A Case against Litton Loans Servicing LP

Transcription

ACa
s
eAga
i
ns
t
L
i
t
t
o
nL
o
a
nsSe
r
v
i
c
i
ngL
P
ByAnd
yWi
l
l
i
a
msJ
r
.
SCAM
OFTHE
WEEK
MORTGAGESERVI
CI
NGFRAUD
The
i
rPe
r
f
e
c
tCr
i
me
TheCaus
eoft
heEc
onomi
cCr
i
s
i
sandhow oneLoanSe
r
vi
c
e
ri
s
de
t
e
r
mi
ne
dt
obet
hepr
e
mi
e
rr
e
s
i
de
nt
i
als
e
r
vi
c
i
ngope
r
at
i
oni
nt
heU.
S.
Legal Disclaimer
The writer, Andy Williams is NOT an attorney.
The information contained in A Case against Litton Loans Servicing LP is for
education purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.
The information in this book is written from the perspective of Andy Williams Jr. and his
five years of research concerning industry mortgage servicing fraud and Litton Loans.
Andy is a paralegal and an advocate protecting consumers against abusive lending and lenders.
Andy has not attended law school and is not authorized to practice law in any state.
The purpose of this book is to expose the criminal enterprise and income derived
from mortgage servicing fraud. It is my hope that my research, knowledge and
understanding will be utilized in providing a form of relief concerning foreclosures in
America.
The writer and publisher of this book shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting in whole or in part from the reader’s use
of, or reliance in this material.
About Andy Williams Jr.
Andy Williams Jr. is a Paralegal and Consumer Advocate who strives to educate and protect
consumers against abusive lendingPrior to becoming a Paralegal, Andy worked in the
mortgage industry for nine years. He was a mortgage broker with experience in originating,
processing and closing conventional, sub-prime and FHA loans. He is skilled in analyzing
client needs while recommending the appropriate loan products.
In March of 2005, national home-mortgage giant Litton Loans Servicing LP and The
Bank of New York, began foreclosure proceedings to take the suburban Chicago home*
of Andy Williams and his family.
Unlike your average consumer, however, Williams was the president of a mortgage
brokerage firm. Williams, who is also a paralegal, decided to fight back. As he fought to
keep his own home, he soon realized that he was being victimized by the kind of
aggressive servicing tactics that are affecting homeowners nationwide.
The mortgage company's foreclosure was based on their allegations that Williams had
missed 3 payments. Williams sent his payment history in the form of bank drafts to prove
there must be an error in the company's records, but the bank ignored the evidence and
continued the foreclosure process.
Seeing a pattern with his own experience, Williams researched Litton Loans and found he
was far from the company's first ill-treated customer. The Federal Trade Commission has
over 1,100 complaints filed against Litton which resulted in some payouts to
borrowers; consumer affairs has several complaints, and there are websites that reports
similar cases against Litton. www.rip-off-report.com .
Andy is now an advocate determined to educate and help consumers currently facing
foreclosure.
Contact info:
Andy Williams
awilliams@ccanow.com
www.ccanow.com
* Andy Williams Sr. was the purchaser of the home along with Andy Jr's wife. Andy Williams
Jr. was responsible for making the payments.
Table of Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................page 2
About Litton Loans Servicing LP.........................................................................page 4
Mortgage Servicing Fraud....................................................................................page 5
Misapplication of Payments.................................................................................page 7
Force Placed Insurance.........................................................................................page 7
Improper Fees.......................................................................................................page 7
Pooling and Servicing Agreement........................................................................page 8
Example of an Illegal Foreclosure........................................................................page 10
My Story/ Facts of the Case..................................................................................page 11
Legal Claims and Defenses...................................................................................page 14
Damages................................................................................................................page 19
The Participants and their roles.............................................................................page 19
Class Action against Litton...................................................................................page 22
Litton in the Press..................................................................................................page 27
Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Complaints........................................page 39
2005 Moody’s Servicer Report.............................................................................page 102
2006 Standard and Poor’s Report..........................................................................page 109
Litton’s Prior Judicial Determinations...................................................................page 113
Servicing Fraud Lawsuits......................................................................................page 114
Industry Experts and websites...............................................................................page 116
Appendix................................................................................................................page 118
Conclusion.............................................................................................................page 208
1
Introduction
One would assume that if a borrower is in foreclosure, they probably are behind in their
payments and owe the money. What most people don’t know is that in some instances
the foreclosures have been deliberately created. This is known as Mortgage Servicing
Fraud.
Mortgage Servicing Fraud Defined
Mortgage Servicers breach loan agreements by misapplying or failing to timely apply
loan payments, improperly charging late fees, double billing, force place insurance on
properties already insured, add unearned legal fees, property appraisal fees broker price
opininons (BPO”S), property inspection fees, forbearance suspense fees, corporate
advance fees, and the assessing of unwarranted fees. The assessing of these unwarranted
fees allows the servicer to declare home loans to be in default prematurely, and in many
cases, the addition of these fees and charges creates defaults that lead to improper
foreclosures.
Mortgage Servicing Scheme
Regardless of how reasonable a loan product homeowners may have been offered at the
time of purchasing a house or refinancing, things can go bad if a predatory mortgage
servicing company services the loan. These companies are hired by the banks under
pooling and servicing trust agreements to receive payments on mortgages, keep track of
all of the fees, make sure insurance is on the loan, as well as pay the property taxes if an
escrow account is set up. However, their first priority is to maximize the profit of every
loan they administer, which has led to cases of corruption and fraud.
Litton is known for adding junk fees, losing a few payments, and force placing insurance
on a property even before the homeowners miss a monthly installment. When a
homeowner does fall behind though, Litton will begin accelerating fees very swiftly and
add even more charges that seem completely illogical. While the homeowners are facing
a financial crisis, the acceleration of these fraudulent fees ensure it costs homeowners
thousands of dollars more to stop a foreclosure than it would have if the charges had not
been added.
The presence of numerous junk fees before or during a foreclosure is one of the clearest
indications of mortgage servicing fraud. Homeowners may make a payment on time, but
it is credited to the account late, which incurs a late fee and extra interest. After a few
months of this, the borrowers may be more than a month "behind" in payments as a result
of the extra charges, even if they think they have made every payment before the due
date.
Unfortunately, usually no amount of arguing with the servicing company results in a
positive outcome. Getting a servicer to admit making such a mistake may reveal that this
is a standard operating procedure, and these companies do not want to be caught in a
court of law stealing homes to maximize profits. Typically, they will deny, threaten, or
stonewall homeowners to avoid dealing directly with the charges on the loan.
Even more unfortunate is that many local court judges go along with the servicer,
because the borrowers are behind in payments, after all. This is what makes the scam so
devious -- the company will add thousands of dollars of fees, but not act on it until the
borrowers miss a payment. When they fall behind a few months, the thousands of
2
dollars of fees, plus interest, plus foreclosure costs will immediately make it prohibitively
expensive to get back on track or qualify for a mortgage modification or other solution.
Making the playing field more uneven, the mortgage servicing companies have so many
more financial resources than the average foreclosure victim and can hire high-priced
local attorneys. The lawyers will do everything they can to pursue the foreclosure quickly
and defend aggressively any claims of fraud or excessive fees. But it may only be in the
courts that homeowners can stop the foreclosure process before their home is sold out
from under them. The servicing companies will do everything possible to postpone serious
solutions until they are able to steal the house.
Most of the tactics used by companies engaging in mortgage servicing fraud have the end
goal of increasing fees to make it nearly impossible for homeowners to save their
properties from foreclosure. The servicer eats up the equity through junk fees, and then
turns a profit when the house is sold on the market after a foreclosure sheriff sale. This
results in higher, much quicker cash flow for the investors than if the loan was
administered legitimately and paid off over time. Contesting the junk fees and making
mortgage companies explain them adequately may be an effective, little known defense
homeowners have against such mortgage misconduct.
This book will document and explain Mortgage Servicing Fraud in detail. It will share my
personal story of what happened to me and how I have been fighting to savemy home for
the last four years. The good news is, I understand the scheme and have a solution. I hope
you will join me in my fight against Litton and other loan servicers who have been the root
cause to our current financial crisis.
3
About Litton Loans Servicing LP
Larry B. Litton, Sr. founded Litton Mortgage Servicing Center in 1988 to be a subservicer of problem loans from various mortgage servicers and private investors. During
the difficult Texas real estate market of the 1980s, Larry B. Litton, Sr. pioneered an
innovative approach to mortgage loan servicing that is recognized today as a national
model. 4
Litton's successful methods grew out of a program called Houston Proud, which held
neighborhood meetings during the height of the Texas real estate crisis, to provide
distressed homeowners with information about foreclosure alternatives. Houston Proud
was credited with preventing thousands of foreclosures as a result of its outreach efforts.
Larry B. Litton, Sr. learned a valuable lesson from his experience; he realized that as
customers understood their options and became part of the solution, they would work
with loan servicers rather than against them and superior cure rates would result.
Larry B. Litton, Jr., is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Litton Loan Servicing,
overseeing the day-to-day operation of Litton’s $75BB mortgage servicing portfolio. 5
As a founding member of the company, Larry has been involved in every aspect of the
business since its inception in 1988 and has been a leader behind Litton’s commitment to
high quality customer care. Larry has implemented a number of programs and systems at
Litton that have increased customer satisfaction and raised service levels to the top of the
industry.
Under his direction, the company has developed a host of default servicing technologies
and loan resolution programs that have significantly reduced credit losses for investors
and have resulted in preserving home ownership for tens of thousands of families across
America. 6
MISSION STATEMENT
Litton's mission is to provide quality customer care for its strategic client relationships by
providing superior added value servicing for credit-sensitive
4
Found on Litton Loan Servicing LP’s website. www.littonloan.com
See Appendix P- page 202- Statement of Larry B. Litton Jr. November 14, 2008 Domestic Policy Subcommittee Oversight
and Government Reform Committee “Is Treasury Using Bailout Funds to Increase Prevention as Congress
Intended?”
6
See Appendix P-page 202- Statement of Larry B. Litton Jr. November 14, 2008 Domestic Policy Subcommittee Oversight
and Government Reform Committee “Is Treasury Using Bailout Funds to Increase Prevention as Congress
Intended?”
5
4
Mortgage Servicing Fraud
Mortgage Servicing Fraud most common cases involve the misapplication of payments,
improper force placed insurance, and false claims of defaults or the amounts due. Litton
has a history of failing to properly credit the borrower’s payment to principal and interest
and frequently compound this problem by improperly assessing late fees, improper
escrow and property inspection fees, as well as BPO’s and inflated attorney fees. 7
The improper misapplication of one payment can have a snowball effect and has left one
borrower fighting foreclosure and struggling to save his home, family, and identity for
the last four years.
Mortgage Servicing Fraud can occur at any time during the life of the loan including
before default. The most common abuse is the misapplication of payments. Litton
ignores grace periods, misapplies or fails to apply funds, and improperly charges
fraudulent fees.
The reason for this is mainly to generate more revenue. Litton receives a small portion
for each loan they service, but are able to keep 100% of all additional fees charged to the
borrower according to the Pooling and Servicing Trust agreement. Their primary source
of revenue is through these fees. They make their money on bad loans, and if there
aren’t enough, they will create more to satisfy their greed. It goes without saying they
have everything to gain by pushing a borrower into foreclosure. There are several
articles written about the servicers and how they manipulate loan defaults and prey on the
weak and less sophisticated. After all, most of their loans are sub-prime which consists
of minority, less educated and senior citizen borrowers. Below is an example of how they
make money.
A Way to Make More Money
Let’s say Litton pays $1million for the right to service a loan portfolio of 1,000 loans.
The portfolio has a life of seven years. The servicing fee on the loan is .25%, which
generates income of $250,000 a year. It only costs Litton $50 a year to service each loan,
or $50,000 in total. Net income is $200,000 a year for seven years. The rate of return on
investment is 9.2%. Now add late charges which Litton gets to retain. If a late charge of
5% is of the payment collected from just 1% of the borrowers, the rate of return on the
investment jumps to almost 10%. If the late charges can be collected from 5% of the
borrowers, the rate of return exceeds 12%. 8 Now imagine all the other improper charges
that have been added on. ( i.e. insurance, BPO, inspection, inflated attorney fees,
suspense fees.)
According to Larry Litton Jr., at the end of 2008 Litton’s portfolio consisted of
$450,000 mortgage loans totaling $75 billion of predominantly sub-prime mortgages.
7
See Scott v. Fairbanks, (S.D. Ohio 2003) 284 F. Supp. 2d 880, Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage
Servicing Litigation. 2005 WL 1027118 (N.D.Ill.)
