement lacks standing to enforce an alleged violation of its terms unless the violation renders the mortgage assignment void, rather than voidable.”  However the court limited the holding to the judicial foreclosure context not impacting non-judicial foreclosures.

 

The court issued a reversal and vacated the prior March 9, 2016 Judgment on Appeal, as well as the circuit court’s August 26, 2014 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure against all defendants and remanded the case back to the circuit court.

It is unfortunate that the circuit court and Intermediate Court of Appeals were so obviously biased towards the homeowner that they refused to apply prior rulings of law that would have quickly resolved this case.  However, part of the MegaBank-Lower Court game is to exhaust the homeowner of financial resources, while abusing them with delay strategies, discovery deficits and the misapplication of established law.  When these unethical methods are employed and a homeowner is forced to return to the lower courts and start all over again, the banks and courts should immediately be held responsible for violations of due process and the deliberate use of legal abuse tactics. The homeowner should in time be compensated for the stress incurred, emotional trauma, any lost earnings, and any resulting physical and mental health degradation.  Only when there is a sufficient financial penalty will the banks and courts consider following the rule of law.

 

 

Bloomberg Law: Ocwen Loses Bid for Early Test of CFPB’s Constitutionality

Ocwen Loses Bid for Early Test of CFPB’s Constitutionality

https://www.bna.com/ocwen-loses-bid-n73014451876/

By Chris Bruce

A federal judge June 2 blocked Ocwen Financial Corp.’s bid to test the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the early stage of a closely watched enforcement case ( Cons. Fin. Protection Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp. , S.D. Fla., 17-cv-80495, 6/2/17 ).

The ruling by Judge Kenneth Marra of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida allows the CFPB to proceed unimpeded with its April lawsuit alleging that Ocwen violated consumer protection laws in servicing loans of distressed borrowers.

Ocwen sought an early case conference on the constitutional question, saying it should be settled before allowing the CFPB to go further. Marra disagreed, saying that would depart from settled procedural rules and might delay the case. He said Ocwen may still make its constitutional attack on a motion to dismiss.

Marra also declined Ocwen’s request to seek U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ views on the CFPB’s constitutionality. In a separate order June 2, Marra said it’s “premature” to invite the Attorney General’s views at this point.

Marra said he can weigh that request again in the context of an Ocwen motion to dismiss. “Until a motion is filed setting forth the exact basis for the challenge, the Attorney General will not have sufficient information to determine whether he should intervene,” Marra said.

Ocwen: Case Unjustified

“We have reviewed the order, which addresses how the Court would like to have the constitutional attack presented to it,” Ocwen spokesperson John Lovallo said in an email to Bloomberg BNA. “We look forward to including that argument with all of the other reasons CFPB’s suit is unjustified and should be dismissed.”

Marra’s June 2 orders, especially his decision not to fast-track the constitutional issue, could help the CFPB in other litigation. In April, when Ocwen sought the case conference shortly after the CFPB filed its lawsuit, attorneys said Ocwen’s effort, if successful, might encourage other defendants in CFPB cases to make similar requests. Marra’s rulings give the CFPB more ammunition to fight any copycat moves.

The CFPB’s constitutional status is now being actively weighed by two federal appeals courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s full bench May 24 heard argument in a case involving PHH Corp. of Mount Laurel, N.J. Several observers who attended the argument say they expect that court to rule for the CFPB, perhaps setting up the case for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit May 17 gave Burbank, Calif.-based D&D Marketing the go-ahead to challenge the CFPB’s constitutional status in an appeal from an enforcement lawsuit by the agency.

Ocwen is fighting a separate but related lawsuit filed the same day as the CFPB’s action. The suit by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R), which also is being heard by Marra, similarly faults Ocwen’s servicing practices.

Ocwen is represented by Thomas M. Hefferon and Sabrina M. Rose-Smith of Goodwin Procter in Washington, and Bridget Ann Berry of Greenberg Traurig in West Palm Beach, Fla.

The CFPB is represented by Jean Marie Healey, Atur Ravi Desai, and Jan Edwards Singelmann.

 

 


Ocwen accuses California settlement monitor of fraudulent strip club, casino expenses

Claims Fidelity Information Services engaged in ‘fraudulent, abusive billing scheme’

Gavel scales of justice

Fidelity Information Services perpetrated a “fraudulent and abusive billing scheme” and engaged in gross dereliction of duty in its role as the independent monitor of Ocwen Financial’s 2015 settlement with the state of California, Ocwen said in a bombshell lawsuit filed recently.

