6.5 Million Foreclosures; Is There a Behavioral Problem?

Credit Suisse Analysts Forecast 6.5 Million Foreclosures.

Falling U.S. home prices and a lack of available credit may result in foreclosures on 6.5 million loans by the end of 2012, according to a Credit Suisse research report on Tuesday.

The foreclosures could put 12.7 percent of all residential borrowers out of their homes, Credit Suisse analysts, led by Rod Dubitsky, said in the report. That compares with a foreclosure rate of 2.04 percent in the last quarter of 2007, they said, citing Mortgage Bankers Association data.

The new forecast includes 2.7 million subprime loans whose risky characteristics sparked the worst housing market since the Great Depression. Subprime foreclosures, on top of the 676,000 already in or through the process, will hit 1.39 million in the next two years alone, an upward revision from the 730,000 predicted by Credit Suisse in October...

The shutdown of mortgage bond markets that financed many risky borrowers during the housing boom has also made it harder to refinance into affordable loans, they added. "These factors, coupled with snowballing negative psychology, are contributing to a rapid rise in foreclosures," the analysts said.

Shutdown of Mortgage Bond Market

Everywhere I turn I see credit being curtailed. There has indeed been an enormous shift in both consumer and lender psychology. So much so that Walking Away Will Be The Next Mortgage Crisis.

Foreclosures Quadruple in California

The San Francisco Gate is reporting Foreclosures quadruple in state, Bay Area.

Tens of thousands of Californians lost their homes during the first three months of the year as foreclosures soared more than 300 percent across the Bay Area and the state. Many experts expect those numbers to climb higher this year and beyond.

"The problem isn't going away anytime soon," said Andrew LePage, an analyst with DataQuick Information Systems. "We're still looking for some sign of a peak in foreclosure activity."

Lenders took back 6,579 homes in the nine-county Bay Area during the first quarter, up from 1,493 a year ago and 4,573 in the fourth quarter, according to a report released by DataQuick on Tuesday. Throughout California, 47,171 homes were foreclosed on, up from 11,032 a year ago. The regional and state figures are now at their highest level in more than 15 years.

Short Sale Process Is Failing

Realtors are complaining short-sale process is failing.

Realtors in many U.S. states say lenders are demanding excessively high prices before allowing distressed borrowers to offload their homes in "short sales," making the housing crisis worse.

"The system is broken," said Ron Rosen, a Realtor in Lighthouse Point, Florida. "The only question banks should ask is can they make more in a short sale than in foreclosure." "The answer is that in nine out of 10 cases they will lose more money in a foreclosure," Rosen aid. "But some banks seem to be asking a different question."

Gary Reggish, a Realtor at Remerica United in Novi, Michigan, said most of the owners he has worked with on short sales have been kept waiting months for word from their lender, which had caused many deals to fall through.

Andrea Gellar, a Realtor at Sudler Sotheby's in Chicago, said "It can take several months to get approval on a short sale and few buyers will wait that long," she said.

Siding With The Realtors

I seldom take the side of Realtors on anything, but in this case they are correct. Lending institutions are digging their own grave by not speeding up the short sale process. In fairness, one of the problems is the securitization mess of figuring out who owns what. However, there is no excuse when a single lender owns the mortgage and fails to act.

Mortgage Stress Is International

Martin North, author of Anatomy of Australian Mortgage Stress is blaming behavioural problems for the crisis down under.

Let's take a look at Home mortgage stress on rise to see what similarities there are with the US housing crisis and whose bad behavior is to blame.

The number of families under severe mortgage stress on Melbourne's fringes will double in the next six months, a report predicts. The Anatomy of Australian Mortgage Stress report, by Fujitsu Consulting, measured mild and severe mortgage stress in 11 different social groups, and forecast dire conditions for several of them.

The number of young growing families in mild and severe mortgage stress is 23,829 in Victoria but will more than double to 52,466 by September. And the number of "suburban mainstream" households in mortgage stress will also double, from 14,137 to 27,794.

Report author Martin North said the skyrocketing price of houses and interest rate rises had put huge numbers of Australians in over their heads. "Many home buyers were extending themselves when rates were lower, because prices were so high," Mr North said. "So when interest rates went up, almost immediately they were in trouble."

Mr North said that a "behavioural problem of people living beyond their means" was actually to blame.

A Behavioral Problem

Blaming this on a behavioral problem sounds about right. So whose behavior was bad? Let's make a list.

Bad Behavior List

Borrowers
Lenders
Appraisers
Risk Specialists
Rating Agencies
Guarantors
Homebuilders
Realtors
Underwriters
Banks
Broker Dealers
Ownership Society Proponents
HUD
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Economic Cheerleaders
Congress

Somehow that list looks incomplete. Oh yeah, I remember. Please put the Fed and central bankers in general at the top of the list.

Comments

[HalT]

Ok, so you state the obvious. The real issue now is how to untie the Gordian Knot of this mess. Home values are two high to wages. Congress is on an election cycle and thus brings more vodoo economics to the table. The feds are 10 trillion in the hole with 44% owed overseas. So lets start with congress and elect representatives that will return fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government. Then maybe the Fed Chairman out to be changed to someone who will fight inflation, stop the bubble developing in commodities, and use all the fed tools to stop Greenspans "Irrational Exuperance".

[Malkiel]

I'm willing to accept your apportioning of blame all around, there's certainly been way to much focus on blaming the homeowners, who are the least savvy players in the game because they're the amateurs. I place a higher level of blame on the parties who had official legal and ethical responsibilities, especially mortgage brokers and the analysts for the lenders who bought their product. For naive homeowners to borrow too much because an "expert" told them they could safely do it is understandable, but for the "expert" to offer an unsafe deal and doctor the paperwork to make it fly is reprehensible. And for the bank analysts to close their eyes to what was coming across their desk can only be explained as fear of corrupt managers...