8
Testimony of Maureen McGrath on Behalf of National Advocacy Against Mortgage Servicing Fraud
Before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government sponsored Enterprises
Field Hearing: Broken Dreams in the Poconos www.financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/061404mm.pdf
5
How it Starts
The path toward losing a home can be quite simple when Litton is involved. The first
phase is to fabricate a default. This is done by force placing insurance, adding additional
fees, or manipulating the date the monthly payment was received in order to create a late
payment. The “late fee” or “other fees” are deducted from the next month’s principal and
interest payment, which then creates a partial payment which is placed in a suspense
account and another late fee is added. The homeowner is now considered one month
delinquent. The following month when the payment is made, the payment will be
divided again. Part of the payment will be applied to the money being held in suspense to
make a whole month payment. Part of the payment will be added to the new late fee, and
part of the payment will be placed in suspense because it is a partial payment for the
currents months scheduled payment. This series of events will continue until the
consumer is 90 days late. At this point the loan will be placed in default and additional
opportunities arise for Mortgage Servicing Fraud to occur.
Why would Litton do this?
According to their pooling and servicing agreement, once a property has been placed in
default and it has been determined that recoupment of any “advanced” fees is negligible,
Litton no longer needs to forward the monies collected to the trustee for distribution.
Usually, at this point the borrower is still making mortgage payments or they have
entered into a forbearance agreement. Litton is applying the payments to fees they
assessed. This now leaves Litton free from having to advance any money and leaves the
payments free for application to illegal and improper fees.
According to the pooling and servicing trust agreement, once a property has been placed
in default, Litton is reimbursed from the trust for all out of pocket expenditures, including
servicing advances. In addition, Litton is entitled to recoup from the proceeds of the sale
any advances not reimbursed by the trust. If, however, there is no realization of sufficient
capital to pay off the note and recoup the out-of–pocket expenditures, the mortgage
servicer is reimbursed by the insurer of the trust.
According to the pooling and servicing agreement, Litton has the right to purchase from
the trust the notes of any properties placed in default. The certificate holders of the top
tiers of the trust are reimbursed for this loss through the lower tiers over collateralization.
Litton can have a judgment entered against the homeowner for any arrearage not covered
after the foreclosure sale.
Litton is often the entity that enters the bid for the property, and they then place the
property in an Real Estate Owned (REO) and attempt the sale of the same property for
full market value.
6
Misapplication of Payments
This is the most common form of Mortgage Servicing Fraud. Servicers are known for
ignoring grace periods, misapplying funds or failing to apply funds correctly. The
misapplication of payments can happen for a few different reasons. Sloppy accounting
procedures, defaulted software, overworked employees, or to generate more revenue.
This leads to a breach of contract for failing to follow the payment application provision
contained in the mortgage documents. This happens more often than not. The failure to
apply one payment properly can lead to a snowballing effect.
Force Placed Insurance
Every borrower is required by the mortgage documents to provide evidence of hazard
insurance. When this evidence is not received, the servicer purchases their own and passes
on the cost to the homeowner. This raises the borrower’s monthly payment
sometimes by $200.00 or more a month. A servicer usually is influenced to pick certain
insurers based on kickbacks and refunds that compensate the servicer and provides for
additional revenue. Given this opportunity, a servicer will at times force place insurance
even when the borrower has already provided evidence of coverage. This causes the
payment schedule to become confusing and often escalate the borrower being forced
into foreclosure. 9
Improper Fees
The most common types of improper fees charged are:
• Late Fees
• Forbearance Suspense Fees
• Property Inspection Fees
• BPO Fees
• Corporate Advance Fees
• Improper Escrow Fees
• Inflated Attorney Fees
• Double Billing of the above mentioned fees
Late Fees: There are times when the servicer will deliberately hold an on time payment to
create a late fee. The imposition of one late fee can lead to foreclosure. Often times a
servicer will bill two late fees in one month for the same payment. In one instance,
Litton billed a borrower $528.21 in late fees, when the prior month there was only a
$21.84 deferred late charge. The servicer keeps 100% of all late fees charged as profit.
Late fees can't be charged after a loan is accelerated.10
Forbearance Suspense Fees: fees that have been held in an account not designated for
principal, interest or escrow. The funds are to remain in the account until they are
properly designated. Servicers find a way to fabricate a suspense account so they can
apply the money held in the account to their improper fees.
9
See Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Court Cal. App. 4 Dist., 1999. Mortgagors brought action against
mortgagee, claiming that mortgagee's “Forced Placement Insurance” (FPI) program was an unfair business
practice under the unfair competition law (UCL) because the cost charged to mortgagors for home
insurance was unnecessarily expensive in that it included an amount sufficient to cover rebates provided by
the insurer.
10
See FDIC v. M.F.P. Realty Associates, (D. Conn., 1994), 870 F. Supp. 451
7
Property Inspection Fees: a fee charged by the servicer to make sure the home is
occupied and to make sure it is not in bad condition. It consists of an agent driving by the
property. It is a normal procedure of the mortgage industry. However, in order to reap
additional profits the servicer will bill sometimes for nine or ten in one month. They are
book entries and have not been performed. 11
BPO Fees:are Broker Price Opinions. This is done to get a median price of the value of a
property. It is done in lieu of an appraisal. Again, the fee in itself is standard, but often
they are book entries and the homeowner is double billed for a single BPO. 12
Corporate Advance Fees:is when the mortgage servicer will post your payment to a
suspense account (especially if the payment is different than the amount that was due).
Later, the mortgage servicer may take money from the suspense account to pay an item
called “corporate advance”. Typically, corporate advances are disbursements for
servicing related expenses (not taxes and insurance) that the servicer has paid with
servicer funds - these fees may include foreclosure expenses, attorney fees, bankruptcy
fees, and force placed insurance. Many times the servicer will pay a “corporate advance”
from the suspense account when the monies should have been applied elsewhere to the
loan. This can cost the consumer a lot of money in the long run and lead to foreclosure.
Improper Escrow Fees: One of the benefits of servicing mortgages is controlling escrow
accounts to pay for insurance and taxes. At times the servicer will charge escrow fees for
the improper placing of force placed insurance. In my particular case, Litton charged an
escrow fee called “other fees due”, but never could say what those other fees were.
Inflated Attorney Fees: The Federal National Mortgage Association states the standard
attorney fee allowed in a foreclosure is $1100.00. 13 Servicers will often charge $2000.00
or more for attorney fees when the contracts with the attorneys don’t specify it. These
inflated attorney fees are another way for the servicer to reap additional profits.
Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS):are a type of bond commonly issued in
American security markets. They are a type of Mortgage-backed security which is backed
by mortgages on residential rather than commercial real estate.
Mortgage Pooling and Servicing Agreement: describes how pooled residential loans will
be serviced and dictates how proceeds and losses will be distributed to bondholders.
Primary Servicer (or Sub-Servicer):In some cases the Borrower may deal with a Primary
Servicerthat may also be the loan originator or Mortgage Banker who sourced the loan.
The Primary Servicer maintains the direct Borrower contact, and the Master Servicer may
sub-contract certain loan administration duties to the Primary or Sub-Servicer.
11
See Chatman v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 2002 WL 1338492 (N.D.Ill.) See Majchrowski v. Norwest
Mortgage, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 946, 964-65 (N.D.Ill.1998) improper because such fees are "fraudulent" and
"bogus" charges for work not actually performed
12
See Porter v. Fairbanks, 2003 WL 21210115 (N.D.Ill.) the Broker Price Opinions were not “necessary to
protect the value of the Property”
13
See Gonzales v. Codilis & Associates, P.C., 2004 WL 719264 (N.D.Ill.) there is a question as to whether
the fees assessed by the Defendant were “reasonable” as required by the mortgage agreement.
8
Master Servicer: The Master Servicer’s responsibility is to service the loans in the pool
through maturity unless the Borrower defaults. The Master Servicer manages the flow of
payments and information and is responsible for the ongoing interaction with the
performing Borrower. The Master servicer acts as an oversight agent for the loan level
data provided by the primary servicer or sub-servicer.
Special Servicer: Upon the occurrence of certain specified events, primarily a default, the
administration of the loan is transferred to the Special Servicer. Besides handling
defaulted loans, the special servicer also has approval authority over material servicing
actions, such as loan assumptions.
Directing Certificateholder / Controlling Class / B-Piece Buyer: The most subordinate
bond class outstanding at any given point is considered to be the Directing
Certificateholder, also referred to as the Controlling Class. The investor in the most
subordinate bond classes is commonly referred to as the “B-piece Buyer.” B-piece
Buyers generally purchase the B-rated and BB/Ba-rated bond classes along with the
unrated class.
Trustee: The Trustee’s primary role is to hold all the loan documents and distribute
payments received from the Master Servicer to the bondholders. Although the Trustee is
typically given broad authority with respect to certain aspects of the loan under the PSA,
the Trustee typically delegates its authority to either the Special Servicer or the Master
Servicer.
Rating Agency: There will be as few as one and as many as four Rating Agencies
involved in rating a securitization. Rating agencies establish bond ratings for each bond
class at the time the securitization is closed. They also monitor the pool’s performance
and update ratings for investors based on performance, delinquency and potential loss
events affecting the loans within the trust. The four rating agencies are:
• A.M. Best
• Fitch Ratings
• Moody’s Investor Servicers
• Standard and Poor’s Insurance Rating Services
9
Illegal Foreclosure Process
Performing
Loan
Payments
misapplied.
Payments held
until LATE.
Force placed insurance
added to already
insured loans.
Account flooded with illegal and unwarranted fees.
Account forced into DEFAULT.
Credit rating DESTROYED by false reporting.
Future payments applied
to illegitimate charges.
Future payments
refused.
Account balance dramatically increases!
EQUITY and escrow overages
consumed by illegal fees.
Homeowner cannot
afford payments [plus]
the unlawful fees.
Homeowner forced into forbearance
agreement to strip away legal right’s.
Homeowner has no recourse to prevent
the EXTORTION of equity and property.
Courts allow the ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE.
©MSFraud.org
10
My Personal Story
The Purchase
On May 10, 2002, we bought a single family home for $214,000.00. It was broken up in
two loans; the first amount: $171,200.00, and the second amount for $42,800.00. The
program was a self employed stated loan. Bank statements were required to document
the ability to afford the loan. The interest rate was 7.3% on the larger amount with a
payment of $1173.70. 14 The interest rate on the second was 10.8% with a payment of
$435.96. The first payment was due on July 1, 2002. There was no escrow account set
up.
The Default
On May 1, 2003, Defendant, for reasons beyond their control, failed to make the
regular monthly payment and was in default. On May 27, 2004 Litton Loan Servicing
quoted the sum of $19,902.02 to reinstate the default and borrowers tendered the amount
requested. 15
Servicing Abuse Starts (Double Billing and Illegal Charges)
This was the first opportunity for Litton Loans to start their servicing abuse. They
improperly demanded $10.92 for fourteen months for an escrow account in the total
amount of $152.88. 16 Litton double billed reinstatement fees: $100.00 BPO fee, $36.00
recording fee, $44.50 inspection fee, $1,095.00 corporate advance fee, $1,435.00
foreclosure cost (attorney fee), and a“Prev Srv/Farrell Fee” of $585. 17
Misapplication of Payments
In August of 2004, for reasons beyond their control, the borrowers failed to make the
regular monthly payment. On September 29, 2004, borrowers tendered $2668.14.00 as
quoted by Litton to reinstate their loan. 18 This amount was incorrectly calculated and
improperly collected $833.35 from Defendants as follows:
The only monthly payments which were due and owing were those for August
and September of 2004, in the sum of $1,173.70, which, together with late
charges of $58.69, totaled $2,464.68, not $2,668.14. A difference of $203.46 was
improperly demanded and collected from Defendants.