In the suit, filed in California state court, Ocwen states that FIS made “fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations” in the invoices it sent to Ocwen, claiming that money spent at strip clubs and casinos, among other things, were legitimate business expenses. In its defense, FIS tells HousingWire the lawsuit is baseless, more on that below.

Ocwen also claims that FIS significantly overcharged Ocwen for its monitoring services, including claims that FIS employees worked “implausible amounts of time” on given work days. Ocwen also claims that FIS billed it for “every minute its associates were onsite, regardless of whether they were actually working.”

According to Ocwen, FIS employees “took breaks as often as 14 times a day, or were observed watching videos instead of doing their jobs,” even though FIS billed Ocwen as if the associate spent the entire time working.

In its lawsuit, Ocwen claims that it repeatedly questioned FIS about the legitimacy of the charges it levied on the nonbank, but said that FIS claimed that all invoices were for appropriate charges.

“Whenever Ocwen questioned the legitimacy of FIS’s invoices, or confronted FIS about their increasing enormity, FIS reiterated its misrepresentations that the hours and expenses reflected on the invoices were legitimately worked and incurred,” Ocwen said in its lawsuit. “By continuing to represent to Ocwen that its invoices were legitimate, FIS induced Ocwen to continue to pay millions of dollars for work that was not performed.”

Ocwen goes on to claim that FIS believed it had “free reign” to lie about its actions without fear of any consequences.

Ocwen originally engaged FIS in 2015 to monitor its settlement with the California Department of Business Oversight, which stemmed from accusations that Ocwen failed to turn over documentation showing that it complies with California’s laws.

FIS served as the monitor of the settlement for two years, with its term as the California monitor ending when Ocwen reached a new settlement with California earlier this year.

That settlement involved Ocwen making a cash payment of $25 million and being required to provide an additional $198 million in debt forgiveness through loan modifications to existing California borrowers over a three-year period.

Over the two years that FIS served as the settlement’s monitor, Ocwen claimed that its mounting monitor costs, which totaled $147.5 million from Jan. 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016 from its various settlements with regulators, were a significant drag on its business.

Back in July 2016, Ocwen disclosed that the CDBO monitor believed that “certain onboarding activities” relating to new California originations in 2015 were prohibited by the terms of the consent order, and represented a material breach of the settlement.

That led to the February 2017 settlement, in which the CDBO claimed that Ocwen committed “hundreds” of violations of state and federal law over the last 18 months, including violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights.

And while all that was going on, Ocwen claims that FIS was abusing its business relationship with Ocwen and overcharging the company on many different fronts.

Per Ocwen’s lawsuit, its original agreement with FIS established a $44.8 million budget for a 24-month review, including a loan-by-loan review of 50,000 loan files for California loans serviced by Ocwen.

But Ocwen claims that FIS “ran through” the $44.8 million budget for the two-year review in 11 months, while “delivering less than half of the work it was hired to do.”

Ocwen claims that FIS was on pace to charge Ocwen $120 million for the project, which would have been almost triple the project’s original budget.

Ocwen then claims that FIS “had every incentive to inflate the invoices it submitted to Ocwen,” because the company reimbursed its employees for their expenses out of its own pocket before billing Ocwen for the expenses.

Therefore, Ocwen believes that FIS intentionally ignored the “inappropriate nature of associate expenses” so it could pass them off to Ocwen and avoid its own financial loss.

“On information and belief, FIS exploited its position to enrich itself at Ocwen’s expense,” Ocwen said in its lawsuit. “It viewed this engagement as a license to steal from Ocwen.”

Ocwen’s lawsuit goes on to lay out several specific examples of “FIS’s rampant fraud,” including:

  • Submitting expense reimbursements for charges from strip clubs and casinos
  • Billing Ocwen for artificially inflated hours during which no actual work was performed
  • Submitting improper expense reimbursements that FIS associates were using as a form of supplemental income

And here’s a sample of Ocwen’s claims:

In a brazen example of timesheet fraud, FIS associates at the Coppell, Texas facility were caught watching videos on company time and leaving the office up to 14 times a day without “clocking out.” Ocwen expressed its concern to FIS and asked to see “key-swipe” data for FIS associates, which would enable Ocwen to identify timekeepers who left worksites excessively during each work day and to determine how long they were gone. FIS refused to provide the data and continued to charge Ocwen for the improper hours.

Ocwen also claims that FIS employees expensed meals at strip clubs and casinos, including expenses incurred at establishments such as: The Lodge: America’s Best Gentlemen’s Club; WinStar World Casino; Spearmint Rhino Gentleman’s Club; Buck’s Cabaret; and Harrah’s Casino.