[MattBlackman]

But then again, playing the blame game is typical in the aftermath of a bubble isn't it? After all, bubbles demonstrate the epitome of a mass behavioral shift as greed takes over and the normal logical checks and balances that we have all learned through experience are thrown to the wind...

[icandoitdon]

if nobody is accountable then nothing gets fixed because fault is never identified. it's not an issue of finger-pointing. it's an issue of understanding the failures in orer to prevent their recurrence.

i am with malkiel. with the exception of those who fradulently claimed income they didn't have to support a mortgage application, homeowners were too often duped and not sophisticated enough to understand what they were doing...

[mallarde]

Anyone that cannot understand an amortization schedule should not be taking out a loan for $400,000.

Anyone that cannot afford to make payments due in a year unless their house appreciates by 5-percent or more so they can refinance should not be taking out the loan.

The homeowners are to blame for getting foreclosed upon, unless a mortgage broker defrauded them. Then they should sue for fraud.

Blame the Fed for leaving rates too low? The Fed cannot set fiscal policy in order to stop people from taking huge gambles subsidized by our tax code. Fiscal policy should depend upon other things, like inflation or economic activity.

[mallarde]

One other thing. Everyone one I know that has been forced to move knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They were swept up in the hype. Who was to blame when mom and pop shareholders lost their money in the dot-com bust? The government? Stockbrokers? No, the investors with dollar-signs in their eyes.

[moonscope]

Richard Pollak [e-mail] Alvin Texas 77511 Born 09/17 Constitution Day, “We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident!” Justice Denied because Damage, simply relates, International Commerce’s permission that Payments, Deserve Credit, Affronted Authority Squanders Laws Subservient by emboldening forsakenly.

Standard 6.5 Fixed 180 Month Loan Closed on May, 2001 for $77,000.00, $60,000.00 Available Credit Card Credit “0” Due, Loan Originator received all 2001 Coupon Payments, then Transferred Loan, and First Three 2002 Payments were Also on-time Current.

Payments Lost in 2001 Created Escrow Shortage, Felonious Credit Report Blocked Outside Refinance, Bankruptcy was Forced, Payment History was Denied, Stay was released and Lender Supplied 48 Month Coveted Loan History same Day, Lender Admitted Faults, Sued Lender, Admittance Ignored, Appealed Judgment Award {10 Day to Appeal was Coveted} “on Time by RULE # 2005” Appeal Denied for Time expired {15th Day of 11 Day Served, -5 Day RULE, 6 Day Allowed – Sunday’s?} Appeal Denied Five Times, Lender Returns $7,515.25 Mooting Judgment, Threatening Foreclosure 05/06/2008 to “Case Law” Theft “Common Practice,” Blanketing Escrow Anti-trust Defendable for Corporate Megalomania.

Foreclosure offers Different Protections from Justice relating Financial Accountability to the Following; Homeside Lending is/or/and Washington Mutual, First Bankruptcy Attorney, Second Bankruptcy Attorney Protecting first, Bankruptcy Trustee and San Antonio Credit Union all Misdirected Funds, Dismissing Accountability.

Foreclosure Relates to the Following; Bank One Transferred Account with intentional Damage, Judge allowed Theft “Common Practice” Defended, Enron Judge Protected Both Houston Courthouse and DOJ Systematic, Fifth Circuit Protected DOJ, Appellate Attorney ignored Merit of Assured Supreme Court Victory that Promised Numerous Damage Awards, by seeking and Crediting Skewed Trial Attorney Misinformation.

1. Sued Washington Mutual for Damage, after forcing Formal Admittance Statement that through Loan Transfer Principal and Escrow were reduced. Equating {2001 “Principal Curtailment” Breach of DEED 180 Month Term Commitment $778.34} and {2001 “Escrow Curtailment” Anti-trust $637.22} Loan Manager Coveted the Pertaining Loan History, holding Loan Hostage for Lender Arrear Error of Twelve Escrow Shortage Payments amounting $103.34 that Started April, 2002 ten Months into Current Paid-up Loan, Credit Report Damage Blocked outside Refinance.

1A. Refinance Block forced Bankruptcy, Loan History was Coveted from Attorneys until released Stay {$1,415.56 missing for 48 Months} By Closing Loan, History Transferred to Archive’ Department Teller unlocked, revealing both the Coveted Bank One “Principal Curtailment” Abandonment of December, 2001 and Homeside Lending Erroneous attempt at “Curtailment” reversal that Admitted Erroneous Misapplication of Escrow November, 2001.

1B. Proof Relates Both Lenders Credited November 2001 and Abandoned December 2001. Bank One and Homeside Lending Refused Bank One Loan History, and Loan Manager Protection of Loan History was accomplished by Lender receiving Loan on 11/01/2001, Dating All Loan History’s to start 11/28/2001 absent of the “Escrow Curtailment” Reduction.

1C. First 27 Days of Loan History Concealed, both “Curtailments” requiring Lender in 2001 to report Escrow Reduction on Form 1098 Taxable and Falsified Credit Report. Fearing exposure Loan History was protected until release of Stay Day when Archive responded by E-Mail supplying Loan History, their Fault Admittance Statement followed.

