See this link to review the multiple people being indicted on mortgage fraud in Maryland alone! It’s insane!
I’m very excited Attorney General Eric Holder is implementing this Task Force all over America.
MARYLAND MORTGAGE FRAUD TASK FORCE Jonathan Biran, Coordinator (410) 209-4920; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
In February 2009, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland established the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Task Force. Through the Task Force, local, State, and federal regulatory and investigative agencies will coordinate mortgage fraud enforcement actions, identify cases for criminal investigation, and work to secure resources to prosecute perpetrators. The Task Force will develop more efficient procedures for mortgage fraud referrals; ways to avoid duplication of effort among agencies in open cases; and a training program for State and federal prosecutors and investigators. For victims of mortgage fraud and related crimes, the Task Force also is to pursue measures to secure restitution, including asset forfeiture.
I hope Bank of America pays victims of Wilshire just like it had to for Countrywide.
One church member’s battle to save her home from foreclosure became an entire crowd’s fight last Thursday, May 20. The Northwest Bronx Community Clergy Coalition, along with members of New Day Church, met at noon in front of the Bank of America at 248 E. Fordham Road.
The idea for the protest began when Edda Lopez of New Day shared her dilemma with the church congregation: Bank of America had just told her they were going to foreclose her home at Devoe Terrace. But they notified her only one month in advance.
It all started nearly six months ago when Lopez began having difficulty making her mortgage payments. She had fallen ill and also lost her husband, and it seemed like her life was breaking down at once. Wilshire Credit Corporation, whichheld her mortgage, offered her what is known as a loan modification of her mortgage — she would get to pay a reduced rate, almost $1,000 less per month than in the past, for a period of three months. If Lopez made timely payments, Wilshire told her, they would consider modifying the loan to the lower rate for good.
“I said yes, of course! I signed an official agreement and everything,” said Lopez. Sure enough, after three months, Wilshire sent her a letter saying that her mortgage had been modified and would stay at the low rate for the next five years. “I was happy, but that kind of scared me,” admitted Lopez. “I said, only five years? I thought it was going to be forever!”
It didn’t even last the five months. She then received a letter that her new payment would be $3500 a month — back up to the original high rate she had been paying before the modification. The letter was from Bank of America because, as Lopez learned, they had acquired her loan from Wilshire.
Lopez asked a friend who works in real estate to call the bank and ask some questions. When he did, they told him that the house was in foreclosure because Lopez had not been paying her loan. They said the house would be sold off on May 24.
“To think, if I hadn’t asked my friend to call them, I may have never even known,” said Lopez. “It would have been a done deal. I never got a letter telling me I was in danger of losing my home, nothing.”
Lopez went straight to her community at the church and they organized a protest.
“We fully recognize that Edda is one of tens of thousands of people in the Bronx who are being screwed by the banks one way or another,” said Ivan Braun of the NWBCCC. “She is a member of our community, so we’re going to stick by her.”
On the morning of the proposed rally, NWBCCC received a call from someone representing the CEO at Bank of America. He asked them to call off the protest. The bank postponed the foreclosure but otherwise did not budge on their foreclosure plans. NWBCCC and New Day members went ahead with the rally. A hundred people came out: 27 members of New Day Church, an equal number of people directly associated with NWBCC, and a number of other locals from the community.
“Ain’t no power like the power of the people, ‘cause the power of the people don’t stop,” they chanted, holding signs and making speeches directly outside the bank’s windows.
Following the rally, Braun reflected: “I think it was very successful. In spite of what the guy from the CEO’s office said, they’re going real slow. They still aren’t recognizing her situation. So we saw this as a necessary step. We’re still hopeful that they will see the light.”
Bank of America insists Lopez’ load was never “modified” in the first place. Unfortunately, she cannot find the letter that outlined her modification, though she says that her son, for one, witnessed it. She showed him the letter when she first received it.
Bank of America has now offered Lopez the chance to re-apply for the modification she had already received from Wilshire.