Litton applied the funds tendered from the $2668.14 payment as follows: 19
• $160.37 to “escrow” when the subject mortgage does not provide for an “escrow”
• $586.90 was applied as “late charges”, when only $117.38 in late charges had
accrued
• sum of $688.48 was improperly deposited into a suspense account
On October 29, 2004 borrowers tendered a payment in the amount of $1188.90 and
believed the loan to be current. Litton applied the funds tendered from the payment as
follows: 20
14
See Appendix B -the Note, page 122
See Appendix A- Reinstatement Quote, page 119
16
See Appendix C- Payment History, pages 125-127 Line #’s 23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41, 43,45,47
and 49
17
See Appendix C- Payment History, pages 127-128 Line #’s 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,63,and 64
18
See Appendix J-Payment debited from borrowers bank account, page 148
19
See Appendix C-Payment History, page 127 Line #’s 79,80,and 81 (total payment credited was $1392.76)
20
See Appendix C-Payment History, page 129 Line # 84,
15
11
•
$15.20 to “escrow” when the subject mortgage does not provide for an “escrow”
Improper Escrow, Late Fees and Suspense Account
On November 14, 2004 borrowers tendered a payment in the amount of $1188.90 and
follows: 21
• $58.69 was applied as “late charge” when the loan is past due after the 15th
• $571.10 was improperly deposited into a suspense account
• $58.69 was applied as “late charge” again on November 16th
Forbearance Suspense Charges
On December 29, 2004, borrowers tendered the amount of $1188.90 for the December
payment. Litton applied the funds tendered from the payment as follows: 22
On January 17, 2005 borrowers tendered a payment in the amount of $1188.90 and
follows: 23
• $58.69 was applied as “late charge”
On February 16, 2005, Litton Loan Servicing issued a Notice of Default and Intent to
Accelerate, stating the amount necessary to cure the default then existing was
$1,982.77. 24 The sum quoted by Litton Loan Servicing on February 16, 2005 was
incorrectly calculated and improperly collected $750.38 from Defendants as follows:
• $15.20 to “escrow” when the subject mortgage does not provide for an
“escrow”
• The remaining balance of the sum of $735.18 demanded in Litton’s February
16, 2005 letter is unknown and not ascertainable from the accountings
provided by Litton.
In February of 2004, borrowers contacted Litton Loan Services and spoke with Minnie
Rodriquez to discuss the default and reinstatement. Minnie advised that contrary to the
February 16, 2005 Demand Letter, the sum necessary to reinstate was $5,090.35. 25
Borrowers advised Minnie Rodriquez of Litton Loan Servicing that they disagreed with
the statement of the amount owed of $5,090.35, and that the monthly payments accruing
on the loan were incorrect inasmuch as the loan documents provided the monthly
payments of principal and interest were to be $1,173.70 and not adjust until June 1, 2005,
rather than $1,184.62 or $1,188.90 as contended by Litton.
21
See Appendix C-Payment History, page 129 Line #’s 87,88,89, and 91(total payment credited was $1247.59)
See Appendix C-Payment History, page 129 Line #’s 94 and 95 (total payment credited was $1247.59)
23
See Appendix C-Payment History, page 129 Line #’s 98,99 and 101
24
See Appendix D-Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate, page 131
25
See Appendix E-Forbearance Agreement, page 134
22
12
Minnie Rodriquez advised Defendants that unless they agreed to the forgoing sums as
due and entered into a Forbearance Agreement that foreclosure would be filed
accumulating significant additional charges for attorneys and costs.
On March 23, 2005, Litton Loan Servicing issue a Reinstatement Quote upon
Defendant’s loan stating the sum of $6,279.25 was due through and including April 15,
2005. 26
The sum quoted by Litton Loan Servicing on March 23, 2005 was incorrectly calculated
and improperly collected $ from Defendants as follows: 27
• The monthly payments were calculated at $1,188.90, when the correct monthly
payment for this ARM Loan that had not yet adjusted was the face note sum of
$1,173.70, for a total of $60.80 difference improperly demanded and collected
from Borrowers
• The sums of $825.00 and $835.00 were included for “Attorneys’ Fees not yet
Billed” and Attorney Costs Not Yet Billed”, although no suit had been filed and
no costs, upon information and belief, had yet been paid or accrued.
• The sum of $60.80 included in the sum quoted for “Escrow Shortage” was
improperly demanded and collected from Borrowers inasmuch as the subject
mortgage does not provide for an “escrow”
• The sum of $176.07 included in Litton’s March 23, 2005 Reinstatement Quote is
incorrect inasmuch as only two (2) months of late charges of $58.69 had accrued.
• The sum of $8.50 for one property inspection is believed to be false.
• The sum for $72.50 for 8 property inspections is false and improperly charged.
On March 24, 2005, Codilis & Associates issued a forbearance Agreement to Defendants
based on the forgoing quote of Minnie Rodriguez, setting forth the arrearage as
$5,090.35, and demanding payment in the sum of $3,100.00, together with a signed copy
of the agreement, on or before March 30, 2005, plus monthly payment $1,110.05
beginning on or before April 30, 2005 and continuing through December 30, 2005. 28
On March 30, 2005, Defendants, regardless of the incorrect calculations and under duress
created by Plaintiff’s demands and threats of foreclosure, paid the sum of $3,100 to
Litton Loan Servicing to reinstate the loan and cure the existing default.
Regardless of the forbearance agreement, The Bank of New York initiated foreclosure
proceedings on March 28, 2005. 29
On April 18th, Defendants sent a letter and proof of payments (bank drafts) to Litton
Loans in hopes of getting the calculations correct and the payments applied properly.
Another letter was sent on August 18, 2005. Attorney sent a letter on October 4, 2005. 30
Plaintiffs filed a motion for Summary Judgment. Borrowers responded on or about
March 30, 2006, and submitted to Plaintiff a response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary
26
See Appendix E-Reinstatement Quote, page 133
See Appendix E-Reinstatement Quote breakdown of amounts, page 133
28
See Appendix F-Forbearance Agreement, page 134
29
See Appendix G-Premature Foreclosure, page 135
30
See Appendix H-Qualified Written Requests, page 139
27
13
Judgment alleging they had not been properly credited for forbearance payments
tendered, had been improperly charged for force placed insurance, and had been
improperly charged for escrow charges, when the subject mortgage does not provide for
an “escrow”, as well as other improper fees. 31
Abuse of Process
On March 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw its Motion for Summary
Judgment, and on August 11, 2006, a dismissal order was entered and on August 18,
2006, the case 2005 CH 445 was closed. 32
On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff sent a demand letter and threatened to accelerate the loan if
borrowers did not pay a certain amount. Then on October 17, 2006, Plaintiff initiated
another foreclosure proceeding against borrowers. 33
The case has been on going for the last four years concerning motions and counterclaims.
Currently the Plaintiff is seeking a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
Force Placed Insurance
Borrowers had unnecessarily been charged with force placed insurance almost every
seven to eight months, regardless of proof being sent. At one time borrowers received
notice from Litton that the insurance had been received and the account properly credited.
However, six months, we were charged again for not having insurance.
The reason for this is because there is a kickback, refund, or other compensation offered
by Maxi Million and Lloyd’s London. There is a built in incentive for the servicer to
select these insurers that pay compensation to Litton. This allows them the opportunity
to reap additional revenues. Even though proof of insurance may have been provided, the
opportunity to make and additional $1,500.00 is not passed up. The improper charges
from the force placed insurance created havoc with the borrower’s payment schedule.
This helped escalate the borrowers into foreclosure.
Legal Claims and Defenses
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
RICO § 1962(a) reads as follows:
In relevant part, § 1962(a) provides:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any incom e derived,
directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering ac tivity ... to use or invest,
directly or indirectly, any part of such incom e, or the proceeds of such incom e,
in acquisition of any interest in, or
the establishm ent or operation of, any
enterprise which is engaged in, or the ac tivities of which af fect, inters tate or
foreign commerce....
Litton violates RICO § 1962(a) by the following conduct:
31
See Appendix I-Response to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, page 142
See Appendix K-Plaintiffs voluntary dismiss foreclosure, page 149
33
See Appendix L-New Foreclosure Complaint, page 151
32
14
•
•
•
by overstating escrow payment requirements and using the mail to communicate
the misrepresented charges to its customers. 34
by overcharging for interest on borrowers mortgages have been injured in their
business and property as a result of Litton’s violation 35
by filing a foreclosure that contains fraudulent fees and using the mail to
communicate the misrepresented charges 36
RICO § 1962(b) reads as follows:
In its entirety, § 1962(b) reads:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity
or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or
indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
Larry Litton Sr. and Larry Litton Jr. violated § 1962(b) by the following conduct:
• unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally acquire and maintain, directly and
indirectly, an interest in and control of Litton Loans Servicing LP which was
engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce,
through a pattern of racketeering activity, as alleged, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1962(b) and 2. 37
RICO § 1962(c) reads as follows:
In its entirety, § 1962(c) reads:
(c) It sha ll be unlawful for any p erson em ployed by or associated with any
enterprise e ngaged in, or the ac tivities of which af fect, inters tate or f oreign
commerce, to conduct or participate, dire ctly or indirectly, in the conduct of
such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection
of unlawful debt.
Litton violated RICO § 1962(c) by the following conduct:
• The intentional subm ission of inaccurate req uests for paym ent pur suant to a
contractual relationship with the inte nt of obtaining funds not due under the
contract. 38
• by overcharging for interest on borrowers mortgages injuring them in that their
property is in foreclosure and their loans have been assessed improper fees. 39
34
See Aitke n v. Fleet M ortgage C orp., 1992 WL 3 3926 ( N.D.Ill.), Heller v. Fi rst Tow n M ortgage
Corp.,1998 WL 614197 (S.D.N.Y.)
35
See Allenson v. Hoyne Sav. Bank, 272 Ill.App.3d 938, 651 N.E.2d 573, 209 Ill. 395, Uniroyal Goodrich
Tire Co. v. Mutual Trading Corp. 749 F.Supp. 869 (N.D.Ill. 1990)
36
See Majchrowski v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 946,(N.D.Ill.1998), Chatman v. Fairbanks,
2002 WL 1338492 (N.D.Ill.)
37
See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Mutual Trading Corp. 749 F. Supp. 869 (N.D.Ill. 1990)
38
See A itken v . Fleet Mortgage Corp., 1 992 W L 33 926 (N.D.Ill.), Heller v. First Tow n Mortgage
Corp.,1998 WL 614197 (S.D.N.Y.)
39
See Allenson v. Hoyne Sav. Bank, 272 Ill.App.3d 938, 651 N.E.2d 573, 209 Ill. 395, Mark v. Keycorp
Mortg. Inc., 1996 WL 465400 (N.D.Ill.),
15
•
•
by engaging in a pattern of mail fraud, receiving money as a result, while
associated with a corporate group and conducting part of the mortgage servicing
activities of that enterprise. 40
Litton used the mails in furtherance of the interest scheme, to collect mortgage
payments and to issue account statements which overstated the interest due upon
each monthly payment and the principal amount remaining on the loans. 41
RICO § 1962(d) reads as follows:
In its entirety, § 1962(d) reads:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person
to conspire to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
Enterprise
An enterprise is “generally a group of persons associated together for a common purpose
of engaging in a course of conduct. 42
Mail Fraud
The mailings of account statements that improperly adjusted interest and principal
balances, and the fraudulent fees have been “part of the execution of the fraud”. 43
Wire Fraud
The federal wire fraud statute implicates wire transmissions, like telephone
communications are used to execute a scheme to defraud. Litton calls borrowers to
inform them of payments being due. 44
Pattern of Racketeering Activity
A “pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of racketeering activity”
within a ten-year time period. 45 There are numerous complaints with the Federal Trade
Commission against Litton, prior judicial determinations, a class action suit pending, all
alleging similar claims within the last ten years.46
Unlawful Debt
A claim based on collection of an unlawful debt, a borrower needs only to show one
instance of collection of an unlawful debt; there need be no racketeering activity and no
pattern of abuse. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(6), 1962(c)
Injury
Property is encum bered by the unlawful char ges and fees, and the charges were paid.
40
See Mark v. Keycorp Mortgage. Inc., 1996 WL 465400 (N.D.Ill.)
See Allenson v. Hoyne Sav. Bank, 272 Ill.App.3d 938, 651 N.E.2d 573, 209 Ill. 395
42
See Heller v. First Town Mortgage Corp., 1998 WL 614197 (S.D.N.Y.)
43
44
See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Mutual Trading Corp. 749 F. Supp. 869 (N.D.Ill. 1990)
45
“Racketeering activity” is defined in section 1961(1) in terms of a long list of state and federal crimes,
including mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. See Liquid Air Corp. v. Rogers, 834 F.2d 1297, 1305 (7th
Cir.1987), cert. denied,492 U.S. 917, 109 S.Ct. 3241, 106 L.Ed.2d 588 (1989) repeated infliction of
economic injury on a single victim of a single scheme is sufficient to establish pattern of racketeering
activity.