1D. ({“Point Counter Point”}) Loan History Abandoned December of all Credit and November “Escrow Curtailment” needed Additional $131.12 if it was to Reverse “Principal Curtailment” Damage, Lender Statement Detailed “Erroneous” Escrow “Misapplication” Escrow Shortage Increased Payment Demand for Twelve Months by $103.34, but Lender Attorney Claims November 11/10 not 11/28 Escrow Reduction Paid December?

1E. Meager $1,000.00 Award for ignored RESPA request was Timely Appealed, because Attorney’s Proof of Claim” was ignored, Attorney RESPA request was ignored {ruled inadmissible} and ignoring My Lay-person RESPA request that included ignoring the Better Business Bureau {Washington Mutual Chair expelled} Release of Stay was achieved, Archive’ Department halted Progression.
Funds Lost, Damage Award and Costs Appeal was Preparation for related Substance seeking Constitutional Justice of and including, First Attorney’s Systematic Drain of Both Bankruptcy Trustee Account Charges and Rav4 Bankruptcy Account Charges that began by advancement of Principal Term Commitment to Drain Rav4 San Antonio Credit Union Auto Loan.

1F. Day Rate damages was Substance of Lawsuit, $1,000.00 Award was Appealed, Bankruptcy Attorney received expense Judgment, December 2007’ Washington Mutual returned $7,515.98 Loan Payment, Muting Judgment with Fault Admittance, skirting Commitment Damages keeping Curtailments, picking Damage with willingness, forfeiting Accountability and Address, Rushing Foreclosure 5/6/08 seeks Dismissal out of Hand.

1G.Foremost Credit Report Notation of Bankruptcy’s “Faults Blame” notation on Loans Credit Report, equates.

1H. Demanding Credit for Payments made at Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing, Judge Ordered Attorney to File “Proof of Claim” on the recorded record. Judge required and accepted My Signature but Stayed Conformation for 60 Days, Ignoring Judge, Attorney Quit all Houston Caseload.

2. Defendant was colluded from Washington Mutual to former entity Homeside Lending under Seal, later reversed for Damage Award Payment.

2A. Attorney’s ignored Certified Mail RESPA “qualified written request” was Inadmissible.

2B. At Pretrial Hearing unknown Surrogate Attorney appeared to Defend, stating Case was just dropped in Lap without Time for review, or Proper Court paperwork. Judge threatened Dismissal, Ordering Attorney’s Appearance to Defend Three Day Core Adversary Hearing.

2C. Washington Mutual Halfheartedly offered Arbitration if Costs were split, before Second Pretrial Hearing, wanting preferred Arbitrator, not being a College consideration passed.

3. Washington Mutual Trial Arguments related to Line-item Challenge of Washington Mutual Fault Admittance Statement that was evidenced, countering self by newfound Date Augmentation, excusing Accountable reasoning with Assorted Derelict Avoidances of Law.

3A. Judgment accepted Lender Defense of “Principal Curtailment” claiming “Common Practice” relating to Breach of DEED Commitments, highlighted damage, Precedent.

3B. Judgment accepted Lender Defense of Erroneous Escrow reduction claiming “Common Practice” Argued Funds reduced in November for December Payment, Argued Taxes increased Loan Payments, Argued “Principal Curtailment” reduced Loans overall Interest despite reduction of 180 Term Commitment, Argued {48 Month} “Concealed Prepayment” was not a “Curtailment” but was a Prepayment, Argued Escrow was reduced on 11/28 not 11/10, Argued April ISF Check corrected in May, Paid, April {belittlement} In Attorney Cross Lender Admitted “Curtailments” created the Escrow Shortage Demand that started in April, Admitted Large May Payment made Loan 100% Current including Damages before June 2002 and Admitted before April 2002 all Payments were respectfully Paid before Due.

3C. Judgment accepted Lender Testimony that Escrow Surplus return from Escrow already in arrears was unexplainable, root stem relates to Choice of intentional Damage Doubling, relative to Loan Payment Investigation Teams requirement of Canceled Check Front and Back sent in November 2001, Damages Stemmed from Closed Faulty Investigation Report that resulted in unknown Tax Payment responsibility Escrow Damage, Teams final Conclusion Dated Escrow reduction of 11/10 suspended to 11/28 but missed the Fact that it was Erroneous, forcing Escrow reduction to be reported on 1098 Tax Form as received Funds, and forcing December 2001 Payment History’s Shading/Blank Void report to Credit Agency, Second Time Simple Penny for Penny Swap opportunity missed.

4. Judgment ignored Core of Core Adversary Hearing Primary responsibility of Damage Awarding the DEED Stipulation Paragraph Verbatim, then Assessing Day-rate Damages for forced Bankruptcy and Skewed to ignore Published Guilt Admittance evidenced.
Precedent Clause clearly defines Prepayments requirement of Signed
Authorization, forbidding Concealment that intentionally Contractually Itemizes abuse Damage Award Amount to Protect Paperwork of DEED, independent of Escrow Abuse Damage Damages.
Importance of Paragraph Commanded notation on Judgment, but Judgment edited Substance’s Importance without Authority, by cropping off top-Half of Paragraph, in effort to revise intended meaning, by omitting forward Substance, “Quoting” only bottom half of Paragraph their Collusion Supported Curtailments.