“They want me to do it all over again,” she said. “Give them bank statements, try and prove I deserve the modification. So I don’t even know if they’ll accept it this time.”
She has until May 28 to get the paperwork in. Members of Northwest Bronx Alliance and her church will clearly be pulling for her.
Countrywide customers to be repaid $108 million for overcharges Bank of America agrees to create a fund to reimburse homeowners who were assessed improper fees, the FTC announces. At least 200,000 homeowners whose mortgages were serviced by Countrywide will be eligible for reimbursement. (Brian Vander Brug, Los Angeles Times / June 8, 2010) By Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times June 8, 2010 E-mail Print Share Text Size la-fi-countrywide-mortgages-20100608 Reporting from Washington — People struggling to keep their homes as the housing market collapsed faced additional hurdles if their mortgages were serviced by Countrywide Financial Corp. — inflated fees for property inspections, appraisals and even lawn mowing, the Federal Trade Commission said. Now Bank of America, which bought the Calabasas lender in 2008, has agreed to refund those overcharges — in some cases amounting to thousands of dollars — as part of a $108-million settlement announced Monday. » Don’t miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox. “Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. The settlement is the largest for a mortgage servicing case and one of the largest ever by the agency. At least 200,000 homeowners whose mortgages were serviced by Countrywide from 2005 until its sale in July 2008 will be eligible for reimbursement of their overpayments. After a federal court approves the settlement, the FTC said it would notify eligible homeowners in a process that could take several months. The FTC website has more information. The agency began investigating Countrywide’s loan-servicing business amid complaints about fees charged to homeowners who had fallen behind on their mortgages and were in default, or who were trying to save their homes through bankruptcy. Once the nation’s largest mortgage lender, Countrywide has faced a variety of legal actions for its role in the mortgage meltdown, including a civil suit by the Securities and Exchange Commission accusing co-founder Angelo Mozilo and two other executives of misleading investors about the company’s financial condition. Mortgage service companies can charge homeowners who have fallen behind on their loans for services that protect the lender’s financial interest in the property. But as the housing market collapsed, Countrywide created subsidiaries to do such work, then marked up the price of those services 100% or more, charging homeowners the fees to increase company profits in bad economic times, the FTC said. Countrywide also failed to tell customers when it added charges to their mortgages and made “false or unsupported claims” to borrowers about how much they owed on their loans, the agency said. The marked-up fees were collected as part of repayment plans, foreclosures or bankruptcies. “This settlement should be seen as an admission by those behind Countrywide that they made a habit of profiting off the misfortune of their most troubled borrowers,” said Sen. Charles M. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who pressed the FTC in May 2008 to investigate alleged abuses. “These fines will help repay the company’s victims, many of whom have still yet to recover from the abuse they suffered at the hands of Countrywide.” Bank of America agreed to settle the charges “to avoid the expense and distraction associated with litigating the case,” it said in a statement. The settlement involved no admission of wrongdoing, the bank said. The settlement requires the company to stop such practices and make changes to its procedures for homeowners in bankruptcy, including sending borrowers monthly statements noting new fees. Michael Kassing, 39, a software developer in Sacramento, said he paid Countrywide about $1,200 in fees when he was in default on his mortgage for about eight months from 2007 to 2008 for services such as photos of the home. “How much of that is overblown? I have no clue,” he said. But Kassing doubts the total for all of Countrywide’s customers is only $108 million, which would average $540 for the estimated 200,000 people in default during the covered period. He said he’d gladly give up his piece of the settlement and have the case go to trial, potentially leading to greater refunds or more information about other Countrywide practices. But Lucy Morris, the lead FTC attorney on the case, said that under the law the agency can’t seek penalties or fines for Countrywide’s overcharges. The agency only can stop the practices and get money back for consumers.
|This Announcement describes the policy changes in detail and identifies the specific
Selling Guide topics that will be updated on April 30, 2010, when a new version of the Selling Guide will be released. Waiting Period After a Preforeclosure Sale, Short Sale, or Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure
IBM Closes Acquisition of Wilshire Credit Corporation Assets
ARMONK, N.Y., March 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — IBM (NYSE: IBM)
today announced that it has finalized its acquisition of the core operating assets of Wilshire Credit Corporation from Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC). The initial agreement to acquire Wilshire assets was announced on October 5, 2009.