Ocwen claims that even though such expenses are prohibited by FIS policy, the company billed Ocwen for the expenses nonetheless.

Ocwen also states that FIS employees “abused their rights to expense meals” by treating their $65 daily meal allowance as a $65 per diem, using the money to “buy groceries, personal items, and even alcohol—trying to get as close as possible to the $65 allowance.”

Ocwen claims that it brought these concerns to FIS management on many occasions, but was repeatedly rebuffed or told that the expenses were indeed legitimate.

In a statement provided to HousingWire, FIS denies Ocwen’s claims, stating that Ocwen’s lawsuit is without merit.

“The complaint filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing against FIS is completely baseless and we plan to defend ourselves vigorously against these false allegations and to pursue collection of the invoices this litigation was filed to avoid,” FIS said in a statement.

An Ocwen spokesperson, on the other hand, said that company’s lawsuit “speaks for itself.”

In a statement to HousingWire, Ocwen spokesperson John Lovallo said: “Our complaint speaks for itself, and documents that Fidelity Information Services exploited its position by submitting fraudulent, false, and improper invoices to Ocwen relating to FIS’s services and expenses. Ocwen intends to vigorously pursue all remedies stemming from FIS’s fraudulent and abusive billing scheme.”

And if you’re interested in reading Ocwen’s full filing for more of the company’s bombshell accusations against FIS, click here.

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/40235-ocwen-accuses-california-settlement-monitor-of-fraudulent-strip-club-casino-expenses

Here’s a detailed breakdown of Ocwen’s new restrictions by state

A deeper dive reveals what Ocwen can and can’t do going forward

The servicing issues at Ocwen Financial are allegedly so widespread that some states are placing stricter restrictions on the nonbank, beyond freezing the company’s ability to acquire new mortgage servicing rights.

On Thursday, a group of state business regulators issued joint cease-and-desist orders to Ocwen. The main announcement from the states shows that an examination into Ocwen’s servicing shows “several violations of state and federal law, including, but not limited to, consumer escrow accounts that could not be reconciled and willful and ongoing unlicensed activity in certain states.”

The orders also showed that the regulators are concerned with Ocwen’s ability to continue operating due to financial constraints, an issue that Ocwen denies.

The orders prohibit the acquisition of new mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans by Ocwen Loan Servicing, a subsidiary of Ocwen, until the company is “able to prove it can appropriately manage its consumer mortgage escrow accounts.”

However, HousingWire analysis of each state’s cease-and-desist order or accompanying press release, show that some states’ regulators are restricting Ocwen’s business much further than that.

In fact, in one state, Ocwen has basically been put of out business entirely.

All in all, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming each placed restrictions on Ocwen’s business, according to the Conference of State Bank Supervisors.

But several states’ restrictions were not equal to the others– namely Massachusetts and South Dakota.

According to the announcement from the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation’s Division of Banks, Ocwen is not only no longer allowed to acquire new mortgage servicing rights, the company is also no longer allowed to service mortgages in the state, at all.

Here’s how Massachusetts describes its reasoning for restricting Ocwen’s business:

Of paramount concern is the company’s deteriorating financial condition, in which the company has lost nearly $1 billion since 2014, and will not be profitable by its own estimations for at least two years. The company has not developed or implemented an effective plan to curb these losses.

The examinations and monitoring noted the company has shown ineffective management of consumer escrow accounts and their internal servicing systems.

Therefore, Massachusetts is requiring Ocwen to “develop and implement a plan to transfer its loan servicing activities for Massachusetts consumer mortgage loans to a Division-approved licensed loan servicer(s).”

That means Ocwen can no longer service any mortgages in the state and must work to transfer all current mortgages it services to other servicers.

According to the Massachusetts Division of Banks, Ocwen services approximately 34,472 loans in Massachusetts, representing 3.5% of Ocwen’s portfolio – all of which must be transferred away.

Massachusetts’ order also requires Ocwen to “either fund or place mortgage loan applications in process with other lenders at no loss to applicants, and to cease accepting new applications,” which means no new loans for Ocwen in Massachusetts either.

“The Division will be closely monitoring Ocwen’s compliance with the Order,” the Division of Banks’ order states. “During this time, consumers with mortgage loans serviced by Ocwen should continue to submit loan payments to Ocwen in normal course in accordance with their loan terms. Ocwen will continue to service these loans until an orderly transfer of the servicing is completed in accordance with the Order. Any current mortgage loan applications should continue to be processed.”