4A. Just Eleven of the Coveted Ten Day Timeframe allowance was actually Served, to review, itemize, find, hire and Convince Appellate Attorney Versed in “Bankruptcy Appeals!” *1. Attorney that wanted Case, Questioning, own Personal Expertise, Denied Case Days before Appeal was filed. *2. Appellate Attorney’s often Co-Counsel, Office meeting Case Denial with Referral resulted in next Day Appeal. *3. Appeal Arguments were E-Mailed/Spammed to Numerous Appellate Bar Attorneys. *4. Trial concluded 100 Day’s later Home Mailbox Served Delivery, if Box was Checked that Day then Eleven Day’s from Served to Appeal minus the 5 Day RULE, Trial Attorney called many Days Later without Interest.
Fifteen Day after Judge Signed, Attorney Appealed but foolishly, Persistently, Ignored Merits Arguing Excusable Neglect. Judgment accused Predisposed to Bankruptcy aspirating Peasant’, Judge ignored Federal Bankruptcy RULE #2005 Precedent extension of 5 Day Appeal Timeframe Law, Simple U.S. SUPREME COURT DEED Paragraph Deciphering needed to Case Law, until/forcing only DEED found Borrower Protection, achieves revision.
Coveted 10 Day’s Appeal Allowance was misunderstood beforehand by Trusting Attorney assurance that 30 Day’s and not 90 Day’s was the allotted Appeal Timeframe. Conveyed in Confidence, waiting for the minute Courtroom doors opened Pretrial.

4B. Trial ended November 2005,100 Days later, 2/23/2005 Memorandum, Judgment, 2/25/2005 BNC Mailing, 2/27/2005 Appeal Served U.S. Mail Standard Mail-box Delivery if Mailbox was Checked on that Day, Appeal to extend Filed 3/10/2005, 15 Day count, 11 Day Served Count, Federal Appeal RULE #2005 regulates 5 extra Days, allowing Count 6 Day Received to Appeal and Sunday might Not Count, Rush to Dismiss failed Arithmetic Prudence or Constitutionality, Imagination offers Collusion to Covet Attorney Theft Protection or Justice’s Blind Permanence, for same or Protecting Wall Street assumption.

4C. Bankruptcy Judge Chaired from Conformation to Award Appeal is famed for Worlds largest Historic Billions of Dollars Bankruptcy Case Dismissal, Schlumberger oilfield Russia claimed 10 day appeal time-frame expired, without exposing Time-frames exactness beforehand, Clerk of Court recorded holding Judgment Two Days before Posting, Mail Delivery took Two Days, Attorney called Two Days after Home Mail-Box Delivery stating not willing to pursue further, Appeal being Denied Mimicked Trial Merits Ignored. Lender Mooted Judge then Judgment, only Arguing to Moot Guilt Admittance Lender Statement.

4D. Justice Circumvented the Federal Bankruptcy Court “RULE” that extends all Judge Appeal Timeframe for Five Additional Days RULE #2005. Famed Houston ENRON Judge received and Denied Second Appeal, Appeal waited for ENRON Trials Conclusion.
Fifth Circuit refused to overrule ENRON Judge, Printer never received Desired U.S. SUPREME COURT Appeal and Time expired, Merits were never exacted or explored.

4E. Thousands of Bankruptcy’s relate and Hundreds of Bankruptcy’s have resulted since because Proved Damages were Denied, Lender Accountability Reforming Day-rate Damages was Award sought, if 5/6/2008 Foreclosure receive Action, Theft becomes allowed, Case Law results that Lender Defense of DEED restricted Curtailments, Errant Escrow Reductions and Misapplications are “Common Practice” Defendable, opening the floodgate of Attorney exploitation, Theft Defended as “Common Practice” allowable.

5. On April 2002 Loan Damages created insurmountable Escrow Shortage Arrears increasing the next Twelve Monthly Payment Demand from $813.49 / $812.28 to $915.83 effecting accountability, $8,000.00 new Credit Card Home Improvement Balance reached 30% interest exactly and instantly relating.

5A. Priority became Credit Card over Home Loan seeking outside Refinance of $100,000.00 for 25 Years to install Rental Home on Lot was Goal, Original Planned Goal of Home Reconstruction inside Work was achieved 9/02 ready to extend Longer Terms by Refinancing for Rental Trailer house and Outside Reconstruction Goal remained. Numerous Refinance attempts achieved sudden Quick Denial, November, 2002 after Home Inspection Citi-Bank Reported Incomplete Loan Payment History before April 2002 needed addressed, Forced into Bankruptcy with $8,000.00 at hand, Work in Oilfield, Paid-off many Credit Cards but included Auto Loan expecting resolve with Attorney Assistance, needing only Loan History.

5B. Credit Report Damage of December, 2001 Shaded Box Void/Blank entry Blocked outside Refinance to force Bankruptcy, then Bankruptcy Attorney was denied “Proof of Claim” {Judge ordered at Conformation Hearing, Staying Conformation 60 Day’s} included Bankruptcy Attorney’s RESPA “qualified written request” that was also being ignored, again Payments were halted for Court appearance to Demand Credit for Check Payments, Judge and Attorney missed Attending Release of Stay Hearing 09/02/2005.

5C. 9/05 Bankruptcy Trustee was Chairing / Ruling all Proceedings and Release’s of Stay for absent Judge that Busy Day {related need for Core Adversary option} Trustee Stayed Release of Stay for 30 Days Ordering Attorney’s Presence on 10/04/2005.
Trustee on 10/05 Conversed or Ordered, Attorney File Core Adversary Hearing, at that same timeframe, My Lay-person RESPA “Qualified Written Request” crafted was being ignored, Better Business Bureau assisted and Expelled Washington Mutual Chief Arbitrator Chair with Three Year Suspension for being ignored.

5D. RESPA “qualified written request” is simply a request to open Loan Discovery by itemization of Questions. Construction of request follows a formula and Lender is Time-line required to first admit receiving, second form reply and Third reach resolve.