The acquisition strengthens IBM’s commitment to mortgage business process services that improve clients’ flexibility, competitiveness, and ability to manage their businesses more effectively through dynamic market cycles. As part of the closing process, Bank of America will retain Wilshire’s mortgage servicing rights and related assets.
For more information please see: http://www.ibm.com/services
Please review how shady this CEO is here http://www.123people.com/s/andrew+wiederhorn
This thug did time in jail and he also started Wilshire Credit Corp.
He’s from Portland, Oregon. He founded Wilshire Credit Corporation and served as its CEO, by the age of 32 amassing a fortune estimated to be worth $140 million. Currently he is CEO and majority shareholder in Fog Cutter Capital, which had been listed for a time on NASDAQ (ticker symbol FCCG).
Wiederhorn founded Fog Cutter Capital after the
following questionable investments involving union retirement funds. However, US law enforcement continued a criminal investigation into Wiederhorn’s activities while at Wilshire Credit, which was ended when Wiederhorn pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return and paying Jeffrey Grayson, the head of Capital Consultants, an “illegal gratuity” in return for a 12-month sentence and payment of $4.6 million in fines.
The controversy around Wiederhorn continued when the board of directors of Fog Cutter voted to give Wiederhorn a bonus equal to the fine he paid the US government, and paid his salary during his incarceration—despite Federal rules that a convict can not engage in business dealings while imprisoned. The immediate result was that NASDAQ delisted Fog Cutter; since 14 October 2004 the corporation’s shares have been traded on the pink sheets. In addition Ernst & Young, the company’s independent auditors, quit on 16 July 2004; the company has since hired a local auditing firm to audit its books.
The long-term result was that Wiederhorn had his membership in the influential Multnomah Athletic Club suspended in October 2004. The Wall Street Journal described the Club as “the premier social center for executives, politicians and socialities in this city of more than half a million.” After finishing his sentence, Wiederhorn has initiated a legal fight against the Club, claiming that it has treated him unfairly and that other Multnomah Athletic Club members who have committed crimes were not disciplined as harshly as him. One example he cited was his former business associate Lawrence Mendelsohn, who pleaded guilty in the same case involving Capital Consultants, but served no jail time.
Wilshire Credit Corporation operates as a specialty loan servicing company in the United States. It involves in servicing of residential mortgage loans. The company was founded in 1987 and is based in Beaverton, Oregon. As of May 3, 2004, Wilshire Credit Corporation operates as a subsidiary of BofA Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc.
14523 S.W. Millikan Way
Beaverton, OR 97005
Founded in 1987
Similar Private Companies By Industry
|Midland Federal Savings and Loan Association||United States|
|Prime Rate Lending Group, Inc.||United States|
|SCB Bank||United States|
|Coatesville Savings Bank||United States|
|The First, A National Banking Association||United States|
Recent Private Companies Transactions
October 5, 2009
LACY v. WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION
CLARENCE DEAN LACY, Plaintiff,
WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. H-08-3389.
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
May 19, 2009.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [Doc. # 16] filed by Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation (“Wilshire”).[ 1 ] Plaintiff Clarence Dean Lacy filed a Response [Doc. # 18] in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. Defendant neither filed a Reply nor requested additional time to do so. Having reviewed the full record and applied governing legal authorities, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion.
Plaintiff purchased a tract of property in College Station, Texas, in 1993. In connection with the purchase, Plaintiff executed a promissory note and deed of trust. Eventually, the servicing of the loan was transferred to Defendant.
