About the Bank of the US, I’ve always had a hard time describing it as a national bank in this context.
Although it is a national bank, it specifically denies acting in its own right and requires a strict appearance as trustee of a purported trust. As such, it does not act as an investment bank or a commercial bank that processes deposits or withdrawals. It could perform such services if US Bank received payments from borrowers on purported loans. But it does not perform these tasks since the documents presented in court are always third-party documents claiming rights to “manage” certain loans, including the loan in question.
Furthermore, for information and belief, the Bank of the United States has no knowledge of, or connection with, the claim of the name “US Bank.” Uniformly refuses to sign any loan or loan modification transaction and uniformly refuses to refer any employee or officer to any court proceeding involving the foreclosure of residential mortgage loans when described as a “trustee” of a “trust “.
In addition, US Bank has no obligations or obligations that require any document or instrument, other than consent to use your name in foreclosure cases. Lack of duty to act as a Trustee is the same as lack of a Trustee, a fundamental requirement in the creation of a valid trust.
And the lack of a Trustee’s duty is proof that RES, another basic requirement for establishing a trust, is not.
The use of the name “US Bank” is an attempt at “stratum” or “echelon” as defined in the financial sector, to create a shield of liability by self-styled “trustees” whose authority depends entirely on (1) la be there. Valid trusts and (2) the presence of an effective trust.
Therefore, the Bank of the United States is not performing and is not required to perform any fiduciary functions; and the alleged trust has never entered into any transaction in which the Trust paid for assets. Neither third party added assets (owned by such third parties) to the rest of the Trust.
The Sub Pink Third Party then used the US Bank name as a shield and the Sub Pink Third Party pursued the claims for its benefit and not for the benefit of any purported trusts or beneficiaries or any third-party investors. The Designated Trustee (or the designated trust) and the “servicer” therefore had no right, justification, or excuse to claim any right arising from or obligation to obtain repayment from the purported borrower.
Jury Sanctions OCWEN/US National Bank for Intimidating Document Retention (This is not the first time OCWEN has been exposed for deliberate fraud)
The lady introduced. Saccameno Chapter 13 Failure to save his home. He followed a Chapter 13 plan and took his current mortgage with him, eventually getting his hard-earned severance pay. Life should have been great, but OCWEN / U.S. Mr. Saccameno’s bank began harassing her with final threats (even though she had paid all the mortgage payments). YE. Saccameno and his lawyer OCWEN/USA Banks hundreds of pages showing that his payments were up to date, but ignored. Ms. Saccameno filed a lawsuit and asked for damages.
OCWEN was already subject to an authorization decree for a poor quality service
I OCWEN / SA Banks try to blame their employees. But the court ruled that “OCWEN cannot blame Marla (employee) in this case. He made one mistake among many others, and the worst was when OCWEN refused to correct them. “The jury awarded Mr. Saccameno $ 582,000 in damages, $ 3 million in punitive damages. The bank had” massive record-keeping, “but must, constitutionally, reduce the penalty to an amount equal to the compensation: $ 582,000 (the judge has a detailed analysis of the constitutional principles governing the award of punitive damages: it must be read in the case) (for lawyers).
Case facts against the US bank
Like many other cases of mortgage fraud under the False Claims Act, the allegations against the Bank of the United States involve misinformation against federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Agency (FHA) on creditworthiness. Residential construction. Loan products during the reporting period, the Bank of the United States joined the FHA insurance program as a direct endorsed lender (DEL) with the authority to initiate, underwrite and certify the availability of mortgages. Under federal regulations, any FHA-insured home loan protects the lender from the effects of default by providing reimbursement for any financial loss suffered as a result of the default. To manage risk, the FHA requires lenders to engage in certain minimum underwriting procedures to ensure that loans are not randomly assigned to unsuitable borrowers. At a minimum, lenders must verify the income and employment, as well as review the applicant’s debts and assets.
Under the settlement agreement, the Bank of the United States admitted, during a period from 2006 to 2011, that it had intentionally and consistently confirmed FHA insurance loans that did not meet HUD’s underwriting requirements. It also acknowledges that it did not implement a comprehensive quality control program as required by FHA regulations and therefore was unable to identify credit problems with its mortgage loan applicants. In addition, HSBC acknowledged that it had not self-reported poor loans as required by law and had not taken any corrective or mitigating action when notified of its underwriting problems.
It’s no wonder that thousands of US Bank borrowers defaulted during the economic crisis, leaving their FHA mortgage insurance payments in millions of dollars. These payments, according to the Justice Department, would not be necessary – saving taxpayers millions of dollars – if the US Bank followed proper protocol for its loan procedures.
Government response to the agreement
The federal government has released a series of statements on the deal with the Bank of the United States, reaffirming its commitment to eradicate this type of fraud and repair the housing sector after its collapse in 2008. In a statement, the attorney of the United States claimed that Northern Ohio District Said. : “US Bank has ignored certain loan requirements that have led to significant losses for taxpayers … This deal proves that the Justice Department will not allow lenders to quickly and freely play with the rules and bill their account important. the American people. “”.
For information on foreclosure defense call us at (877) 399 2995. We offer litigation document review support, mortgage audit reports, securitization audit reports, affidavit of expert witness notarized, and more.
“I have been using Mortgage Audits Online for a few months and I am very pleased with the work. The audits are very detailed and prepared so a 4th grader can read them. I recommend these guys to all my friends in the business.”
“Thank you…Thank you…Thank you… Your company has created an affordable solution that is spot on as good if not better than audit reports that cost 3-4 times as much.”
“I certainly appreciate your courtesy and thank you in advance for the service. Please know too, that I am recommending Mortgage Audits Online to all of my law associates.”