46
See Federal Trade Commission and Consumer complaints on page 39
47
See Majchrowski v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 946,(N.D.Ill.1998)
41
16
47
Borrowers have been charged excessive interest. 48
Scheme to Defraud
The intentional submission of inaccurate requests for paymen t pursuant to a con tractual
relationship with the intent of obtaining funds not due under the contract may amount to a
scheme to defraud. 49
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
A servicer may argue they are a creditor and not a debt collector. If the loan was in
default when they received the right to service it, then they are liable. The FDCPA treats
assignees as debt collectors if the debt sought to be collected was in default when
acquired by the assignee and as creditors if it was not.50
Litton violates the FDCPA by the following conduct: 51
• attempting to collect amounts not permitted by law (15 U.S.C.§ 1692f(1));
• using unfair and unconscionable collection methods (15 U.S.C.§ 1692f);
• giving a false impression of the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged
debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2));
• using false or deceptive collection methods (15 U.S.C.§ 1692e(5));
• failing to state “the amount of the debt” as required by 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(1);
• engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or
abuse borrowers (15 U.S.C. § 1692d);
• failing to provide disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11),including when
sending monthly statements to borrowers; and
• sending notices or making communications that do not comply with the FDCPA
• Charging for unauthorized force-placed insurance, despite knowing the property
is already insured.
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
Litton violates RESPA by the following conduct: 52
• failing to meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 2605 regarding transfer of
servicing and responding to qualified written requests;
• failing to meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 2609 regarding escrow account
statements, collection of escrow and notification of shortage in escrow account.
• Over escrowing
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Litton violates TILA by the following conduct: 53
48
See Mark v. Keycorp Mortgage. Inc., 1996 WL 465400 (N.D.Ill.), Aitken v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 1992
WL 33926 (N.D.Ill.)
50
See Schlosser v. Fairbanks, (N.D. IL 2003) 323 F 3d 534
51
See Sco tt v . Fairb anks Capital Corp.284 F.Su pp.2d 880 (S.D. Oh io 20 03), Wright v. Litto n, 2006 WL
891030 (E.D .Pa.), Porter v . Fairb anks, 2 003 W L 2 1210115 (N .D.Ill.), Gonzales v. Codilis & A ssociates,
P.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5463,
52
See Wright v. Litton Loans Servicing LP 2006 WL 891030 (E.D.Pa); Johnstone v. Bank of America.,
N.A.173 F. Supp.2d 809(N.D.Ill.2001); Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle Mort., Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 1156
(M.D.Ala.1999)
53
See Vician v. Wells Fargo, 2006 WL 694740 (N.D. Ind.); Travis v. Boulevard Bank N.A, (N.D. Ill. 1995)
880 F. Supp. 1226, Chatman v. Fairbanks, 2002 WL 1338492 (N.D.Ill.)
49
17
•
•
The notes and mortgages serviced by Fairbanks are adjustable rate mortgages,
subject to the disclosure requirements of Reg. Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c) for
variable rate adjustments.
Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c), Fairbanks is required to include in its variable
rate adjustment disclosure a statement of the loan balance. 12 C.F.R. 226.20(c)
(4).
As a result of the imposition of unauthorized or inflated charges, Litton fails to accurately
disclose the loan balance. Litton’s disclosures state loan balances that are higher than it
would have been but for Litton’s intentional improper charges. 54
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”).
Litton violates the ICFA and have engaged in unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices
by the following conduct: 55
• Imposing and collecting unnecessary and excessive fees and charges not
authorized by the loan documents or by applicable law;
• Imposing and collecting excessive interest and unlawful prepayment penalties;
• Failing to properly and/or timely credit customers’ payments to their accounts;
• Improperly administering “suspense” and “corporate advance” accounts;
• Assessing the escrow accounts of Class members for amounts not authorized by
the uniform contractual documents;
• Charging borrowers for unnecessary force placed insurance, and collecting
excessive amounts for forced place insurance premiums for which it received a
kickback;
• Charging borrowers improper late fees;
• Misleading or otherwise misinforming customers about the amounts properly due
and owing;
• Failing to properly administer customer accounts, including, without limitation,
escrow accounts, suspense accounts, corporate advance accounts, and principal
and interest obligations
• Engaging in conduct that violates state and federal consumer protection laws; and
• Harassing or otherwise treating customers unfairly and without regard to
obligations of good faith and fair dealing.
Breach of Contract
Litton breaches the contracts by the following conduct:56
• imposing or collecting amounts that are not due and owing by contract including,
without limitation, interest, and default-related fees, costs and charges.
54
See Vician v. Wells Fargo, 2006 WL 694740 (N.D. Ind.); Travis v. Boulevard Bank N.A, (N.D. Ill. 1995)
880 F. Supp. 1226, Chatman v. Fairbanks, 2002 WL 1338492 (N.D.Ill.)
55
See Chatman v. Fairbanks, 2002 WL 1338492 (N.D. Ill.), Bradley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. 2003 WL
21011801 (N.D.Ill.), Rumford v. Countrywide Funding Corp. 287 Ill.App.3d 330, 678 N.E.2d 369, 222 Ill.
757, Home Savi ngs a nd L oan As sociation of J oliet v. Sc hneider., 108 Ill. 2 d 2 77, 483 N.E. 2d 1225
(Supreme Court 1985)
56
See Reed v . Litto n Loan Servicing LP, 2004 WL 1386314 (Va. Cir. Ct.), Cy phers v . Litto n Loan
Servicing, L.L.P.,503 F.Supp.2d 547(N.D.N.Y.2007)Chatman v. Fairbanks, 2002 WL 1338492 (N.D. Ill.)
for charging fees for work not performed; Vician v. Wells Fargo, 2006 WL 6 94740 (N.D. Ind.) for force
placing i nsurance, an d m isapplying m onthly paym ents. Mark v . Key corp M ortg. I nc. 19 96 WL 4 65400
(N.D.Ill.), Bartlett Bank & Trust Co. v. McJunkins 147 Ill.App.3d 52, 497 N.E.2d 398, 100 Ill. 420
18
•
•
•
•
misapplying or failing to apply payments, or imposing late fees and other charges
not due, all in breach of the contract
wrongfully accelerating the mortgage
failing to honor forbearance agreements that borrowers have entered in to cure
their loan defaults and save their homes by continuing the foreclosure process.
force placing insurance
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Litton breached their fiduciary duty by:
• charging excessive force-placed insurance premiums and finance charges to their
escrow account. 57
Negligence 58
Litton owed a duty of care to:
• avoid incurring charges for unnecessary insurance
• correctly calculate and apply payments
• avoid setting up escrow accounts that were not due or owing
Loss of Consortium 59
The elements for a loss of consortium are: (1) defendant tortfeaser owed a duty to the
injured spouse; (2) defendant tortfeaser breached that duty; (3) as a proximate cause of
defendant tortfeaser’s breach of that duty, the spouse was injured; (4) the other spouse
was married to the impaired spouse on the day of the occurrence; (5) As a proximate
result of injuries to the impaired spouse, the deprived spouse sustained damages.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 60
Damages
Emotional Distress and Mental Anguish 61
Legal Abuse Syndrome 62
Participants in the Scheme and their roles
Larry B. Litton Sr. is the main boss of the operation.
Larry B. Litton Jr. is the boss’s son and has taken over the operation and oversees the
daily operation.
57
See Vician v. W ells Fargo, 20 06 WL 694 740 (N.D. In d.); Ploog v. Ho meSide Len ding, Inc. 209
F.Supp.2d 863(N.D.Ill.,2002)
58
See Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle Mortg., Inc.64 F.Supp.2d 1156(M.D.Ala.,1999)
59
See Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406, 170 N.E. 2d 881 (1960); Malfeo v. Larson, 208 Ill. App. 3d 418, 567
N.E. 2d 364, 153 Ill. Dec. 406 (1st Dist. 1990); Lorenz v. Air Illinois, 168 Ill.App.3d 1060, 522N.E.2d
1352, 119 Ill. Dec 493.
60
See Farnor v. Irmco Corporation., 29 Ill. Dec. 894 (1st Dist. 1979) Johnson v. Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, 199 Ill.App.3d 427, 557 N.E.2d 328, 145 Ill. Dec. 558.
61
See Wright v. Litton Loans Servicing LP 2006 WL 891030 (E.D.Pa); Johnstone v. Bank of America.,
N.A.173 F. Supp.2d 809(N.D.Ill.2001);
62
http://www.legalabusesyndrome.org Explaining Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive
and protracted litigation.
19
The Investors
Litton is a wholly owned subsidiary of C-BASS, which ultimately is owned by MGIC
Investment Corporation (46%), Radian Group, Inc. (46%), and C-BASS management
(8%). MGIC Investment Corporation and Radian Group, Inc. C-BASS was formed in
July 1996 and is a joint venture company. Litton, which specializes in the servicing of
sub-prime and non-performing loans, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of C-BASS. C-BASS
has a residual interest in approximately 85% of the securitizations that Litton services.
(2005 Moody Report)
Attorneys
To support the management of legal issues that arise in the normal course of business on
behalf of our clients and investors, Litton Loan Servicing LP has contracted with various
attorney firms across the country. Litton has one of the highest success rates in the
industry when it comes to finding alternatives to foreclosure for our customers. Litton
views its foreclosure attorneys as "strategic partners." They are part of the loss mitigation
effort and try to obtain loss mitigation resolutions during the foreclosure process. The
attorneys Litton has used are:
• Codilis and Associates -www.codilis.com 63
• Pierce and Associates -www.atty-pierce.com
• Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey -www.vblhc.com
Rules Governing the Legal Profession and Judiciary in Illinois
Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the
lawyer knows is crim inal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences
of any proposed course of conduct with a clie nt and m ay counsel or assist a client to
make a good-faith effort to determ ine the vali dity, scope, m eaning or application of the
law.
(f) In representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
(1) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other action on
behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such action
would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another;
(g) A lawyer who knows a client has, in the course of representation, perpetrated a
fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
if the client refuses or is unable to d o so, the lawyer shall reveal th e fraud to the affected
person or tribunal, except when the info
rmation is protected as a privileged
communication.
(h) A lawyer w ho knows that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud
upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.
63
See Gonzales v. Codilis & Associates, P.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5463, Shea v. Codilis., 2000 WL 336567
(N.D.Ill.)
20
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer sh all not bring or defend a proceed ing, or assert o r controvert an issue therein,
unless there is a basis for doing so that is
not frivolous, which includes a good-faith
argument for an extension, m odification or reversal of exis ting law. A lawyer for the
defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in
incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element
of the case be established.
RULE 3.2 Expediting Litigation
A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of the client.
RULE 4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose
other than to e mbarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use m ethods of obtaining
evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Legal Claims against attorneys
These attorneys are aware of Litton’s scheme and owe a duty to the non-client in certain
situations. As a result of their knowledge, they are liable under their code of ethics. 64
Abuse of Process
Fraud upon the Courts
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Wasteful Litigation
64
See Aba Section Of Real Property, Probate And Trust Law 15th Annual Real Property, Estate Planning
Symposia May 13, 2004 “What Gets Lawyers Sued” Representative Cases On Aiding And Abetting,
Conflicts Of Interest, Drafting Errors and Unauthorized Practice Of Law By Jack Brant and Nelse T.
Scheck, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Albuquerque, New Mexico
www.abanet.org/rppt/meetings_cle/spring2004/rp/realestatelawyerssued/schreck.pdf
www.abanet.org/rppt/meetings_cle/spring2004/rp/realestatelawyerssued/creamer.pdf
21
22
23
24
25
26
Woman makes payments, but faces foreclosure
New Port Richey, Florida -- Nadine Knowles is standing on the steps of the West Pasco Court House saying
her house is scheduled for public sale right here on Thursday morning.
Knowles can't understand how she is losing her home despite making mortgage payments of $812.90 to
Litton Mortgage every month. Knowles' certified bank statement shows the checks were cashed, but the
company says she defaulted.
"It just doesn't add up," Knowles says.
Knowles believes her problems started after her initial mortgage on the house was sold to another mortgage
company. The new company started an escrow account for her taxes and insurance, even though Knowles
has proof she has already bought and paid for insurance and paid the taxes.
"There's numerous letters back and forth with me, and the mortgage service never got anywhere," Knowles
explains.
But it did no good when Knowles came to Pasco Court and showed the judge she had proof that she had
made her payments and it had been deducted from her account. The judge issued an order that her home
be sold on the courthouse steps.
"I can't believe when you bring proof into the courtroom, that your house can be and still be taken away,"
she says.
The mortgage company's attorney told Judge Lowell Bray that the company had not received payments or
attempted payments, which appear to be a lie. That's because since last February, the mortgage returned
Knowles' checks and sent letters saying the amount is not enough.
Even Knowles admits she would find this story hard to believe if it was someone else.
"I would say, 'She didn't make a payment somewhere, something's messed up,'" Knowles admits. But then
she adds, "I made payments, I paid my insurance, I paid my taxes. And I'm losing my home."
