Daily News related to the Foreclosure Crisis

The biggest unpunished heist in human history - Max Keiser

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

 Date

Article

Articles are added weekly 

Source

  Comment

08/30/25

Summertime Done Come and Gone My Oh My, August 26, 2025 - But Who Can Unlearn All the Facts That I’ve Learned: Facts Matter for Summary Judgment
In a recent foreclosure action, Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Lakeview”) sought summary judgment against Defendant Andrew Branley (“Branley”). Lakeview claimed that Branley executed a Note to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) on June 12, 2013, in the principal amount of $317,091.00, secured by a mortgage and a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (“CEMA”) of the same date. The mortgage and CEMA were recorded in August 2013. Lakeview asserted that the Note was endorsed in blank, transferred to Lakeview and that an Assignment of Mortgage from Chase, dated February 6, 2019, was recorded shortly thereafter. Lakeview maintained it had physical possession of the original Note prior to commencing the action in June, 2023 and that Branley had been in default since April 1, 2020. Branley opposed, arguing that Lakeview failed to prove it held the Note at commencement of the foreclosure action. He challenged the affidavit from Lakeview’s servicer, Flagstar Bank, for not confirming review of Lakeview’s own records, for omitting any statement that the original Note was examined and for lacking supporting business records. He also disputed the amount owed, claiming he borrowed only $6,001.67 under the CEMA and asserted that the 2019 Assignment of Mortgage referenced only the original 2010 mortgage, not the Consolidated Mortgage or Consolidated Note, raising questions about Lakeview’s ownership.

08/25/25

Foreclosure Starts Jumped in July as Mortgage Delinquencies Ebbed
Foreclosure starts jumped 4.3% in July compared with June and were up 7.61% compared with July 2024, according to ICE Mortgage Technology’s First Look report. There were about 32,000 foreclosure starts nationwide for the month, according to the firm’s data. In addition, foreclosure sales surged 9.68% to reach 6,900 for the month. That’s up about 25% year-over-year.

08/24/25

DFPI Orders Mortgage Lender to Pay $2.3 Million for Per Diem Interest Overcharges
On August 18, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced a $2.3 million settlement with a former mortgage lender and servicer for alleged violations of the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act and California Financing Law. According to the DFPI, the company improperly charged thousands of California borrowers per diem interest in excess of what is permitted under state law.

08/15/25

Fannie Mae issues new servicing rules for temporary buydowns
Fannie Has asked servicers to implement the new rules immediately, with mandatory compliance starting Nov. 1.
Fannie Mae has updated its servicing guidelines for temporary interest-rate buydowns, calling for immediate adoption ahead of a Nov. 1 mandate. The changes outline how to apply buydown funds in different workout scenarios, along with updated borrower notification requirements.

08/07/25

AG Campbell Secures $2 Million Settlement With Mortgage Loan Servicer For Violating Consumer Protection, Foreclosure Prevention Laws
BOSTON — Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell today announced that her office has reached a $2 million settlement with a Texas-based residential mortgage loan servicer, Cypress Loan Servicing LLC (Cypress), formerly known as Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC. The settlement resolves allegations that the company violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection, foreclosure prevention, and debt collection laws, putting homeowners at unnecessary and unlawful risk of foreclosure.
As part of the settlement, Cypress will pay $2 million to the Commonwealth; make extensive changes to its business practices to ensure compliance with applicable Massachusetts law; and regularly report on its compliance with the settlement to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). In addition to penalties to the state, the monetary payment is expected to provide restitution for certain impacted consumers who experienced foreclosure.
“When mortgage loan servicers like Cypress violate our critical consumer protection and foreclosure prevention laws, they aren’t just breaking the rules – they are causing real pain and instability for Massachusetts residents and families,” said AG Campbell. “I am proud to announce this settlement, which will help ensure compliance with meaningful consumer protections and put mortgage servicers on notice that Massachusetts will not tolerate unlawful practices that put profit over people.”
The AGO alleged that Cypress engaged in significant violations of the Massachusetts foreclosure-prevention law, known as Section 35B, which was enacted in 2012 in the wake of the foreclosure crisis and requires mortgage servicers to make a good faith effort to help financially struggling borrowers avoid foreclosures, including by providing required notice of borrowers’ right to pursue an affordable loan modification on certain mortgage loans. In reviewing loan modification applications under 35B, creditors must consider the consumer’s ability to pay, as well as other factors, such that any resulting loan modification is affordable. The AGO alleged that in many instances, Cypress unlawfully required consumers to pay large upfront down payments that were not subject to an affordability analysis as a threshold requirement to entering an otherwise affordable loan modification. Thus, consumers who could not afford these down payments were unable to access the modification and some ultimately were forced into an otherwise preventable foreclosure.

08/05/25

Why Mortgage Servicers Need a Closed-Loop Payment System Against Evolving Fraud
The digital age, while bringing unparalleled efficiency, has also ushered in an era of increasingly sophisticated financial fraud. For mortgage servicers, who handle vast sums of money and sensitive customer data, the threat of wire and ACH fraud is a persistent and growing concern.
Despite the obvious risks, a surprising number of institutions continue to rely on traditional, manual verification methods that are inherently vulnerable to exploitation by bad actors. These manual methods have been proven to be largely ineffective against many of today’s fraud tactics, which include but are not limited to wire-fraud/misdirected funds, phishing attacks via spoofed emails, malicious insider changing details, etc.
The industry needs a fundamental shift toward more secure, automated processes, particularly the adoption of closed-loop payment systems, to effectively combat this evolving threat.

08/03/25

Bombshell Mers Admission Collapses 15+ Years
This section is a republish from a report from Bill Paatalo, PI ... on MERS! DAVE KRIEGER AUG 3
As you may remember, everyone wanted to sue MERS because they thought the patented process was flawed. Eventually, attorneys figured out that MERS (even though a directive from its board of directors in 2011 said NOT to file suits on behalf of MERS, because everyone was countersuing) had a parent, MERSCORP, Inc. (which later changed to MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. … which later sold to Intercontinental Exchange Inc. “ICE”, who also owns the New York Stock Exchange, in October of 2018).
Now everyone is finding out that MERS was just a computer system. That computer system is controlled mostly by mortgage loan servicers who own what they input as to the data consumers might find when they do Servicer ID searches in the MERS System®. We already know that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) does not claim any pecuniary interest in the loan. Thus, MERS (through its agents and assigns) cannot transfer something it did not own in the first place. That makes the assignment document fraudulent as to its misrepresentative content. To put it another way (without stepping into legal shit) … there are laws on the books in every state that allow you to challenge assignments, which are allegedly “encumbrances of record” according to your mortgage loan security instrument. So, IMHO, the Courts collectively are full of shit (and so are the law firms dishing this opinion out) that you can’t attack documents in your chain of title.
Bill makes a great point about title insurers paying attention to what’s coming. Now this posted PDF is quite lengthy and contains a lot of context links, help is always there when you’re in distress.

copyright MSFraud.org