Though Briggs might disagree - I'm all for this:
Illinois Sues Countrywide By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: June 25, 2008
The Illinois attorney general is suing Countrywide Financial, the troubled mortgage lender, and Angelo R. Mozilo, its chief executive, contending that the company and its executives defrauded borrowers in the state by selling them costly and defective loans that quickly went into foreclosure.
The lawsuit, which is expected to be filed on Wednesday in Illinois state court, accused Countrywide and Mr. Mozilo of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like its heavily advertised “no closing costs loan.” Countrywide also created incentives for its employees and brokers to sell questionable loans by paying them more on such sales, the complaint said.
In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales of Countrywide loans, the complaint said the “vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge.”
The civil lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of monetary damages and requests that the court require Countrywide to rescind or reform all the questionable loans it sold from 2004 through the present. The attorney general, Lisa Madigan, also asked that Mr. Mozilo contribute personally to the damages and that the court give her office 90 days to review loans serviced by Countrywide that were in foreclosure or soon would be.
“People were put into loans they did not understand, could not afford and could not get out of,” Ms. Madigan said. “This mounting disaster has had an impact on individual homeowners statewide and is having an impact on the global economy. It is all from the greed of people like Angelo Mozilo.”
The lawsuit adds to the considerable legal risks facing Bank of America as it prepares to absorb Countrywide in a takeover announced in January. Countrywide and its executives have been named as defendants in shareholder lawsuits, and the company’s practices are the subject of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the F.B.I. and the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees loan servicing companies.
The United States Trustee, a unit of the Justice Department that monitors the bankruptcy system, has also sued Countrywide, contending that its loan servicing practices represent an abuse of the bankruptcy system.
Countrywide did not respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment.
Countrywide, once the nation’s top mortgage lender, has watched its fortunes plummet as the housing crisis has spread across the country. In the last three quarters, the company reported $2.5 billion in losses, and in the first quarter of 2008, total nonperforming assets reached $6 billion, almost five times that of the same period last year.
When Bank of America announced its stock-for-stock deal to buy Countrywide, the acquisition was valued at more than $4 billion. Because shares of both companies have fallen, the transaction is worth $2.8 billion.
The Illinois complaint was derived from 111,000 pages of Countrywide documents and interviews with former employees. It paints a picture of a lending machine that was more concerned with volume of loans than quality.
For example, former employees told Illinois investigators that Countrywide’s pay structure encouraged them to make as many loans as they could; some reduced-documentation loans took as little as 30 minutes to underwrite, the complaint said.
The lawsuit cited Countrywide documents indicating that almost 60 percent of its borrowers in subprime adjustable rate mortgages requiring minimal payments in the early years, known as hybrid A.R.M.’s, would not have qualified at the full payment rate. Countrywide also acknowledged that almost 25 percent of the borrowers would not have qualified for any other mortgage product that it sold.
Even more surprising, Ms. Madigan said, was her office’s discovery of e-mail messages automatically sent by Countrywide to its borrowers offering complimentary loan reviews one year after they obtained their mortgages from the company.
“Happy Anniversary!” the e-mail messages stated. “Many home values skyrocketed over the past year. That means that you may have thousands of dollars of home equity to borrow from at rates much lower than most credit cards.”
Ms. Madigan said, “I was just struck that on the first anniversary of these people’s loans they would get these e-mails luring them into a refinance, into another unaffordable product to generate more fees and originate more loans.”
The complaint also described dubious practices in Countrywide’s huge servicing arm, which oversees $1.5 trillion in loans. For example, an Illinois consumer whose Countrywide mortgage was in foreclosure came home to find that the company had changed her locks and boarded up her home, the suit said, although no judgment had been entered and no foreclosure sale conducted. It took a week for the homeowner to regain access to her home, the complaint said.
Ms. Madigan began investigating Countrywide after her office sued One Source Mortgage, a Chicago mortgage broker that shut down last year. Countrywide was One Source’s primary lender, according to that lawsuit. Ms. Madigan also said that her office had received 200 customer complaints about Countrywide.