Mike Deeson, Tampa Bay's 10 News
27
Homeowners pay their mortgages, but face foreclosure
Port Richey, Florida - Barbara Smith says it's very scary to think of losing your home when all you want to do
is make your payments.
But that became a reality for Smith, after Litton Mortgage Servicing took over her mortgage and her
payments went from $963 a month to $1,412. She says the company added insurance to the mortgage,
although she already had her own.
"I've been trying to get that rectified and trying to get it settled with the company to no avail," she says.
Nadine Knowles was in the same boat with her home. She had paperwork showing she paid the original
loan amount, but the company tried to charge her extra for taxes and insurance she'd already taken care of.
She refused to pay, and last week her home was sold at auction.
"I'm a homeowner that got screwed and that's OK in America, and that's OK with our courts," Knowles says.
Barbara Smith says her income doesn't allow her to make the extra payments, but she was afraid of losing
her Port Richey home. So she says she is doing everything she can to send the money to Litton Mortgage
Servicing, even though she says they're not entitled to it.
"I took money out of my 401K to make the higher payments, because if I don't make the higher payments,
they won't accept any payment. They will return my payment to me."
Thousands of homeowners are facing the same problem and there aren't many places to turn.
W. Craig Kennedy, who co-wrote the Mortgage Servicing Kit, says never complain over the phone, because
there isn't a paper trail. When you write to complain, you must put the words "qualified written request" at the
top of the letter. If you do, federal law says you can't be ignored.
"They must respond in 20 days and solve it in 60 days," Kennedy says. "If you don't put that at the top of the
letter, they can ignore it."
But there are still thousands like Barbara Smith who are overpaying, and thousands more like Nadine
Knowles are losing their homes. It is happening every day in Florida and throughout the country.
Litton Mortgage Servicing never returned our calls to comment on the story. Litton is the target of a class
action suit for similar allegations.
Mike Deeson, Tampa Bay's 10 News
28
In the Sub-Prime of Life
Homeowners complain that Litton Loan is quicker to
foreclose than it needs to be
By Craig Malisow
published: May 17, 2007
Debra Murray may have saved a lot of homes from foreclosure, but she couldn't save her own.
Murray was worried when her employer became her loan servicer.
As a research specialist for Houston-based Litton Loan Servicing, a mortgage payment collection
agency, Murray was in charge of combing through troubled loans to see what went wrong where.
Every month, more than 300,000 borrowers throughout the country are obligated to send
monthly payments to Litton, totaling a portfolio of $43 billion.
With that many payments, mistakes are unavoidable. And in the world of subprime loans, a
simple error such as a misapplied payment can snowball into a force that knocks a customer out
into the street. If the simple error isn't caught in time, the customer can be royally, if not legally,
screwed.
It was Murray's job to catch these mistakes, notify the proper departments and stop the
foreclosure machine.
Murray says there were more than enough mistakes to keep her busy. She wrote letters to
borrowers explaining discrepancies and detailing their loan status, and Litton graded her
punctuation and grammar monthly. With a red pen, Murray's department supervisor would scold
the researchers for misplaced commas and dangling participles, ignoring the fact that they might
have saved a borrower's home from foreclosure.
Like many of the people whose loans she investigated, Murray was a first-time homeowner with
a subprime loan. In 2004, three years after she started at Litton, Murray, her husband and their
three adult sons moved into a four-bedroom home in a quiet subdivision in southwest Houston.
29
She entered into the kind of adjustable rate mortgage behind the surge of 1.2 million foreclosures
for 2006; the kind with a sweet two-year teaser rate that would mushroom in month 25 and reset
every six months beyond. In Murray's case, that meant a jump from a 7.3 percent interest rate in
March 2004 to about 11.3 percent by February 2007.
But Murray's troubles started well before month 25.
Like every other subprime borrower, Murray has no control over which company services her
loan. That decision is made by investors who might never meet the borrowers but who know
their profile: Their credit is spotty, their paychecks are modest and there's a good chance their
skin is of a darker hue. And despite the fact that Murray is incorrectly listed as “white” on her
loan application, she fits that profile.
Murray's loan wound up in a $900 million pool of mortgages and other receivables that back
bonds sold by Lehman Brothers. That pool was originally serviced by Ocwen Financial but was
ultimately switched to Litton. Besides servicing subprime loans, Litton also invests in about 80
percent of its portfolio through parent company C-BASS.
As soon as Murray found her loan had been switched to Litton, she wanted it transferred. She
believed that Litton made too many mistakes, and she didn't want to wind up like one of the
borrowers in her thick stacks of troubled loans. She says she talked with superiors who said the
loan could not be transferred.
A sinking feeling became outright panic, Murray says, when her husband and two of her sons
lost their jobs and she defaulted on her loan — well before her teaser rate expired. (One of her
sons had worked at a law firm that files foreclosures for Litton).
“I know they're going to fire me — that's the first thing you think in your head,” she recalls
months later. “They don't want this.”
She was right. After falling four months ($4,000) behind, Murray was fired, and Litton began the
process of repossessing her home. She's now one of the Litton borrowers seeking class
certification in a lawsuit filed in a California federal court. They accuse Litton of forcing them
into foreclosure by assigning predatory fees. And those who talk to Murray often walk away with
one question: If that's how Litton treats its employees, how does it treat debtors it doesn't even
know?
Texas reported 156,876 foreclosures in 2006, more than any other state, according to foreclosure
marketplace tracker RealtyTrac. That's one out of every 51 homes, giving Texas the fourthhighest foreclosure rate in the country.
Depending on whom you ask, the subprime loans behind many of these foreclosures are
predatory packages destined for failure, a saving grace for people who've been turned away from
30
conventional loans or a conspiracy among the shadow-cloaked cabal comprising the investorlender-broker-underwriter complex.
If the foreclosure boom associated with the subprime market were the work of one master power
like the Illuminati, things might be easier. Instead, the market is a constellation of dubious
lenders, brokers, servicers and investment trusts, each of which has just enough involvement to
make a bundle and just little enough to plead plausible deniability when the whole structure
collapses.
However, there are those who say that not all subprime lenders are predatory, and that these
loans can work well for responsible people with realistic expectations.
Denetta Williams, the broker who helped close Murray's loan, says that while there are genuine
victims of subprime lending, Murray wasn't one of them. She says Murray would've qualified for
a conventional loan on a smaller house, but was dead set on a four-bedroom, $127,000 home.
Moreover, the loan's 7.3 percent introductory interest rate was more than fair, Williams says.
Williams, who is black, says that while there are blacks who have been outright ripped off by
predatory lending, the subprime market has also given the black community a chance it didn't
have before. In many cases, she says, the sob stories that drive media reporting are examples of
basic whining, not victimization.
“Nobody made them go and buy that house,” she says, later adding that when the “underclass”
blows a true opportunity, they make it a “‘poor me' situation...It's the American dream. They're
giving you a chance. And time after time they blow it and then they go and blame the
establishment. And it's not the establishment.”
Subprime loans took off in the 1990s and exploded after 2000, according to Prentiss Cox,
associate professor of clinical law at the University of Minnesota. That year, subprime loans
made up eight percent of all mortgage loans. By 2006, subprime loans accounted for 22 percent
of a $6.5 trillion market.
Simply put, there are a lot of people who can benefit from originating a loan for an
unsophisticated, first-time homebuyer with sketchy credit. It doesn't matter if they can identify a
balloon payment, and it really doesn't matter if they can actually afford the house, because by the
time the Sheriff is auctioning it off, most of the interested parties have been paid.
“The reason there's an explosion of foreclosures is there was an explosion of incredibly stupid
and risky lending over the last ten years and particularly over the last three years,” Cox says.
Enter securitization. Unlike the bank-and-borrower mortgage of yesteryear, when a single lender
oversaw the entire life of a loan, the advent of mortgage-backed securities allowed lending
institutions to shift risk to investors. The mortgage company can sell the loan to a Wall Street
firm like Lehman Brothers, which bundles thousands of loans into a pool with different tiers of
credit risk, called tranches. The firm then sells bonds backed by the mortgages to investors, who
make money off the loan payments. The loan pool is held by a special-purpose vehicle — a trust
31
established to keep the pool at arm's length from the sellers of the bonds and the investors. The
firm then hires a master servicer to collect the payments from conventional, healthy loans, while
a special servicer deals with the subprime. If the borrower defaults, it's the servicer who has to
handle the foreclosure. Often, as in Litton's case, the special servicer or an associated entity is
also an investor.
With so many investors wanting a piece of the market, some loan originators have put quantity
ahead of quality and churned out the kind of loans that Cox bemoans. Many subprime loans are
“stated income,” in which the borrower plucks a number out of the air and everyone looks the
other way. Tack that onto an adjustable mortgage rate, where the borrower is enticed by a low
initial interest rate, and the loan practically sells itself.
This system got hundreds of thousands of people with questionable credit into houses — it just
hasn't kept them there.
In April, when proponents and critics of the subprime loans associated with securitization
testified before the Senate Banking Subcommittee, Lehman Brothers made sure it would be
heard. In his statement, David Sherr, managing director of Lehman's securitized products,
explained: “While this subcommittee is focused on very recent instances of foreclosure, please
remember that for three decades, mortgage-backed securities have provided, and continue to
provide, great benefits to the average American...It cannot be emphasized enough that no
participant in the securitization process has any incentive to encourage the origination of loans
that are expected to become delinquent.”
Additionally, he testified, “Servicers are ramping up their home retention teams both with
respect to early intervention for at-risk borrowers and loan modification programs for borrowers
that are in financial crisis.”
But sometimes foreclosure is unavoidable, and when it comes to that, the servicer has to play the
heavy. The servicer is the only entity the borrower sees kicking them out of their house. And
while servicers are not interested in owning real estate, they are not beholden to the borrower;
they work for the sellers of the securities, and their flexibility in working out payment
arrangements for troubled loans is spelled out in their contract with those sellers.
In many cases, the servicer is given a lot of flexibility to help borrowers out of a jam — that is
certainly the case with the loan pool that Murray's loan fell into. For that pool, Litton is allowed
to waive or defer missed payments and refinance loans once they go into default. It's because of
this latitude that Litton CEO Larry Litton Jr. sees his company as the last line of defense for the
borrower. And that's why, he says, Litton saved 70,000 people from foreclosure last year and is
projected to save 95,000 this year. Unfortunately, he says, the satisfied majority is often
overshadowed by the civil suits and online complaints of a bitter few who didn't like hearing that
Litton wouldn't offer a free ride. However, it's difficult to tell if it's the borrowers who don't like
what they hear, or if it's Litton.
32
Larry Jr. is a friendly guy with a twang who drifts in and out of a downright down-home feel
when he talks about what his company does and his pride in that work.
Founded in 1988 by his father — “the most solid citizen you will ever meet,” Larry Jr. says —
the company began with five employees handling a few thousand Texas loans. Today, Litton's
1,500 employees handle more than 300,000 loans in 50 states, making Litton one of the top 20
servicers in the country. The company consistently receives high grades from rating agencies like
Moody's and Standard & Poor's.
Larry Jr. often finds himself playing myth-buster, trying to make people understand that Litton
does not profit from foreclosure. He says that, with legal and real-estate-related fees, the
company spends about $50,000 foreclosing a home. And while Litton might recover much of
that from the sale of the house and the collection of those fees, Larry Jr. says it's not in anyone's
interest to foreclose on a home.
“We would always rather have someone in that house, making a payment,” he says, adding later,
“When the borrower don't pay, we pay...At any given time, we have half a billion dollars of our
money outstanding that we've had to advance.”
And in the end, he says, “I sleep well at night. I believe we have the best business practices in the
industry today. I think our people believe in those business practices — I'm very, very proud of
that.”
When Larry Jr. and Litton publicist Donna Marie Jendritzen said they wished the media could
hear from some of the 70,000 borrowers whose homes Litton saved last year, the Press asked
how that wish could be fulfilled. What resulted might be indicative of an apparent disconnect
between how Larry Jr. believes his collectors treat borrowers and how they are actually often
treated.
Jendritzen said federal privacy laws would make it difficult to find some satisfied souls to talk,
but she would see what she could do. Ultimately, she rounded up two borrowers in Cleveland,
Ohio, who explained, or tried to explain, their loan histories in a conference call.
The borrowers were calling from the offices of a nonprofit housing advocacy group called East
Side Organizing Project, which acts as a liaison between distressed borrowers and their servicers.
Only one of the two borrowers said he resolved his issues directly with a Litton representative. In
that case, Antonito Bradley fell behind a number of times over a two-year period. Litton
ultimately waived his fees and knocked $21 off his monthly payments; the missed payments
were calculated back into the principal. He does not expect to fall behind again.
