Mass. AG sues five major banks over foreclosures

Mass. AG sues five major banks over foreclosures

Massachusetts' top law enforcement official has sued five top U.S. banks, charging they foreclosed illegally on homes in the state and used deceptive loan servicing practices, including robo-signing.

Attorney General Martha Coakley filed suit against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and GMAC.

“The single most important thing we can do to return to a healthy economy is to address this foreclosure crisis,” Coakley said in a statement. “Our suit alleges that the banks have charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law. Our action today seeks real accountability for the banks illegal behavior and real relief for homeowners.”

Coakley's lawsuit alleges that the five banks violated Massachusetts law by using fraudulent documentation, including "robo-signing," foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage and failing to uphold loan modification promises to homeowners in the state.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... reclosures

GOOD! Delighted to see it. Of course, the slimebags at the top will just get bigger bonuses...But perhaps a few in middle-management will get extended...permanent...holiday vacations....

I hope they nail Chase Bank to the wall.

I hope they do very, very nasty and terribly painful things to the banks found in the wrong.

I divorced nearly three years ago now, and tried to short-sell the house because neither of us could afford it by ourselves and I was the only one contributing after a certain amount of time, so soon we were in foreclosure. I talked to a realtor and we worked to short-sale the house.

This was during the same period when everyone was getting hit by ARM adjustments and everyone was losing their house to bad financial decisions. Every time I called in, I had to say "No, you don't understand. It's not that I can't handle the payment because it adjusted, it's that I can't handle the payment because I just lost 40% of my household income in a divorce." (I did not have an ARM, would never even consider an ARM). Finally, when we were months behind on payments, Chase agreed to have a short-sale.

So, we found a buyer, and they walked away after a month of waiting to approve the sale. We found another buyer, and they hung on for eight months with us. I begged the bank, I pleaded. The buyer had offered us the full short-sale price, they would have lost about $10K overall because we already owned a portion that was a huge personal loss to us, and not to the bank... and in the end... the bank approved the sale.

Our realtor called the buyer, and they had closed on another house three days before the approval came through.

I lost a house to foreclosure for a variety of reasons, but I lost the difference in credit history and self-worth to the fact that Chase took over eight months to approve a sale at full sale value.

I will never forgive them, and while I am pro-corporation, if Chase could get torn down, brick by brick, until nothing was left... I wouldn't shed a tear for anyone other than the displaced employees at the bottom.

Didn't someone or some other state do this as well?

Don't foreclosures have to get past a judge or someone sitting in judgment working for the govt. Perhaps I am wrong and you can just foreclose without asking anyone, if the contract says so, seems like you would be pretty powerless if you could not eventually call the police and I know from experience, the police will not interpret contracts, so there must be a court involved somewhere that failed. Even to kick a deadbeat renter out of a house in Park County, the court will be involved.

But if it has to get by a judge, are the judges just failing to make sure the law is being upheld and if so isn't suing the companies for not self policing after the police process put in place fails a little odd, doesn't the responsibility fall to these Judges. And when someone breaks a law, do we sue them or I thought we investigated them and then arrested them for their crime. Can I come and take over the local grocery store and if in fact this was not legal (which it is not btw), are you going to sue me or arrest me?

How did these foreclosures go through without the use of the government? If the govt did everything right and the companies lied, why are they not nailed on the lie without a lawsuit, you just go in while the guy the broke whatever law is sleeping and drag him to court. If the govt failed, then nail those that failed. I just don't understand the concept of initiating what sounds like a civil lawsuit.

Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

And let's keep blaming companies like Chase because we have all bought into and propped up the credit reporting industry like it is the new water...and none of us can figure out why it tastes like piss...and then we buy another liter.

posteryoyo wrote: Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

Ever hear of "punitive damages"? You sue these vermin so you can send a strong enough message to get their attention and dissuade them from doing the same thing again, or in other localities....

LadyJazzer wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

Ever hear of "punitive damages"? You sue these vermin so you can send a strong enough message to get their attention and dissuade them from doing the same thing again, or in other localities....

Maybe, but why do I get the sinking feeling that they put aside a nice little payoff fund out of the taxpayer bailouts?

LadyJazzer wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: Bottom line, what's this sue crap, if the AG of a state thinks laws were broken, you just send in the state police and arrest the bad guy.

Ever hear of "punitive damages"? You sue these vermin so you can send a strong enough message to get their attention and dissuade them from doing the same thing again, or in other localities....

I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment AND compensation to the wronged parties have been paid or are deemed not enough (an admission that our laws/punishments used were flawed). I have not heard of the criminal punishment (isn't this one of the 99% rally calls) and I don't think anyone who has not paid their mortgage has gotten a big payout from a bank for the bank's crime (perhaps a few, I don't know), so why are we on step 3...or 8 when we talk about crimes and police and trials.

I know this rarely happens, but can you answer my question on what law was broken and who did it...otherwise what are we punishing, why judges are not accountable or perhaps even involved AND WHY DOES SHE HAVE TO SUE, WHY NOT SIMPLY ARREST if there was a crime? I am not arguing that there was no crime, just what is wrong with the traditional system or maybe better put, I thought that was THE system.

Layer or on top of layer. Can't just skip all of them.

Or maybe what I am trying to say, is that even if you agree with her goals, if she uses different rules or breaks them to get there...one should not be a fan. I feel you should want her to bust those F---kers the same way she would bust you if you robbed a store in Northampton (Mass that is).

AspenValley wrote: Maybe, but why do I get the sinking feeling that they put aside a nice little payoff fund out of the taxpayer bailouts?

They probably will...That's the standard procedure... Privatize the Profits / Socialize the losses...

I hope they also go after the same vermin that illegally foreclosed on armed forces members while they were away on active duty. It's not only disgusting, it's ILLEGAL.

RCCL is one of our own and has suffered, I'm sorry for what you have been through....

posteryoyo wrote: [I have. But I stilled looked it up and it appears these are used as a financial punishment AFTER normal criminal punishment.

I don't know where you looked it up but it led you astray. There is no requirement to first (or ever) pursue criminal proceedings prior to seeking civil redress including punitive damages.