5E. Attorney Formally Back-dated RESPA Request to expire the Time-line allowance when Posting and it Predated our first meeting, understanding’, relates to Judge’s refusal to allow into evidence, confusion relates to Attorney Award and Justice denied, compounded Damage is, Justice Denied harbors Protecting Attorney Malpractice’s of the First Attorney’s Theft that Second Attorney Protected, Yes; Attorney Deserves Pay for Work, Independently of Malpractice Goal against Attorney’s Insurance/Bonds that assuredly relates Out-of Court Settlement Awards and License’s but Judge’s Judgment and Appeal refusal Stands restrictive of Jurisprudence, Prejudices sometimes avoid defined Identifiable reasoning’s.

6. Trustee at Hearing on 10/04/2005 Conversed or Ordered Attorney to File Core Adversary, and later Attorney repeatedly related, Intent to File Core Adversary Hearing was Progressing up to the 12/15/2005 Release of Stay and Core Adversary received No Action before 12/17/2005. Payment Arrears were not sent awaiting Judicator notice of filing, expecting Loan History exam, Discovery, Proof of Forced Bankruptcy exposure.

6A. Homeside Lending Loan Manager became’ Washington Mutual Loan Manager.

6B. Loan Manager Protecting Loan History released Bankruptcy Stay, on 12/15/2005.

6C. Loan Manager’s 48 Months of Loan History Protection was Unlocked to Washington Mutual Archive’ Department after Released Stay, on a whim and Prayer Archive’ was called.

6D. Washington Mutual Loan Archive’ Department E-Mailed Loan History on 12/15/2005.
Washington Mutual was Informed to explain, discrepancies on 12/16/2005.
Bank One “Principal Curtailment” and Loan Manager’s Escrow reduction became Evidence.

6E. Washington Mutual claimed My Ignored RESPA request was on File.

6F. Washington Mutual claimed to have Never received Attorney RESPA Request, Faxed Attorney RESPA Request to Washington Mutual Archive’ 12/16/2005.

6G. Attorney Office Meeting after 12/17/2005 for Legal Process, Core Adversary intent with Court unfiled, Loan History was reviewed with Attorney Lender Telephone Communications.

6H. Washington Mutual Admitted Both Lenders Damaged Loan, with Formal Written Document of Lender Damage Itemization.

6I. Received in Mail Court’s Core Adversary notice of Filing, Dated Filed on 12/15/2005.

7. 48 Months of Loan History Protection forced Loan Manager to rush release of Stay on 12/15/2005 to avoid “Suspended” Core Adversary Hearings Filing, but on the same Day, Washington Mutual Archive’ Department E-mailed Coveted Loan History that Self Evidenced Missing Payment direction Detail, inherently revealing Escrow and Loan Damage.

7A. Washington Mutual was forced into written admittance, Loan Damage Assessment Statement that exacted, Bank One Misapplied Payment calling it “Principal Curtailment” {Curtailment = Lop-off liken-to Horse’s Tail!} Revealing Lender Despising Lender that Compromise’s All Accountability’s, explaining the Spite, Words “Escrow Curtailment” Draw’s.

7B. Washington Mutual written admittance exacted Loan Manager Errantly Misapplied Escrow attempting to reverse “Principal Curtailment” then Argued in Court opposition claiming November 2001 Escrow reduction was Intended anticipating needed December, 2001 Payment, all Payment Date Augmentation and Conflicts in History were Dispelled’ with Evidenced Proof, Lender was restricted to Defend “Principal Curtailment” and “Escrow Misapplication” offering only “Common Practice’s” and a don’t know why!

7C. Coveting was preformed to protect Lender from Contractual Damage expenses of $10,286.25 in trade falsified Credit Report to force Bankruptcy, ignorant of simple Penny for Penny exchange in 2001 to reverse Damage.

8. 80 Month’s Ago’ Loan Transferred 11/01/2001, Lender Denied Payment Credit of $778.34 for “Principal Curtailment” and Lender Denied Payment Credit of $637.22 for “Escrow Curtailment” recorded on First real-time Payment Breakdown Statement of 11/10/2001 {Lender Investigation Team required Canceled Check Front/Back Proof of Payment early 11/2001 and incorrectly reported resolve around 11/28/2001} equaling Loan Payments of $1,415.56 missing Credit to Date.

8A. Loan History that was Coveted to Protect Breach of DEED Contractual Damage expenses of $10.286.25, was followed by Errant Escrow reduction, that forced False Credit Report to Protect Lender from Both “Curtailments” forcing Voluntary Bankruptcy, now 80 Months without Payment Credit.

8B. Bank One N.A. Breach of DEED for $10,286.25 Damage became Contractually Transferred on 11/01/2001 to Homeside Lending with $1,289.85 Escrow Funds.
On 11/28/2001 Loan Manager Erroneously reduced Escrow attempting Damage reversal.
On 12/10/2001 County Tax Payment $1,168.26 created Escrow Shortage, amounting to $-515.63, Second simple Penny for Penny exchange reversal opportunity missed.
On 12/12/2001 Escrow Surplus of $336.23 increased Shortage amounting to $-851.86.
Escrow Reduction of 11/28/2001 was Reported received funds on 1098 Tax Form.

8C. December 2001 was Void of Payment on all received Loan Histories “Then and Now.”
On after 1/1/02 Homeside Lending received first Payment, 11/28 to 12/12 = Loan Damage!

9. December 2001 is recorded as Shaded Window {Void/Blank}. Void reported on real-time Loan Statements also was reported to Fourth Independent’ in-House’ Credit Report Agency {Named in Testimony} that Supply’s the Three respected Credit Reporting Agency’s.

9A. Both Bank One and Loan Manager repeatedly refused Production of Loan Payment History’s relating to Escrow Shortage in 2001, 2002. Denying Attorney’s up to 12/16/2005.

9B. Denying Bank One History accomplished, “Principal Curtailment” Protection.

9C. Denied Homeside Lending Loan History was accomplished by Lender receiving Loan on 11/01/2001, Dating Loan History to start 11/28/2001 absent of the Escrow Reduction.

9D. Bank One’ sent Account Closed Statement, claiming $812.48 Payments were $920.78.

9E. Lender Posted Escrow Reduction Statement on 11/10/2001.

9F. Lender Investigated Bank One Payment by Requiring Front/Back Canceled Cheek Proof for Investigation Team {2001 was “Paid in Full”} 11/28 relate Date Investigation Concluded?

9G. Requested received Payment History early 2002 began Loan History on 11/28/2001 omitting Escrow Misapplication “Escrow Curtailment.”

9H. Requested received Payment History April 15, 2002, began Loan History on 11/28/2001 omitting Escrow Misapplication “Escrow Curtailment.”

9I. Lender Demanded All Escrow Shortage, be made Current before further Account Review, or Payment History updating.

9J. Twelve Escrow Shortage Payments of $103.34 increased Payment Demand from $813.49 / $812.48 to $915.83, Started on April 2002 and Check did ISF.

10. Bank One accepts Payment then Mails Statement with one Coupon, December Coupon was Paid, Lender Paid $34.14 December PMI, then Breached DEED Commitment Contracted, Applying then Reversing December 2001 Payment to Pay Principal only, before Transferring Loan, called “Principal Curtailment” Homeside Lending received $1,289.85 Escrow with Loan on 11/1/2001. Absent of Loan Commitment Information Requiring Escrow to Pay 2001 County Tax.

10A. Loan Originator “Principal Curtailment” was a Breach of DEED Cover Page Lender Signed, Bold Print requirement of Signed Authorization Clause as it relates to Prepayment specifying instead of Damage Arbitration, all Loan Originator received Funds and earnest Funds returned, separating a Prepayment from Coveted Curtailment to Contractually support the 180 Month Term Commitment DEED Paperwork, $12,291.54 – Outside Costs = $10,286.25 Commitment Damage.

10B. Fourteen Day Damage from 11/28/2001 to 12/12/2001 resulted from intent to Conceal “Principal Curtailment” Damage of $10,286.25 Justifying Interest Due Today.

10C. Loan Manager’s “Escrow Curtailment” Relates from Day Loan Transferred, forced Bankruptcy and Rushed Release of Stay, Damage Justifies Tenfold Accountability counting Interest and Damages to Allow Attorney Theft Suit, Attorney Malpractice Suit {assure Out of Court Settlement’s} and San Antonio Credit Union Damage is simply New Rav4 Settlement.

11. Attempting to reverse “Principal Curtailment,” Lender inadvertently reduced Escrow from $1,289.85 to $652.63 according to Real-time Loan Statements Itemization on 11/10/2001 not on 11/28/2001 as Argued.

11A. Requested Proof of Canceled Check Payment was sent to Lender before 11/28/2001 Pretrial Discovery Question relating to that Investigations’ Timeframe, and it’s results both repeated and ignored, Argument that Escrow reduction was on 11/28/2001 Flounders, Argument it Paid December Flounders, and Stands Disputing Washington Mutual Admittance Statement, but that requires Diligent Securitization of Verbatim the avoided Discovery Question’s intended to simplify everyone’s understanding, Escrow was Reduced.

11B. Washington Mutual’s Loan Damage Acknowledgement Report exacted Bank One Action a “Principal Curtailment” and exacted Homeside Lending Errant Escrow reduction a Misapplication, reducing Escrow is damage, Errant is a wrong, Misapplication is a mistake.

11C. Errant “Principal Curtailment reversal attempt, applied funds to Month Bank One already Credited allowing 11/2001 to be Credited by Both Lenders, because December is absent of Documented Credit, Repeatedly! Applications Location Discovery required Accountability! Reduced Escrow Concealed’ from Loan History’ for 48 Month’s’, by Definition is “Escrow Curtailment.”

11D. County Tax payment of $1,168.26 on 12/10/2001 created Escrow Shortage, amounting to $-515.63 so Loan Manager Posted Escrow Surplus return 12/12/2001 of $336.23 to increase Escrow arrears, amounting to $-851.86.

12. Homeside Lending Loan Manager’s Coveting of the Bank One 2001 “Principal Curtailment” was complicated by the Erroneous Escrow Reduction that became intent to deceive lasting for 48 Months to protected Contractual Damage expenses of $10,286.25 in trade for forcing My Bankruptcy, now 80 Months without Payment Credit.

12A. Homeside Lending’s failed attempt at Damage reversals deduction of Funds from Escrow was admitted by Washington Mutual, Erroneously Misapplied.

12B. Washington Mutual acquired Homeside Lending and the Loan Manager that Testified for Washington Mutual’s Attorney being Sued, Loan Manager was reduced to Arguing’ the ”Bank One N.A. “Principal Curtailment” was “Common Practice” Defendable.

12C. Loan Manager was reduced to Arguing’ the Homeside Lending inadvertent Escrow Reduction was “Common Practice” Defendable, despite ruining Credit Report, Falsifying 1098 Tax Form, Forcing Bankruptcy, Releasing Stay, Arguments were all Moot because Washington Mutual accepted Faults Blame in Written Statement of Bank One “Principal Curtailment” and Homeside Lending Erroneous “Escrow Reduction.”

12D. Loan Manager was reduced to Arguing’ the Escrow Surplus return from Account in Shortage was beyond Testimony Explanation, actuality it was Damage Doubling in Nature.

12E. Bank One did Report 2001 Tax Form 1098! Homeside Lending Reported 2001 Tax Form 1098 claiming Escrow Reduction Funds as Received Funds, following Loan Transfer First Payment was in 2002, Exampling boundless Dismissing mindset forsaking Bankruptcy.

13. December 2001 was Void of Payment on all received Loan Histories “Then and Now” December 2001 is recorded as Shaded Window {Void/Blank}. Void reported on real-time Loan Statements also were reported to fourth Independent in-House Credit Report Agency {Named in Testimony} that Supplies the Three respected Credit Reporting Agency’s.

13A. Demanding on the Recorded Record, Credit for Payments made, Judge at Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing, Ordered Attorney to File “Proof of Claim” Trustee and Lender were Chaired {Judge Required Paperwork Signed or Foreclosure} Sixty Day “Stay” of Conformation Resulted for Canceled Check Dispute resolution.

13B. Lender Chaired Hearing to expect History request and either refused to reply or Attorney Ignored Judge Order requirement of “Proof of Claim” but Time Expired, Attorney said on Phone that he was/is Quitting, Months Later Large Credit Union Check Posted to make Account Current, Auto Loan {Rav4} Arrears Paid in Full before New Attorney Hired.

13C. Later Attorney sent New Letter-headed San Antonio Credit Union Payment Coupon Book that had Additional Principal and Coupons, Stating he Quit and Suggested Attorney.

13D. March 15, 2004 “I am Referring all My Clients Letter” from Attorney, Notating enclosed New Payment Coupon Book for Rav4. New Attorney, RESPA Request Date 2/12/2005 before our First Meeting, Date on RESPA Request related Lender Damage’s for being ignored from backdating Action, if it was ever Posted, Attorney Claims sent by Certified Mail.

13E. Attorney Quit, including sending bulk of Houston Bankruptcy Case-load to Board Certified Attorney I hired, later found out he Charged an additional $1,200.00 to My Bankruptcy Trustee as a Wanton Disregarding parting Gift.

14. Instantly New Attorney sent Homeside Lending Certified mail RESPA “qualified written request” with Guidance Attorney’s Legal Secretary Helped with Rav4 Credit Union New Term Commitment additional Principal, Payment Coupon Book former Attorney Devised.

14A. San Antonio Credit Union Denied Adjusting Terms Principal or sending New Coupon Book that had acquired Three Additional Months.
Attorney’s Legal Secretary was Arbitrating {I Shut-up and Listen Great but Jump Topics with Excitement when Talking/Arguing} Legal Secretary was used to eliminate that problem beforehand.
Coupon Books at Hand and unresolved because Credit Union was Denying its Existence, Loan Payoff Schedule was requested and received,
Two Additional Months were Added to the Attorneys’ Three Months creating Loans Demand of Principal without Accounting Interest that was Larger than Original Loan’s Principal Financed, again resolve was Denied, Current on Rav4 Loan, Fighting Home Loan, anticipating RESPA Response, told Credit Union to expect No more Payments, will properly clean before Repossession Day, awaiting RESPA Response lasted past Rav4 Repossession, Attorney was being indifferent about Rav4.

14B. Trustee reported itemized Deficiency Amendment of $2,526.87 to Rav4 without Accountability Charged by First or Second Attorney before Repossessed and of course again After Repossession about $2,500.00 Amendment Charged. Trustee Clerk Stated all Amendment Charges Paid without Question, again “Common Practice.”

14C. Seven Months later with Loan History Denied {E-Mailed to Federal Regulators & Assumed Regulators that Lender fails to respond to Attorneys RESPA Request, fair assumption’s Review was Forced and Privileged ignored by Lender} Payments were Suspended for Audience with Bankruptcy Court resolution, Attorney and Judge failed to attend release of Stay hearing, Bankruptcy Trustee was Ruling Release of Stays for Judge, Release of Stay was Suspended, Trustee required Attorney attendance 30 days later.

14D. Briefly First Attorney failed Judge “Proof of Claim” Order and overcharged Trustee’s Bankruptcy Fee’s, Raided Rav4 Bankruptcy Account and Raided Rav4 Credit Union Account before Credit Union Raided Rav4 Account.
Second Attorney Protected to Malpractice RESPA, Failed to Attend Hearing, Claimed intent to file Core Adversary, but allowed release of Stay, sent Substituted Attorney to Court failing to Attend Hearing and Misdirected Appellate Attorney with Confusion.

14E. Ignored Attorney RESPA request was used to format “My layperson” RESPA “Qualified Written Request” Posted Certified Mail using California address supplied by Security Exchange Commission relating to Washington Mutual, it was Ignored, request Sent Certified Mail to Bank One, Bankruptcy Trustee and Washington Mutual, was also Posted regular Mail to Homeside Lending, Attorney, former Attorney, DOJ, CC, OTS and Better Business Bureau and more including California Attorney General that Promised Active Silent Case Review, but Lender moved to Nevada, not Seattle, Request was E-Mailed to RESPA, Hud, U.S.A.G. Bush and Blair were at Ranch, Sent to Blair, Tony Snow and more.

15. Better Business Bureau was being Ignored and reported no response from Washington Mutual, I challenged their Existence, then Chief Arbitrator Chair with Membership was removed from Washington Mutual for Three Years, understand Loan History was supplied on release of Stay Day 12/15/2005 Pretrial, itemizing the Curtailments, Washington Mutual Admittance of Fault called for Court Action.

16. Sued Washington Mutual Core Adversary under Seal Judge changed Defendant to Homeside Lending allowing Washington Mutual Attorney to call Homeside Lending Loan Manager to Testify, reversed for Judgment Award Payment, but Board Certified Attorney Certified Mail RESPA “qualified written request” {sent to Homeside Lending ignored by Washington Mutual} became Inadmissible in Court!

16A. Week before Three Day Core Adversary Hearing was Pretrial Hearing, unknown Surrogate Attorney arrived to Defend stating Case Dropped in Lap without review or required Documentation filed, Judge Stayed Pretrial hearing for 30 Days, Threatening to Dismiss unless Attorney attended to Defend, fear of voicing any Objection Resulted.

16B. Judge Allowed ignored RESPA request to received the only damage Judgment $1,000.00 {thanks to the BBB support} substance matters related in RESPA request that Judge took under advisement at Trial pertaining, was absent from Judgment and ignored to date, Also recorded in Testimony Ignored {Blank} Discovery Questions.

16C. Houston Bankruptcy Judge Chaired from Conformation to Award Appeal, famed for Worlds largest Historic Bankruptcy, Schlumberger oilfield Russia claimed 10 day appeal time-frame expired, without exposing Time-frames exactness beforehand, Clerk of Court recorded holding Judgment Two Days before Posting, Mail took Two Days, Attorney called Two Days after Home Mail-Box Delivery stating not willing to pursue further, Six Days received Twelve Days after Judge Signed Award Judgment Appeal was filed, and Denied.

16D. “RULE” Rule of Law Circumvented RULE #2005 exacts Bankruptcy Court Appeal Mandate allocation of Five Day extension for Time to Appeal, Judge sets whatever Appeal Timeframe and RULE extends by Five Days to eliminate Weekend, Holiday Working Day Confusions, Deadline was met for Merit Appeal Trumps rush to Dismiss by Judge and Attorney.

17 New hired Appellate Attorney directed Excusable Neglect Defense, extensive Office hours relating to Line-item Case History reviewed, shared in Office, spent on Phone and E-Mailed, Trial Bankruptcy Attorney Name on Appeal remained, Real Malpractice Balance awaiting Loan resolve. Trial ended 100 Days later Judgment Signed, despite evidence Clerk delay Posting for Postal Delivery {6 Day received, 4 Day from Attorney} Appeal Denied for expired days.

17A. Second Appeal was Judge famed for ENRON, refused Excusable Neglect Appeal, docketed first following Enron Trial conclusion, Houston we have a Problem reasoning or DOJ Broke Problem reasoning!
Fifth Circuit Appeal was asked to Rule over ENRON Judge’s refusal of exploring Excusable Neglect, Imagine that!

17B. Appellate Attorney failed to Post Excusable Neglect Case to Printer for Cert. Petition U.S. Supreme Court, Merits were neglected and contrary then time expired.

18. Closed Loan with $60,000.00 available on Credit Card, “0” owed, Complete Plumbing Electrical and interior Walls replacement ended September 2002, Mid 2002 Priority became Credit Card balance over Loan Payment {History was Denied to Address Escrow Arrear Demand from Loan with Current on-time Payments, Lender Failed Accountability and refused Bank One Loan History, then Credit Report Blocked outside Refinance} $8,000.00 Credit Card % increased from around 5% to 20% to 30% April May 2001, Bankrupted! Day Rate damages, was Substance of Lawsuit, $1,000.00 Award was Appealed, Bankruptcy Attorney received expense Judgment.

19. December 2007’ Washington Mutual returned $7,515.98 of Loan Payments, by Trustee Opening and Reclosing Bankruptcy to Transfer Payment, Mooting Judgment with Fault Admittance, skirting Commitment Damages, keeping Curtailments, Foremost Credit Report Notation of Faults Blame notation on Loans Credit Report equates. Theft reaches Tuition by Foreclosure, as does “Common Practice” Case Law Defense.

[oddsneds]

6.5 million foreclosures by 2012 - that's 1.3 million per year. Is that unduly excessive? I don't know what's been considered "normal" over the past 20 years, as a percent of total homeowners (not just the absolute figure). Perhaps double the norm? Looks like another analyst making a routine extrapolation made out to look like a headline.

Yesterday I read a post describing why a bank COULD NOT rush the foreclosure procedure, due to all the legal steps involved to justify the foreclosure in a future possible legal action by the homeowner. The bank doesn't want to eat the shortfall hence the reluctance to do the short sale, vs. the foreclosure process where the homeowner is still on the hook.

[User 183397]

Mallarde,

"taking huge gambles subsidized by our tax code"

BINGO!

I love talking about CDO's and the Fed as much as the next guy but that is what this has ALWAYS boiled down to! While Mish is on the subject of behavior you have to wonder how much does the potential for walking away $500,000 in TAX FREE money sculpt speculator's decision making process? Given GAO figures show the avg. 401k is $29,000 ( which one has to wait until 59 1/2 to "tap" ) which would most prefer?

... Of course now even trying to introduce the topic of tax code reform at this point seems ridiculous to most but it's at the root of the cause whether or not most of us would care to admit it. Would 500K in tax free money change "my" life?! Nah...

[kurt walter]

Boo Hoo ... start the real estate auctions.

[Johnson]

You forgot to add local governments. In California they are some of the most strident supporters of Realtors and the rest of your laundry list of greedy commission based professionals.
Visit RunOnTheBank.org to learn about how others are coping in preparation for the SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION of 2008.