“They gave me a second chance, basically,” he said.
In what was supposed to be the second testimony to Litton's ability to work with borrowers,
Luvonia Menefee said Litton doubled her monthly payment without telling her why.
33
“They upped it to $1,400 [from $669],” she said. “I wondered, ‘How could you do this?' And
then that was when I could not get nobody, you know, to call back. It was always, ‘I'll call you
back.' I couldn't get no explanation, so I stopped paying.”
Menefee said that, while she had the money, “I was not going to send money somewhere where
no one could tell me where it was going.”
After seven months of not paying and not getting an explanation for the increase, she was
notified that Litton was going to foreclose.
“Finally, my brother-in-law told me about ESOP,” she said, “and this is when I went to them.
And they was like my communicator.” ESOP got on the horn to Litton and got them to knock
$1,026 off her monthly payment.
“If it wasn't for ESOP, I wouldn't have been...able to smile again,” Menefee says.
When asked if a Litton borrower could get the same results if they weren't lucky enough to live
in Cleveland, with ready access to ESOP, she said, “It's hard to say.”
To get more positive statements about Litton's willingness to work with borrowers, one would
need to check the company Web site's “Customer Testimonials” section, the title of which
erroneously implies that Litton's customers are the borrowers and not the sellers and investors
perched at the top of the ladder.
Some examples:
Thank you all for everything. You all are wonderful folks. — B.T.
I have been very happy with your company in the short time that I have been with Litton — L.H.
Thank you for helping me save my home. God bless you. — F.L.
B.T., L.H. and F.L. could not be reached for further comment.
If anything, Litton is consistent in the kind of suspension of disbelief it takes to think Menefee's
story is a testament to Litton's good nature. A partial review of the 1,000 complaints Litton
borrowers filed with the Federal Trade Commission in 2006 details rude customer service and
the inability of Litton employees to explain excessive fees that seemed to appear out of nowhere.
A 2006 case from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Court in Seattle helps illustrate
the split between what Litton states are easy-to-understand monthly statements and what other
people might consider hieroglyphics.
The case involved a married couple who filed for bankruptcy and disputed an additional $30,000
that Litton said they owed. The appellate court's ruling included statements from the trial judge,
who repeatedly asked Litton's lawyers to provide clear itemized statements, and, apparently
34
unsatisfied with what the lawyers presented, finally said, “Well, I don't get it,” and ruled in favor
of the borrowers.
When Litton appealed, the appellate court was similarly puzzled over the mysterious $30,000.
“We agree with the trial court that what Litton provided was gibberish,” the opinion states.
Elsewhere in the ruling, the judges state that, in addition to being “gibberish,” Litton's paperwork
might also be classified as “sketchy.”
When asked about that description, Larry Jr. said, “Number one, we do not use gibberish. I
would completely disagree with that characterization.” He said the majority of judges involved in
Litton litigation have no problem understanding the company's itemized statements.
A few months before the Seattle judges were scratching their heads over the unexplained
$30,000, a judge in a federal district court in Philadelphia was trying to get his arms around a
seemingly spontaneous $40,000 that popped up on another borrower's bill. The only clue to the
riddle was Litton's description of the sum as “other fees due.”
When that amount appeared on her bill, according to the adjudicator's decision, the borrower
asked her lawyer to write to Litton, seeking an explanation. Litton's response was to send a letter
directly to the borrower saying her lawyer was not authorized to represent her. (Naturally, since
Litton did not believe the woman's lawyer was allowed to represent her, the lawyer did not
receive a copy of that letter.)
The adjudicator found that Litton violated state and federal laws mandating that borrowers
receive accurate statements and answers to questions about their bills. He ordered Litton to pay
the borrower $31,000, the bulk of which was for “suffering.” The decision was later dismissed
and the parties settled out of court.
It's not surprising that these problems were revealed after the borrower filed for bankruptcy,
which is often the only chance a person has to save his home from foreclosure. Between January
2002 and April 2007, more than 5,000 Litton customers in Texas have filed for bankruptcy.
When Litton fired Murray, the company offered her a $6,000 severance package if she signed an
agreement stating she would not sue or otherwise complain to a third party. Since Litton claims
to spend about $50,000 on a typical foreclosure, the company was prepared to spend upwards of
$56,000 to fire a borrower who owed $4,000. (Murray declined the severance package).
Larry Jr. said he could not discuss Murray's case, and when he was asked if it was company
policy to fire employees who were also serviced by Litton, he said, “Do you want
employees...who are having their own difficulties counseling consumers that have
difficulties...?” (Technically, Murray did not counsel consumers; she was a researcher.)
35
However, Larry Jr. said he understands that Litton employees often deal with borrowers
experiencing a crisis, and the employees are sensitive to that.
“There's no excuse for bad service,” he says. “We don't have an obligation to give [borrowers] an
answer they like every time. But we have an obligation to listen to the problem, try to develop a
solution to the problem that's reasonable and then try to execute that.”
Yet there are bound to be borrowers who just won't budge.
“Sometimes people aren't interested in keeping their homes, or people have unreasonable
expectations,” he says. “Unfortunately, we're not always able to accommodate those
expectations.”
In her detailed complaint to the Better Business Bureau of Greater Houston, Murray says her
supervisor was anything but sensitive. Over several private meetings, she wrote, her supervisor
told her to “shut up” and, in one instance, asked Murray, “How did you get the house?” If that is
to be believed, it would appear that a Litton superior has no understanding of the predatory loans
that critics and federal agencies have said make up a significant amount of loans serviced by his
very own company.
According to Larry Jr., there are just plain bitter borrowers who blame Litton for their own
irresponsibility. Ostensibly, these are the kind of borrowers attempting the class action suit filed
in California in 2005. The suit alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
and unjust enrichment, among others.
The suit alleges that “Litton has engaged in a scheme by which it fails to accurately service its
borrowers' loans and then falsely claims that the borrower is in default and collects unwarranted
fees from its customers.”
Specifically, the alleged scheme includes misapplying or failing to apply payments, prematurely
referring accounts to collection, and forcing insurance policies on homes that are already insured.
(The attorneys who filed the suit did not return multiple Press calls seeking examples of
evidence the attorneys had to support these claims. The attorneys haven't said how many
plaintiffs they have, and the judge in the case hasn't yet ruled on if there are enough for a class
action.)
In an unrelated action, the Federal Trade Commission and HUD accused Salt Lake City-based
servicer Fairbanks Capital Corp. of similar actions in 2003. Without admitting any wrongdoing,
Fairbanks agreed to pay $40 million into a trust for borrowers that the government agencies said
were victims of fraud. Fairbanks' founder and CEO also agreed to pay $400,000. Fairbanks now
conducts business as Select Portfolio Servicing.
While Larry Jr. says the Fairbanks case was the exception, not the rule, in the servicing industry,
the industry has its fair share of critics.
36
John Ventura, a former private attorney who heads the Texas Consumer Complaint Center at the
University of Houston's School of Law, has experience trying cases against Litton.
“I didn't find any evidence of outright fraud,” he says. “What I found was that their systems, and
the employees that worked those systems, just did not do a very good job. And accounts were
messed up, payments were not properly credited or escrow accounts were messed up, and
because of those things, it became a problem for the consumer that they found almost impossible
to correct.”
He says servicers tend to think of foreclosed borrowers as “collateral damage” that ultimately
does not harm the bottom line.
“It's just inherent, I think, in mortgage servicers, that in order to be profitable for their investors
and everything, they have to hire people that may not be all that competent and their systems
may not be set up to really be able to tend to the individual needs of a particular homeowner,” he
says.
When told that Litton claims to have saved 70,000 homeowners from foreclosure last year,
Ventura says, “I guess the next question would be: ‘Why were there 70,000 homes...that needed
saving' Is there something wrong with the way these loans were set up that just from inception
makes them not workable? Doesn't it strike you as strange that somebody would have to save
70,000 homes?”
Ventura's boss, consumer attorney Richard Alderman, says that servicers are just following their
part in a scripted ruse against naive borrowers.
“More and more, we're allowing businesses to do whatever they want and then just saying, ‘well,
you poor idiot, why didn't you protect yourself?'” He likens subprime lending and servicing to
the “tin man” scam.
“That was the scam of the '50s and '60s, selling aluminum siding to people who couldn't protect
themselves, who a slick salesperson knew could con them into buying something they didn't
need and then taking their house if they didn't pay,” he says. “And we didn't have a problem
deciding that this process was bad...that people were being taken advantage of...and we did
something about it. But I think the world has changed where now I'm afraid what we would've
said is, you know, ‘Too bad, you shouldn't let people con you into that, and if you lose your
house, well, you can always rent an apartment somewhere.'”
However, there are situations where the person — not the loan — is to blame, says Williams,
who brokered Murray's loan.
Unlike the naive borrowers who are sitting ducks for predatory lenders, Murray worked in the
industry and knew exactly what she was getting herself into, Williams says. Moreover, servicers
like Litton regularly give distressed borrowers multiple chances to catch up. There are examples
of real victims who warrant a news story, she says.
37
As for Murray, Williams says: “She knew better.”
In April, Federal Reserve and other federal bank regulators asked lenders to take extra measures
to help borrowers locked into subprime loans.
In response, the heads of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said they would help
these borrowers refinance their loans. Fannie May CEO Daniel Mudd said the institution would
extend loan terms from the current maximum of 30 years to 40 years. Freddie Mac CEO Richard
Syron announced plans to buy approximately $20 billion of subprime loans, and lender
Washington Mutual said it would refinance $2 billion in loans, switching some adjustable rate
mortgages into 30-year fixed rate loans.
Murray and her family moved out of their home last week. She says she and her husband are
staying with her father, while the kids are crashing with friends. It's not perfect, but it's better
than before, as the family struggled to make arrangements by the move-out deadline. “I'm in
limbo,” Murray had said then.
Unfortunately, she was not one of the 70,000 borrowers Litton claims to have recently saved.
“There's a lot of people out there who have homes because of the great work [of] our 1,500
people here that believe in what they do every day,” Larry Jr. says. “I wish I could help
everybody.”
38
Company
:
Address
City:
Litton Loan Service
4828 LOOP CENTRAL DR,
HOUSTON
State:
TX
Zip:
Country: UNITED STATES
URL:WWW.LITTONLOAN.COM
Email:
Phone:
(800) 247-9727
FTC COMPLAINTS AGAINST LITTON
04/12/2006
LLYNCH
Transaction
Ref No. : 8020247 Contact Type: Complaint source: consumer TCS?
Comments: (Product Name: HOME LOAN) THE COMPANY HAS ME LATE FOR OVER A
YEAR FOR SIXTY DAYS I HAVE SIGNED A CONTRACT WHICH CHANGED MY PAYMENT
DATE BUT I AM STILL BEING NOTED FOR BEING OVER SIXTY DAYS LATE WITH THE
AMOUNT THAT I OWE BEING OVER SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS. I HAVE PAID THE
MAJORITY
THE DATE REQUIRED.
Created By:
RLOPER Created Date:
04/11/06
Updated Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
Agency
Contact:
PUBLIC USERS 6,000.00
CIS
payment Method: Bank Account Debit
4,500.00
Internet
Complaint Date:
O4/l0/06
Initial Response: product/Service: Credit Information Furnishers
Statute/Ru1e: Fair Credit Reporting Act
Law Violation: FCRA: CRA\Furnisher -Provides Inaccurate Information
City:
BROOKSHIRE
State: TX
04/12/2006
LLYNCH
Transaction
Ref No. : 8013919 Contact Type: Complaint Source: Consumer TCS?
(b) (6)
Comments: (Product Name: mortgage credit reporting) I am
R an n d I have a complaint from the past about this company and their
credit reporting on my account. Litton loan escrowed tm account without
my permission in 2004 and was charging me with fee's I was not aware of
until1 it was nearly too late. They tried to foreclose on me but I
stopped them with the proper paperwork. I want them to remove some past
reports that are affecting my credit report. This is stopping me from
refinancing my home. They will not reply to my requests and fail to
keep my account up to date when I make payments early. This company is
as sorry as they come and I want to get out from under them ASAP. As an
Active duty Marine, I don't have time to be worried with ignorance by
Litton Loan and its bogus acts! Respectfully
39
Created By: JHART Updated
By: Org Name: PUBLIC USERS
Amt Requested: 5,600.00
Amt Paid:
5,600.00
Created Date: 04/10/06 Updated Date:
Payment Method: Wire Transfer
04/08/06
Complaint Date
Product/Service: Credit Information Furnishers
Statute/Ru1e: Fair Credit Reporting Act
Law Violation: FCRA: CRA\Furnisher -Provides Inaccurate Information
City:
Maysville
State: NC
Transaction
Comments: The consumer had a mortgage loan with New Century and in March
of 2001 the loan was sold to Litton Loan Servicing. Prior to this the
loan was included in a chapter 13 bankruptcy in Dec 2000. Litton Loan
Servicing never contacted the consumer about this loan after she raved
the initial letter stating that they bought her loan. The consumer
assumed she would not here from them since the debt was in bankruptcy.