South Dakota also placed its own serious restrictions on Ocwen’s business in the state, in the form of halting all foreclosures in the state until the escrow issues are addressed.

Here’s how the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation’s Division of Banking described it:

Ocwen does not possess the competence, experience, character, or general fitness required to permit Ocwen to continue to acquire new business as a mortgage lender in South Dakota.

The public interest will be irreperably harmed if Ocwen’s mortgage lending liscense is not conditioned immediately.

Therefore, Ocwen is required to “immediately cease acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, until Ocwen can show it is a going concern by providing a financial analysis that encompasses all of the liabilities Ocwen currently maintains, as well as liabilities it has knowledge it will incur in the course of its business.”

Ocwen is also required to “immediately cease from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, until Ocwen can provide a third-party audit of its South Dakota escrow accounts showing that borrower funds are appropriately collected, properly calculated, and disbursed accurately and timely, and make any corrections of whatever type necessary to remedy all mistake, errors, and improprieties occurring due to Ocwen’s actions.”

Ocwen is also required to “immediately cease any and all foreclosures in the state of South Dakota until all South Dakota escrow accounts have been correctly and properly balanced and all corrections due to mismanagement of the escrow accounts have been effected.”

Nearly all of the other states list the same restrictions: no new mortgage servicing rights and no new loans to be serviced by Ocwen Loan Servicing, except for Nebraska and Rhode Island, which each expect Ocwen to provide detailed reports on its servicing activity on a frequent basis going forward.

The Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance states that Ocwen is prohibited from “the acquisition of mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans until they are able to prove they can appropriately manage their consumer mortgage escrow accounts.”

Beyond that, Nebraska’s order requires Ocwen to provide a list of all the residential mortgages it services in the state, including the name, address, telephone number, and state of residence of the borrower; as well as the loan number; the owner of the loan; the account balance; and the location of any escrow funds.

Ocwen is then required to provide a report on the status of every Nebraska loan it services to the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance every 10 days.

Ocwen is also required to provide written notice of all servicing transfers within 72 hours of execution.

And in Rhode Island, Ocwen “shall immediately cease from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, which mortgage loans are secured by Rhode Island property, until Ocwen can provide the Department of Business Regulation with a reconcilement of its escrow accounts showing that consumer funds are appropriately collected, properly calculated, and disbursed accurately and timely.”

Ocwen is also required to “immediately cease acquiring mortgage servicing rights and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, which mortgage loans are secured by Rhode Island property, until Ocwen can show it is a going concern by providing a financial analysis that encompasses all of the liabilities it currently maintains, as well as liabilities it has knowledge it will incur in the course of its business.”

Additionally, Ocwen is required to file written confirmation by 4 p.m. on May 22, 2017, stating that the company has stopped acquiring new mortgage servicing rights and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen for properties in Rhode Island.

Ocwen is also required to provide the Rhode Island’s Department of Business Regulation with the following information: a list of all loans secured by Rhode Island property presently serviced by Ocwen, including the date such loans were originated; a list of all loans secured by Rhode Island property as to which Respondents are acting as a third party servicer, including the date such loans were originated; and a list of all pending acquisitions of servicing rights and applications for mortgage loans that would be secured by Rhode Island property that are in the pipeline.

Below is a list of the remaining states with relevant passages about each state’s restrictions on Ocwen:

ArkansasArkansas Securities Commissioner, B. Edmond Waters, issued a press release in connection with a cease and desist order issued against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. are ordered to cease and desist from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights and originating new mortgage loans. The order prohibits the acquisition of mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans until the company is able to prove it can appropriately manage its borrower mortgage escrow accounts.

ConnecticutThe Commissioner finds that the public welfare requires immediate action in order to prevent irreparable and immediate harm to Connecticut borrowers and the necessity of a temporary order requiring Ocwen to cease and desist from violating the laws cited herein, pursuant to Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in that, since December 2013, State Mortgage Regulators, including this Department, have been concerned about Ocwen’s mortgage servicing practices including, but not limited to, the misapplication of borrower payments and inaccurate escrow accounting and statements, and that the recent Multi-State Examination and CT Examination indicate that these issues have not been resolved, but rather may be exacerbated.  In addition, Connecticut borrowers have no ability to select a different mortgage servicer to remedy such persistent and pervasive errors by Ocwen.  Considering the potential harm to Connecticut borrowers and Ocwen’s inability to provide sufficient information concerning its existing borrower escrow accounts, the Commissioner finds it imperative that Ocwen cease from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights in connection with Connecticut residential mortgage loans for which it would have to maintain escrow accounts, and acquiring or originating new Connecticut residential mortgage loans serviced by Ocwen for which it would have to maintain escrow accounts, until it can ensure that the escrow accounts of its existing residential mortgage loan servicing portfolio in Connecticut are properly reconciled and that all Connecticut borrowers’ monies are maintained in segregated deposit or trust accounts for the benefit of such Connecticut borrowers.