For 2004 through 2006, Countrywide was the largest lender in Illinois, selling about 94,000 loans to consumers in the state, the complaint said. The company operated about 100 retail branch offices in Illinois and its loans were offered by many mortgage brokers licensed to do business there. Countrywide also purchased loans through a network of 2,100 correspondent lenders in the state.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Awesome...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Consumers (voters) are never wrong. At the time you offer them cheap loans, they take them. At the time they can't pay you back, they sue you.
That is just an observation, not a substantive case in favor or opposed to anything in particular...I won't pretend to know the details of this case. But ask yourself this, Sarge: if these loans were "defective", if it was all a plutocrat plot -- and hey, maybe it was -- but then where were Lisa Madigan's lawyers back in 2005 or 2006? Because, even when the economy still looked good and everyone could pay off the loans, the fraud would still have been committed, right? But thing is, people only feel cheated, they only bitch, whine, and moan, when they lose their bets -- and bitching, whining moaners vote in droves. Lisa surely learned that at an early age...
If they can prove deceptive practices were used in convincing people to take loans - which it looks like they have a good chance of being able to do - then yes - I'm glad they're doing this.
I agree though about the question of where were Illinois lawyers back when the loans were being made - a lot of people were arguing against Countrywide and other banks back in 2005-2006 - however, since it took some time for the chickens to come to roost - perhaps the true scope of the actions taken by Countrywide and other lenders engaging in the actions were looked on with some benignity by the government.
However, looking at the old warhorse, Munn v. Illinois, one could argue that the state waited to act in order to see what the practices were creating, and only when two things happened did the state act (which I think you would want):
1. Enough of a record of action was built to prove a pattern of behavior that was proving to be dangerous to a segment of the population.
2. A number of politically active people pushed the government to make some kind of action.
You might argue that the people who took these loans should have taken the old advice "buyer beware" - but I wonder if in the environment - where home ownership was being touted by everybody from Time Magazine to the government (George Bush cited home ownership's rise as a major goal of his economic plans) - and where regulation was non-existent, if it might not be that it was much easier to convince people that their interests were being followed by deceptive lenders when in fact they were digging their own grave.
So, as somebody who looked at the practices of these institutions with some suspicion and dismay as another example of flim flamming and gaming a system that seemed to be more circus than anything else, yes, I'm glad that their practices are at least being more closely examined by a body that could do at least something about them.
Though I doubt that this case will have the scope of Munn v. Illinois, I'm glad that it at least could.
And, by the bye - if somebody is fooled into making a bet - say by somebody who knows the game is fixed but uses language and means and arguments to convince the other person making the bet that it's a fair deal - that in fact it's no bet at all - but something that is a win-win and in doing so presents a case that takes advantage of the other side's comparative ignorance - then I don't think it's a fair bet and I don't think that the results of that bet should be legally binding.
And one last thing, for many people these loans meant the ability to theoretically get the thing that would give them the financial stability to control their lives - it seemed like the thing that was financially responsible - and many people told them this was the thinking that was correct - if people are given the "opportunity" to make this leap - it's going to be hard to convince them that the opportunity is a fool's game. Which it was. And institutions like Countrywide were only too happy to take in the suckers.
Here's what will happen. Countrywide will pay a fine while not admitting to any wrongdoing. Lisa will get all the praise and probably get to keep her job at the next election. The folks who complained will get diddly squat, and the government will keep all that money, which Countrywide and the other plutocrats will get back when they begin to complain that they'll go out of business without a bailout. It's the circle of plutocracy - we can fine them all we want, coz they'll get it back in spades with all the tax breaks and bailouts we give them. Did I mention all the complainers will get diddly squat?
And how about me? I bought at the height of this crap. My place was probably overvalued as a result. I couldn't buy other places that were nicer/more convenient because those places were priced too high for me. So I was hurt by all these shenanigans as well. What do I get from this? Diddly squat.
All this will do is satisfy the people's desire for vengeance. It won't fix the system, and all this will be forgotten in a few years in our next boom.
Cynical Fungster is correct except that Lisa won't get to keep her job, she'll get promoted to governor.
You think Rod "Perfect Hair" Blagojewotsit is out next time around?
There's no way Perfect Hair gets re-elected in 2010. Hopefully he'll either be indicted or near indictment by then so he doesn't even try to run otherwise we may see a Republican win.
Lisa kicks @ss. She will crush Blago's head like an overripe melon.
Post a Comment