Plaintiff fell behind on his loan payments during a family emergency. After the emergency was resolved, Plaintiff contacted Wilshire to ask how much he needed to pay to bring the note current. Plaintiff alleges, supported by his own affidavit, that Wilshire’s employee told him that the note was current. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit, Exh. A to Response, ¶ 6. At that point, Plaintiff believed that his father had made the payments on his behalf during the period of emergency. See id. Defendant claims, supported by its evidence, that its employee told Plaintiff that the loan was on hold and that there was “no tad (total amount due)” and told him to call again the following week. See Affidavit of Danny Tye, Exh. A to Defendant’s Motion, ¶ 9.
Plaintiff alleges that in October 2007, he discovered that a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale was held for his property in August 2007. The property was sold for $81,541.17. Plaintiff asserts that he would have brought the loan current had he known that it was delinquent and would, thereby, have avoided the foreclosure and sale.
On September 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Texas state court alleging negligent misrepresentation and fraud by Wilshire. On November 12, 2008, Defendant filed a timely Notice of Removal, removing the lawsuit to this Court. The Court conducted the initial pretrial and scheduling conference on January 26, 2009, establishing October 26, 2009, as the deadline for the parties to complete discovery. On April 9, 2009, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argues that the summary judgment evidence establishes conclusively that Wilshire never represented to Plaintiff that the loan was current and that there was no fraud. The Motion is now ripe for decision.
II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits filed in support of the motion, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Puget Plastics Corp., 532 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2008). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See Hines v. Henson, 293 F. App’x 261, 262 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 278 (5th Cir. 2004)). The Court construes all facts and considers all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Nat’l Union, 532 F.3d at 401.
Plaintiff asserts claims against Wilshire for negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and Wilshire seeks summary judgment on each of these claims.
“Negligent misrepresentation requires proof that: (1) the defendant in the course of his business or a transaction in which he had an interest; (2) supplied false information for the guidance of others; (3) without exercising reasonable care or competence in communicating the information; (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the information; (5) proximately causing the plaintiff’s injury.” Kastner v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C., 231 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2007, no pet.); see also In Re Stonebridge Techs., Inc., 430 F.3d 260, 267 n.4 (5th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has presented evidence that Wilshire in the course of its business misrepresented to Plaintiff that his loan was current, that Plaintiff justifiably relied on that information in not making additional payments at that time, and that Plaintiff was injured as a result of the misrepresentation because his property was sold at foreclosure. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit, ¶¶ 6-8, 11. Plaintiff’s evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim.
Under Texas law, the elements of a fraud cause of action are: (1) a material representation was made; (2) it was false when made; (3) the speaker either knew it was false, or made it without knowledge of its truth; (4) the speaker made it with the intent that it should be acted upon; (5) the party acted in reliance; and (6) the party was injured as a result. Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 563 n.3 (5th 2002) (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998)). Plaintiff has presented evidence that Wilshire represented to him that his loan was current, that the representation was incorrect, that the Wilshire employee who made the representation either knew it was incorrect or did not know whether it was correct, that the Wilshire employee knew that Plaintiff would act on the information he provided, and that Plaintiff in fact relied on the information by not making additional payments on the loan at that time. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit, ¶¶ 6-8, 11. Plaintiff has also presented evidence that he was injured as a result of his reliance on the misrepresentation because the property was sold at foreclosure. Plaintiff’s evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the fraud claim. As a result, summary judgment is inappropriate and must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has presented evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact as to his fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 16] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Summary Judgment Evidence [Doc. # 19] and Motion for Continuance [Doc. # 20] are DENIED AS MOOT.
This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.
- Maryland Operation Stolen Dreams
- Maryland Operations Stolen Dreams
- Maryland Announces Results of Operation Stolen Dreams
- Wilshire is still at it
- Countrywide customers to be repaid $108 million
- Fannie Mae’s New Policies for those with preforclosure sale, Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure,etc.
- IBM Closes Acquistion of Wilshire Credit Corporation Assets
- ANDREW WIEDERHORN – a Jail Bird and Wilshire Credit Corp. CEO
- Business Week’s snapshot of Wilshire Credit Corp.
- LACY v. WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION
- Grant funds classes to help homeowners
- Wilshire has been named as a defendant in dozens of lawsuits filed in the past two years.