District of ColumbiaThe majority of the orders prohibit the acquisition of new mortgage servicing rights and the origination of new mortgage loans until the company is able to prove it can appropriately manage its existing mortgage escrow accounts and not further harm consumers. Some orders also require Ocwen to cease any ongoing unlicensed activity.

FloridaFiled a separate lawsuit over Ocwen’s servicing practices.

HawaiiThe Notice of Charges and Proposed Order prohibits the acquisition of mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans until the company is able to prove it can appropriately manage its consumer mortgage escrow accounts. The Notice of Charges and Proposed Order also demands Ocwen to cease illegal unlicensed activity that is believed to be occurring in Hawaii.

IdahoThe department’s order prohibits Ocwen from violating Idaho law in the handling of consumer escrow accounts. Managing the money that borrowers remit as part of their monthly mortgage payments is critical to the business of a mortgage servicer, and the department’s order requires Ocwen to accurately and lawfully fulfill that function when dealing with Idaho borrowers’ mortgage payments.

IllinoisA search of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation did not show record of Illinois’ actions against Ocwen.

MaineOcwen shall immediately cease acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, until Ocwen can show it is a going concern by providing a financial analysis that encompasses all of the liabilities Ocwen currently maintains, as well as liabilities it has knowledge it will incur in the course of its business; Ocwen shall immediately cease from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by Ocwen, until Ocwen can provide the state regulators with a reconcilement of its escrow accounts showing that consumer funds are appropriately collected, properly calculated, and disbursed accurately and timely.

MississippiOLS shall immediately cease acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new residential mortgages serviced by OLS, until Ocwen can show it is a going concern by providing a financial analysis that encompasses all of the liabilities Ocwen currently maintains, as well as liabilities it has knowledge it will incur in the course of its business; OLS shall immediately cease from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights, and acquiring or originating new Mississippi residential mortgages serviced by OLS, until OLS can provide the DBCF with a third party audit of its escrow accounts associated with any Mississippi residential mortgage loans demonstrating that consumer escrow funds are appropriately collected, properly calculated, and disbursed accurately and timely; and make any and all corrections of whatever type necessary to remedy all mistakes, errors, and improprieties occurring in the past due to OLS’s Actions.

MontanaThe order prohibits Ocwen from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights until the company is able to establish that it can appropriately manage its Montana escrow accounts. Over the past three years, the Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions has handled 16 complaints against Ocwen and required Ocwen to credit $51,368.56 to Montana borrowers. Division officials will now focus on assisting borrowers who currently make mortgage payments to Ocwen.

NevadaThe majority of orders, including the order issued by the Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending, prohibit the acquisition of mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans until the company is able to prove it can appropriately manage its existing mortgage escrow accounts and prevent harm to consumers.

North Carolina Lead state in announcing restrictions.

South CarolinaA search of the South Carolina State Board of Financial Institutions – Consumer Finance Division did not show record of South Carolina’s actions against Ocwen.

TennesseeThe Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions (“Department”) issued today an enforcement action against Ocwen Loan Servicing to prohibit the company from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights or originating mortgage loans in Tennessee until it provides the Department with a plan to demonstrate an ability to operate in a sound manner.

TexasA search of the Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending did not show record of Texas’ actions against Ocwen.

West VirginiaA search of the West Virginia Division of Finance did not show record of West Virginia’s actions against Ocwen.

WisconsinThe majority of orders prohibit the acquisition of new mortgage servicing rights and the origination of mortgage loans until the company is able to prove it can appropriately manage its existing mortgage escrow accounts and not further harm consumers. Ocwen conducts mortgage loan servicing for approximately 1.5 million consumers nationwide, including about 13,500 in Wisconsin.

WyomingA search of the Wyoming Division of Banking did not show record of Wyoming’s actions against Ocwen.

[Editor’s note: If any of HousingWire’s readers can assist in locating the missing states’ orders against Ocwen, please contact Ben Lane at blane@housingwire.com. This article will be updated as appropriate.]

%d bloggers like this: