Bank Of America Gets Back To Foreclosing In Some States

Ten days after announcing a freeze to foreclosures in all 50 states, Bank of America announced on Monday that it was time to get back to the business of foreclosing on homes in 23 of those states.

BofA will unfreeze foreclosures in the 23 states that require judicial approval to foreclose.

Those states are:
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin.

From Reuters:

In the remaining 27 states, Bank of America’s foreclosure halt will continue, though it projects that less than 30,000 foreclosures will be affected in those areas.

The bank said the first of 102,000 amended foreclosure affidavits will be filed on October 25 with state courts.

Let’s just hope BofA does a better job foreclosing this time around than they’ve done in the past.

BofA to partially end foreclosure halt [Reuters]


Edit Your Comment

  1. H3ion says:

    “As was the case for our judicial state review, our initial assessment findings show the basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” said BofA spokesman Dan Frahm.

    Any person being foreclosed by any mortgage lender should put the lender to its proof, that it really owns the debt instrument, that the party authorized to foreclose by the mortgage instrument really has signed the pleadings, etc. Personally, I think Mr. Frahm is full of shit and that there are still systemic problems with the foreclosure process, especially for loans that have been securitized.

    That said, if BofA had to go through an adversarial proceeding on every foreclosure, you can bet their back room processes would be cleaned up very quickly. Pressure should also be put on judges to make banks follow the rules, particularly in those states in which judicial procedures are required to foreclose.

  2. Sheogorath says:

    Caught up on your bribes, eh?

  3. jdmba says:

    … ummmm … or, people could pay their mortgages. That part of the equation seems to always get dropped in the ‘look at the big bad bank foreclosing’ argument.

    • sqlrob says:
      • ryder28910 says:

        Yeah, because 10 stories are completely meaningful out of the tens of millions of mortgages, worth trillions of dollars, owned by BOA. If only the people on this site could think for themselves, and not take whatever crap sob articles are thrown at them.

        • ARP says:

          1) If its your house, yes, it is a big deal, even if its out of a zillion (and that’s bigger than a trillion).
          2) Are you saying they don’t have to follow the law and only have to wait until something bad happens?
          3) Actually, if they’re foreclosing at the rate that’s in the article and not certifying the document correctly, they’re committing thousands or even millions of acts of fraud. Is that enough for you?

          Remeber, it’s not whether they actually own the mortgage, it’s that they are stating in a court document that they have thoroughly reviewed the mortgage paperwork and are certifying that they own the mortgage and can foreclose. If they’re not doing that level of diligence, they’re committing fraud, even if it ends up they are correct.

        • sqlrob says:

          With all the checks and balances that are supposed to be in there, how does it happen at all? Think on that.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Do you mind posting your social security number and bank account numbers so I can defraud you? I mean, it’s not big deal. You’re just one person out of millions.

    • Rayon Fog says:

      Mr Black and White, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Gray.

    • banndndc says:

      now now, the big bad wolf has already demonstrably showed that it is not a good idea to build one’s house out of straw and that that advice goes double for pigs made out of straw and socks.

      no one is attacking the banks for foreclosing. they are being attacked for what appears to be an intentional and widespread attempt to defraud the courts as part of a conspiracy to conduct illegal acts. repeatedly lying to the courts, the creation of forged documents and general half assesed oversight have nothing to do with the individual borrower. but hey, look over there.

    • c!tizen says:

      Yeah, especially all those folks who now owe more money than their house is worth through no fault of their own. Welcome to the discussion… looks like you have some reading to catch up on.

      • LINIStittles says:

        Through no fault of their own? There is plenty of “fault” on both sides of the equation.

        I’d bet you’re always the victim of something, aren’t you?

        • c!tizen says:

          Yes, there is fault on both sides, but I was referring to the people who did everything the right way and still got screwed, see my reply above for more details.

          No, I’m not always the victim of something, except douche bag comment like : “I’d bet you’re always the victim of something, aren’t you?”

        • Mauvaise says:

          Ok, so I owe approximately 40K more than my house is currently worth. I’d like you to explain my fault in that:

          I purchased before the big housing boom in Phoenix, did not buy so much as a $1.00 more house than I could afford *at the time I purchased*, and I didn’t dick around with questionable mortgages – I got a nice 30-year FIXED rate mortgage and a decent interest rate (5.875%, which is good at the time). I am current on my mortgage and have a perfect payment history for the loan. At this time my balance is around $95K.

          Yet, right now my place could not sell for more than 50K. I follow the listings for my subdivision, and for the past 6+ months, that is the best closing price.

          So, please, explain my side of the fault for that. I’d really like to know.

      • ryder28910 says:

        You don’t automatically have “less house” than you paid for just because someone says it’s worth less. I’d say that if you’re completely preoccupied with your house as an investment over, say, a place to live, then there is certainly some fault with you.

        On top of that, it’s not the bank’s fault that your asset has depreciated. You’re still on the hook to pay back what you borrowed. Shut up, write a check, and stop complaining about how unfair your life is.

        • c!tizen says:

          “On top of that, it’s not the bank’s fault that your asset has depreciated.”

          Really? So the banks falsify income information on loan documents to give peole loans they can’t afford, but that’s not the banks fault? They put them in houses that the buyers can’t afford by telling them that the loan type will keep their monthly payments low, but that’s not the banks fault? The banks let them in the house with no money down, which means they have no vested interest in the home and can walk away without losing anything, but that’s not the banks fault? The housing bubble (that the banks created) bursts and interest rates skyrocket, but that’s not the banks fault? The families now can’t afford their monthly payment because their variable interest rate blew up, which the bank damn well knew would happen and the family just picks up and leaves because, again, they have nothing invested in the house… not the banks fault. Now I have 30 houses on my block that are forclosed, not being taken care of, driving the value of my home down with them, totally not the banks fault.

          Look, I get that people should be more diligent when applying for loans and should know better than to accept a variable loan for such a huge amount, but a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to finances, it’s the banks responsibility to tell them no if they’re financially unable to make a commitment to a certain type of mortgage, but when the bank can just sell off the bad loan because it’s insured by the fed so they hand hand out loans like church pamplets they harbor the majority of the blame, period.

          And when you go to take a loan out on your house or sell your house and all of the sudden the bank who sold it to you for $300,000.00 of which you still owe $180,000.00 on is only worth $110,000.00, I’m sure you’ll be singing a different tune (unless you don’t know how interst is compounded and paid on a mortgage). You don’t have “less house” you have a “lower value” house. And if that doesn’t bother you then I’ve got a 1990 Chevy truck with 200,000 miles and a bad block that I’ll let you have for just $100,000.00.

          So for people who were smart, saved money, got a fixed interest rate, made thier payments every month on time and still got fucked by all of this I’ll say this on all of our behalves: shut up, get a clue, and quit thinking you’re always right.

    • ARP says:

      Here’s the agreement:

      1) Bank agrees to loan us the money
      2) We agree to make payments
      3) If we don’t make payments, Bank must prove that it owns the mortgage note (and didn’t securitize it, sell it, etc.) and then Bank can take house away.
      4) Bank must follow the law when signing litigation documents, just like natural people do.

      So what you’re saying is that Banks don’t have to follow the law? Funny, I thought you ultra-capitalists were all about law and order and only doing what’s legal, ethics, morals, etc. be damned.

      • humphrmi says:

        The bank does not have to prove that they own the mortgage. In many cases they don’t, they are only acting as an agent representing the owners of the note. The bank only has to prove that *somebody* legally owns the mortgage, and that they represent those owners.

    • mac-phisto says:

      are you honestly advocating for corporations to be able to violate the law? let the banks take the houses of people that can’t afford to pay for them, but make them follow the law to do it. what kind of country would this be if we simply allowed homes to be taken away from people outside of the law?!?

    • Conformist138 says:

      Actually, that is stated in EVERY discussion of this matter. And yet, it is STILL totally beside the point. Yes, people should pay their mortgages. Yes, if a mortgage is not paid, the person who defaulted can totally lose their house, fair and square. No one is disagreeing with that at all. Even when it sucks because someone has lost a job and they’ve tried and they’re good people… they still can lose their house if they don’t pay for it. That is sad, but totally legit.

      This issue isn’t really about paying or not paying, however. This is about how the banks go about the foreclosure process. Even if the person has defaulted and the bank can legitimately foreclose, they still have to PROVE they have the legal right before actually taking or selling the house.

      How about a guy goes in to Walmart or Best Buy to return an item without a receipt (to simplify, he paid cash, no other records). Would it be cool for the guy to take the company to court and offer a judge a forged receipt? In this case, maybe the guy really deserved a refund on a crappy product, but it was still his job to keep the paperwork. Things get much more serious when it goes from “defective gadget” to “the roof over your head”. And when it’s not one guy and one item, but tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of people and their homes. If the banks didn’t keep their records in order, then that’s their own dumb fault and they can pay the price. Particularly since a bank just risks losing money, but people risk losing a place to live.

  4. eyesack is the boss of the DEFAMATION ZONE says:

    Woohoo, we made the list!

  5. SmileyKnight says:

    I don’t think that just because judicial approval is required in these states that it means no more mistakes will be made. I know in Florida there have been several cases where a botched foreclosure has been in front of a judge and they just pushed it along. The judicial system is under water from this mess here in Florida. If the judge is fed bad information from a high powered bank lawyer, do you think the homeowners lawyer (if they have one) can stop it? Doubtful.

  6. Kadaki says:

    “Foreclosure sales will resume in states where a judge’s approval is required, when the bank begins refilling amended affidavits on 102,000 foreclosures, Bank of America said.”

    Translation: We’re very sorry you caught us committing fraud and perjury. We’ve learned from our mistakes and won’t make it so easy for you to catch us this time.

  7. BuddhaLite says:

    How in the world did they go through 100k foreclosures in a month?

    • clownsRcreepy says:

      It’s called a robo-signer….

    • vastrightwing says:

      I was just thinking, that given how bad customer service is at BoA, they could not possibly have reviewed all their foreclosures, or even 1/10th of them (my guess is that they haven’t even looked at one of them) with any sort of thoroughness. Sounds more like they’re simply declaring they’ve checked them all and hoping no one tries to challenge them.

      (ps) Best case, they randomly looked at 2, found no major problems and declared all is good.

      • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

        Now, now, I’m sure someone signed an affidavit that they personally checked every letter of every piece of paper ever filed at BoA. Nothing to see here, move along…

  8. mexifelio says:

    The house in that photo needs some major curb appeal improvements, but +1 for the crenelations.
    Hmm, upon looking at the full size photo it appears much more decrepit.

    Funny the first place that came to my mind when wondering where this house could possibly be located was Arizona, then either Tucson or Mesa. Florida was a distant second.

    Sure enough: “Boarded up house/motel, Apache Blvd., Mesa AZ” lol.

    • Blueskylaw says:

      Former White Castle headquarters in better days.

    • JonBoy470 says:

      +1 for using “crenelations” in a sentence. I echo the sentiment that BofA feels they’ve “done enough” of their own accord to stem the tide of bogus foreclosures, so they’ll open the spigot again. In their minds, if a few people get erroneously foreclosed on, that’s just the cost of doing business. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, and so on.

      Personally, I’m waiting for one of these foreclosures to go down where the home-owner is a gun-owner and decides to not be wrongly evicted quietly.

  9. steveliv says:

    Banks were in the wrong here, but what else can they do but continue foreclosure after the papers are signed and settled correctly? It was underhanded and wrong, but it doesn’t mean you get a free house because of it.