The consumer is now being contacted by Litton Loan Servicing in pursuit
of the loan debt. Prior to the Dec 2000 the consumer refinanced her
loan with New Century and the consumer was charged for $15000 in fees
that she does not understand. New Century does not communicate to the
consumer how much she owes. She owes more on the loan than when she
started the refinanced it for. The consumer also states that her TILA
statement is different from what her closing documents state.
Created By: Up
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
Agency
Contact:
JPENN Created Date: Updated Date: TOLL
FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
15,000.00
15,000.00
Payment Method: Unknown
03/24/06
Complaint Date:
Phone
City: Durham State: NC
Comments: (Product Name: Home Mortgage Loan) Our Mortgage Loan was
sold from Litton Loan Servicing in December 2005, during the
transition time our Mortgage payment was paid in November.
Our check cleared our bank and the copies of our actual checks are dated
for November 29, 2005. Litton marked our loan payment 30 days late. We
didn’t find out about this until almost a month later when we looked at our
credit report. We contacted Litton IMMEADLTY (Jan 10th) they said that our
new Mortgage company would have to take care of it
[American Servicing Company & Specialized Loan Servicing. We contacted
both of them they said they would research this. Well when we had no
response I phoned Litton Jan 25th and they said they would take care of
it and correct our credit report. This is still not fixed and we have
called them 5 more times in one month they keep putting us off. They
will not let you talk to a supervisor or manager. I have read on the
internet that they have done this to other people and I am trying to
fix my credit not make it worse. We need to buy another car and we
can’t because of this 30 day late notice.
I have told Litton that I am
40
calling the Better Business Bureau but I guess they are not threatened
by little ole me, can you please help me to get this resolved
Thank you,
(b)(6)
Created By:
RLOPER
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
1,066.00
Agency
Contact:
Internet
Created Date:
03/10/06
Payment Method: Check (Personal)
Complaint Date:
03/09/06
Comments: (Product Name: Home Mortgage) In September 2005 I became
responsible for the sale of a property.
This property was owned by two of my female cousins who owned the
property as tenants in common. One cousin was deceased as of April
2001(the primary) and the other sister whom was incompetent to handle
real estate transactions. I tried to sell the property in October 2005
to avoid foreclosure and contacted Litton to provide the Power of
Attorney I held for Tracey Williams. I requested a payoff, and loan
balance and amount to bring the loan current. They gave me a figure of
$64 and when we went to close the transaction there was a $22k
arrearage bond attached. Over the next four months Litton refused to
provide me with the documentation showing where this fee originated,
Tracey's signature, agreeing to this fee, and they did everything in
their power to try to foreclose on the property. They gave me a $24k
reinstatement amount to pay on Feb. 3, 2006 to pay before Feb. 14, 2006
or they would foreclose. I have since closed on the property with new
buyers but I know that Litton has stolen $18k from me! I asked them
what action did they take in April 2001 when the primary died to
qualify Tracey and ensure she could make the payments. They told me
they just took the deceased name off and at that time I asked them
whose social security # was on the acct, because it didn't belong to
either of my cousins. I soon found out that it belonged to the woman
who owned the home before they did. I alerted to company on several
occasions and they never acknowledged it or sent me any of the
documents I requested. My concern is that this fee may not have
belonged to either of my cousins, just like the SSN didn't. I had
attorney's involved from the very beginning and they just would not
cooperate. I need someone with the power and authority to hold Litton
accountable for the theft they
have committed against me.
Created By:
JHART
Created Date:
03/01/06
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS CIS
Amt Paid:
89,500.00
Agency
Internet
Complaint Date:
City:
Richmond
41
02/27/06
State: VA
Comments: (Product Name: Mortgage) Last Year our home was up for
foreclosure, so we won't lose it we took all our savings $40000 and
gave to Litton. Documentation wail not be provided to how we still owe
21,000. 5 RESPA letters written Failure to respond Force Placed
Insurance when we have coverage Taking a check to pay off Ameriquest so
we can refinance and cashing it even though made payable to that
creditor profane language used harassing phone calls when known
represented by
attorney
MPHILLIPS
Created Date: 03/01/06
Created By:
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
40,000.00
Agency
Contact:
Internet
Payment Method: Wire
Try
Complaint Date:
answer
02/25/06
Comments: Consumer has a complaint against Litton Loan Service LP
.Consumer state that her old mortgage company Resume Mortgage Corp sold
the loan to Litton Loan Service LP on Nov 17, 2004.Consumer state that
on Dec 2004 she received a letter from the new mortgage standing that
she was behind on her mortgage payment for Dec2004 .Consumer state that
the submit proof of her bent statement to Litton Loan Service LP
Standing that she has paid the month of Dec 2004 to Resume Mortgage
Corporation. Consumer state that she was told that sometimes it takes
60 days for them to received in the system but they will contact her
preview mortgage lender to verify payment. Consumer state that on March
2005 she received a letter from Litton Loan Service LP demanding a
payment that she was not behind otherwise her house will be put
foreclosure
.Consumer was force to pay the mortgage company the month of
Dec 2004 again because the mortgage has threaten her t if
She does not pay her house will be put fore closure. Consumer
State that on Nov 2005 she received another letter standing
That she was being two mortgage payment because the mortgage
Company has paid her Insurance tax. Consumer state that the
Mortgage Company has falsely represent the payments because
Her insurance tax is already included on her monthly mortgage
Payment. Consumer state than the mortgage has threaten her
Again that if she does not pay her house will be put for
forclosure.Consumer state that she has no received her
Mortgage statement for Feb2006 and the mortgage co has
Already charge her a late fee when is actually due until 10th of the
month and she found out when she look her account
In the internet.Consumer state that Litton Loan Services LP
Has not disclosed how the mortgage balance is computed and
She has request his history payment and the mortgage company
Refuse to send her one.No home number was provided.
Created By: BTAPIA Created Date: 02/06/06 Updated By: Updated Date: Org
Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
Amt Paid: 3,300.00
Transaction Date: l2/O1/05
42
Ref No. : 7571198 Contact Type: Complaint
source: consumer TCS?
Comments: 11/4/2005 Inspection Fee $9.00 6/7/2004 Inspection Fee $9.00
4/22/2004 Inspection Fee $9.00 2/19/2004 Inspection Fee $9.00 1/5/2004
Inspection Fee $9.00 12/2/2003 Inspection Fee $9.00 9/24/2003
Inspection Fee $8.50 8/6/2003 Inspection Fee $8.50 6/23/2003 Inspection
Fee $8.50 4/11/2003 Inspection Fee $8.50 3/13/2003 Inspection Fee $8.50
12/20/2002 Inspection Fee $8.50 11/19/2002 Inspection Fee $8.50
10/10/2002 Inspection Fee $8.50 12/30/2005 Inspection Fee $10.50
8/17/2005 Inspection Fee $10.50 6/29/2004 Bop Fee $92.00 6/23/2004 Bop
Fee $92.00 11/18/2005 Bop Fee $90.00 9/26/2003 Bop Fee $100.00
4/29/2003 Bop Fee $100.00 12/5/2002 Bop Fee $100.00 7/12/2002 Bop Fee
$100.00 5/6/2002 Prev. Servicer Expense $641.20 5/3/2002 Prev. Servicer
Expense $3,269.01 8/27/2002 Foreclosure Costs $750.00 7/18/2002
Foreclosure Attorney Fee $550.00 2/10/2004 Title Costs $280.00
2/10/2004 Court Costs $460.00 2/10/2004 Service Costs $618.75 2/10/2004
Recording Costs $16.00
Created By: DBRAHLEK Created Date: 02/01/06 Updated By: Updated Date:
Org Name: PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid: Payment Method:
Agency Contact: Internet Complaint Date: 01/29/06
Ref No. : 7541672 Contact Type:Complaint source: consumer TCS?
Comments: (Product Name: 30 DAY LATE MONTHLY PAYMENT) I COMPLETED A
REFINANCE ON 10-25-05,I PAID A FEE FOR A WIRE TRANSFER FOR LITTON LOAN
TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IN FULL IN 3 DAYS. ON 10-31- 05, I CONTACTED LITTON
LOAN AND WAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED MY PACKET IN THE OFFICE,
HOWEVER, THEY REPORT THAT THE COMPUTER DID NOT UPDATE THE INFORMATION
UNTIL 12 MIDNIGHT WHICH TURNED INTO 11-1-05, AND THEY REPORTED ME AS 30
DAYS LATE. AS LONG AS I WAS A CUSTOMER WITH LL, I HAVE NEVER HAD
A 30 DAY LATE PAYMENT.
Created By:
RLOPER
Created Date:
01/27/06
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
Agency
Contact:
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS -
CIS
129,500.00
Internet
Complaint Date:
01/26/06
Problem #l. I live in federal declared disaster zone for Hurricane
Wilma October24, 2005. This resulted in loss of income for 2-3 weeks.
Problem #2. I contacted Litton Loan immediately and I was granted
forbearance on my Mortgage payments until January 2006.
Problem#3. Despite the forbearance agreement, this company continued to
send me threatening certified letters, and multiple harassing phone
calls. When I called the company I was advised to ignore the certified
letters.
PROBLEM# 4. My credit report revealed that the company reported my
payments as being late for 60 days for 3 months during the forbearance
period. Although I was granted forbearance I continued to make payments
to the company, which was placed in "suspense".
Problem#5. I contacted the Litton Loan Company, asking that this error
be corrected, since I was still in the forbearance period. The customer
service agent promised to send a letter to the credit Bureau to correct
their error. This has still not been done.
Problem #6. Litton Loan promised to send me a letter stating that the
report to the credit Bureau was in error, this letter has never been
43
sent to me.
Problem #7. Despite the fact of me making payments, Litton Loan
continues to add late charges to my loan in the amount of$103.00
monthly, and have not removed it from my record.
Problem #8. During the period since 10/2005 no statements have been
sent to me.
Problem #9. MOST Important is the damaging information that is
erroneously being reported on my credit profile.
Problem #lo. This company has a notorious track record for defrauding
consumers, by forcing many consumers into foreclosure, by means of the
very same practices outlined above.
Thank You for the opportunity to request consumer protection land to
advise you of the fraudulent practices of this company.
Created By:
RLOPER
6
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS
CIS
Amt Paid: 3,500.00
Payment Method: Bank Account Debit
Agency Contact: Internet Complaint Date: 12/30/05
Initial Contact: Mail Transaction Date: 12/29/05
Ref No. : 6991138 Contact Type:Complaint source:
Comments: This is about my home mortgage. Litton
handling my account and wrongfully put my house
great damage to my credit standing
Created By:
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS - CIS
Amt Requested:
24,332.16
Amt Paid:
767.54 Payment Method:
Agency
Contact:
Internet
Complaint Date:
consumer TCS?
made serious mistakes in
in foreclosure, causing
10/31/05
Check (Personal)
10/28/05
Comments: Company maintains negative entry on my credit reports, stating
"60 days past due". The account was paid in full and closed in January
2003, but is still showing currently past due. Have contacted the
company to no avail. Have also filed disputes with credit reporting
agencies, but they refuse to correct the entry, inferring it's the
responsibility of Litton to make any changes, which they refuse to do.
Naturally, this is having a severe negative impact on my
Credit score (s).
Created By:
RLOPER
Created Date:
10/18/05
Updated By:
VLAW
Updated Date:
11/07/05
CI
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS S
Amt Paid:
32,118.00
payment Method: Certified Cherub
Agency
Internet
Complaint Date:
lO/l6/05
44
Comments: they just keep saying we owe them more than we do. And now they
are trying to foreclose on my home please help me.
Created By:
08/23/05
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS - CIS
Amt Requested:
43,000.00
Amt Paid:
35,000.00 Payment Method: Bank Money Order
Agency
Contact:
Internet
Complaint Date:
08/22/05
Comments: The consumer is calling on behalf of her husband. The consumer
states that he is trying to refinance his mortgage loan with Litton
Loan Servicing since 05/05. The consumer states that the company
requested he pay different amounts ranging from $3000 to $5000 for
outstanding interest charges. The consumer states that the company is
not disclosing the payout amount of the loan before closing. The
consumer wants to know what his rights are. UPDATE 8/16/05 Consumer
states that Litton has not returned $2700 in escrow and will not give
any information to them or their new mortgage company. Consumer is
being told they will release it on 9/4/05, but they feel the company
has had ample time already. Consumer is unable to reach a supervisor
other than leaving messages that
No one returns. me
Created By:
KSTUCK
Updated By:
EMCMANN
Updated Date:
Org Name:
TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
Amt Paid
2,700.00
08/16/05
Comments: I have a mortgage with Litton. I paid Mays payment in 2 checks.
The first was from my joint account for 607.81 and the second was from
my personal account for 1200.00. Both checks cleared the bank on
04/29/2005. The 607.81 posted to my account and the 1200.00 did not. I
called Litton when I got my bank statement and they instructed me to
fax a copy of the cancelled check to 713-960-9576 at Sylvia which I
did. 1 week later I got a call from the collection department. I
explained the situation and they had me fax another copy of the
cancelled check to their research department. Between May and June I
spoke to Litton 7 times and was asked to fax the cancelled check 2 more
times. I spoke to 3 supervisors who assured me this would not affect my
credit because the check was in research. On 06/28/2005 I was in the
process of a refinance and was told that Litton reported me for not
making the May payment and that my credit score had dropped from a 636
to a 560 because of Litton. I called Litton to get a letter for the
bank and was told they do not see the check in research and I would
have to fax the check and my bank statement yet again to a different
number. This is affecting my interest rate on my refinance and I have
done everything Litton has asked and they are destroying my credit over
money that has been received and cleared my bank. I am a Federal
employee and I cannot believe I am being treated like this. I am
supposed to close on my refinance next week and Litton is making it
impossible. I have spent over 20 hours on the phone with them to
straighten this out and every representative and supervisor gives me a
different story ...Help
Created By:
JKELLER
45
Created Date:
06/29/05
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
1,807.81
Ref No. : 6298186 Contact Type: Complaint Source: Consumer TCS? I! J
Comments: Litton loan has been reporting to credit bureaus that I’m 4
month's late every month in montage payments. I have been fighting with
them for years and they continue to harass me via mail, phone. They
asked me for lump sums of money and falsely filed a fake foreclosure on
me through one of their law firms that no longer service the because of
the fake file. I’ve had interested lenders and they hold my files until
the matter is solved. Litton is asking for an $86,000.00 payoff and has
been for the last four years. I have been working with a cap and he
wanted information answered that Litton isn't willing to supply. The
other lenders also have the same questions and are baffled just as
much. I'm unable to get on with more important matter in my life
because of Litton. There is more to the problem and Litton has altered
my account so many ways that as soon as a credit report is generated,
I’m denied because it has for closer on my report. I spoke with the
fisher law group and there is no record of this type of information
filed with any court. This is a one of the ways Litton is destroying my
credit. This is a huge problem for me and I have found no one who cares
enough to handle this problem. I've written to this company before in
hopes that someone is able to help me. I want to file a suit against
Litton because it turns out that they owe me over thirty thousand
dollars and I need an attorney that I cannot afford to file the
complaint. If there is anyway that you can advise me or help, contact
me soon. Thank You
Created By:
Updated By:
Org Name:
Am Requested
Amt Paid:
DBRAHLEK
Created Date:
06/23/05
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
86,000.00
60,000.00
Payment Method: Wire Answer
Try
Comments: The consumer has a mortgage loan that was sold to Litton Loan
Servicing. The consumer usually pays her mortgage by sending a check.
Since Litton Loan Servicing has been her mortgage lender, they have
been taking our unauthorized fees from her checking account
electronically by using her check number. Litton Loan Servicing has so
far taken approx $1000 of unauthorized fees. The consumer written a
letter disputed the charges and she has had no response. 805 of the
loan are owed by another mortgage lender and they claim that Litton
Loan Servicing has never sent them the portion of the payment that goes
to them. The consumer gave no email address.
Created By: JPENN Created Date: 06/15/05
Updated By: JPENN Updated Date: 06/15/05 Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND
CONSUMER SENTINEL
Amt Paid:
1,000.00
Comments: This is a mortgage loan servicing company who is handling my
mortgage for my lender. I have never46 missed a mortgage payment nor have
I ever been late. However, this company insists on calling me after the
1st to "remind" me of my payment and ask when I will pay. I always tell
them the same thing: I will pay the mortgage (1st and 2nd) on the 15th
of the month, or prior to the 15th depending on when I am paid. I have
asked them not to call me but it continues. What is particularly
upsetting when they call me at work? I am a paralegal for a 3 attorney
law firm. I have discussed this with my them and they agreed that
Litton has no right to pursue me to collect a debit that is not in
default. The representatives I speak with are always very nice, but
tell me they have no choice but to call. I have told them that
according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act they must cease and
desist calling me but especially calling me at my workplace. Again, the
representatives are always very nice and say they will take my work
number off their computer ... but they call anyway. I am not in default
on my payments and I consider these reminders both demeaning and
harrassing, especially when I have asked that they stop. Is there
Anything I can do?
Created By:
06/09/05
Updated By:
Org Name:
Am Requested:
Amt Paid:
Updated Date:
1,115.27
CIS
Comments: Litton Loan Company refuses to send a payoff statement for my
mortgage loan, refuses to send a copy of the appraisal I paid for in
2004 and refuses to update payments made to them. They disregard
request for information made utilizing the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act and are attempting to
Foreclose on my property.
Created By:
05/09/05
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS - CIS
Amt Requested:
130,000.00
Amt Paid:
45,000.00 Payment Method: Check (Personal
Comments: I HAVE BEEN OVERCHARGED FOR PRIVATE MORTGAGE INSURANCE AND
OTHER MISC. CHARGES FOR MY HOME LOAN THAT HAS BEEN SERVICED SINCE 3-152004 FROM LITTON LOAN. THEY HAVE MADE GOOD ON PART OF THE OVERCHARED
AMOUNT AND ASSURED THE NEW RATE WOULD BE CHANGED. THIS HAS NOT
HAPPENED. NEED HELP. THANKS FOR YOU
ANY YOU CAN PROVIDE.
Created By:
05/02/05
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
21,684.00
CIS
Payment Method: Check (Personal)
Ref No. : 6006710 Contact Type: Complaint source: consumer TCS? N
Comments: MAIL: Consumer writes a complaint against Litton Loan Servicing
LP. She writes that she sent off her47 payments to Litton Loan Servicing
LP, on time and they didn't credit them to the correct accts. Litton
Loan Servicing LP also was sending threatening letters to the consumer
and harassing ph calls stating that they are going to take her home.
She writes that she has sent e-mails to Litton Loan Servicing LP and
contacted them via ph to get this resolved.
Created By: SCRAWFORD Created Date: 04/22/05 Updated By: Updated Date:
Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
Amt Paid:
3,217.96
Payment Method: Unknown
Comments: Consumer was been working out payment arrangements with his
mortgage loan company, but the account was sold to 2 other mortgage
lenders including Litton Loan Servicing LP. Consumer was paying the
payments of $270.00 a month. Consumer states that Litton Loan Servicing
LP reported the loan as a charge off and a foreclosure when consumer
has been paying Bank One and Blue View. UPDATE: Consumer got behind
because his wife had medical problems. Recently consumer is trying to
get approval to buy a new house and pulled their credit report and
showed a foreclosure. Consumer submitted a dispute letter and was
advised it was foreclosed/charged off. Consumer has done some research
and feels that they violated
The law on how this was handled.
LR
Created By:
EFRYE
Created Date:
04/19/05
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
IREEVES
Updated Date:
17,200.00
2,000.00
04/19/05
Comments: I took out a home equity loan ($20,000.00) in 1999 on my home.
This is an old wood frame home that was built around 1939. My Parents
raised me here. After paying creditors first, I only took 9 thousand
homes. After looking at the finance charges, I will make 360 payments
(30 YRS) totaling $92,404.80. That's almost a $100,000.00. I've paid
faithfully for years $256.00 monthly. Now they are trying to taking my
home.1 filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2003.Can you hell~ me save me
home? This company ripped me off. MY loan # Litton loan # is -Provident
Bank had my loan also. That loan # is (b) (6) provident phone number is 1888- 487-9576.
Created By: DBRAHLEK Created Date: 04/18/05
Updated By: Updated Date:
Amt Paid:
18,000.00
Comments: Consumer has a complaint against Litton Loan Service. Consumer
states this company took over his mortgage loan in Dec. 2000. Consumer
states in 2002 his payment went from $640 monthly to $889. When
consumer called he was told it was due to higher taxes. Consumer states
his taxes did not go up that much and questioned why the raised his
payment so much. Consumer was told once the payment goes up and can not
go back down. Consumer states the company reps have been uncooperative
when he has called for explanation. One rep. is now telling him he has
not made any payments since Nov. 2004 while another has said he is one
payment behind. Consumer states he has
not missed any payments.
48
Consumer did not provide alternate ph#.
Created By: JPITTS Created Date: 04/11/05
Updated By: Updated Date: Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER
Amt Requested: 889.00
Amt Paid:
889.00
Comments: Consumer has a complaint against Litton Loan Servicing LP, her
mortgage company. Consumer states she mailed a personal check in for
her payment and Litton Loan Servicing converted her check
electronically. Consumer states she received a letter from Litton Loan
Servicing stating that by her sending them a check, she gave them
authority to convert her checks electronically. Consumer states Litton
Loan Servicing deducted 5 cents more than the consumer's payment. which
was corrected. Consumer did not provide an alternative# or email
address.
Created By: MRALEY Created Date: 08/16/04 Updated By: Updated Date: Org
Amt Paid:
958.88
Ref No. : 4793598 Contact Type: Complaint source: consumer TCS? The
consumer has a complaint against Litton Loan Services. The consumer
states that the co has been double paid. Once being paid by her and
also paid by the title co for insurance on the home. The consumer has
disputed with the co in writing several times yet they will not get
back to her.
Created By: SMABON Created Date: 08/05/04 Updated By: Updated Date: Org
Amt Paid:
1,200.00
Comments: Litton Loan is owned by C-Bass in Houston. The sole purpose of
this company is to charge illegal fees, withhold payments, charge
attorney fees and in the end to foreclose illegally on homes. I have
been fighting this company for 4 yrs. Mr. Kawaka Hanson has filed a
class action lawsuit against them in Hartford Ct. The suit explains it
better than I can. It charges fraud, racketeering, conspiracy, mail
fraud, violations of RESPA and TILA, act... they are about to foreclose
on my house for payments I have sent them, but they are not posting to
my account. This company "services" loans NATIONWIDE. Why this company
is still allowed to do business?
Created By:
AHOWARD
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
1,410.00
Ref No. : 4764700 Contact Type: Complaint source: consumer TCS? I! J
Comments: In Feb this account with Fairbanks was transferred over to
Litton financial Servicing. The amount transferred was 7127 dollars and
59 cents. The consumer sent a check for over
1500 dollars to Fairbanks not knowing
49 that they were selling the
account. The consumer has no idea where the money went but it was not
applied to the consumer's account. The consumer found that they were
only allowed to charge 15% but they were charging 55%.
Created By: MMCKIM Created Date: 07/29/04
Updated By: Updated Date: Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER S
Amt Paid:
1,500.00
Comments: Consumer states her mortgage company Litton Loan Servicing.
Consumer she did not receive statements for a couple of months.
Consumer states they put the money into wrong accounts. Consumer states
she received a bill stating her taxes were not paid. Consumer states
she had escrow. Consumer was told she did not escrow. Consumer later
found her agreement did have escrow she had already paid a total of
1646.66 for taxes. Consumer states her mortgage payment was raised to
pay back the taxes. Consumer states she was never given a refund.
Consumer state a 4,000 penalty will be placed
On her if she refinances with someone else.
Created By:
BMORGAN Created Date: Updated Date: TOLL
Updated By:
FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
Am Requested:
1,646.66
Amt Paid:
1,646.66
Ref No. : 4614640 Contact Type:Complaint source: Consumer TCS?
Comments: On 22 June 2004 at approximately 7pm a car drove up my drive
way and a man got out and went to the first person he saw and said (I
am from the finance company and you are behind on your payments) my
brother in law was the first person he said this to and then he went up
to a client of mine from Seattle and said (I am from the finance
company and you are behind on your payments) I am in real estate and
this can really hurt my relation with my client. I was in the back yard
so my wife came and got me and said there is a guy here from the
finance company and we are behind in our payments, I went up to the guy
and said I was taking care of it with the bank and he
Left. Can they do this?
Created By:
JXHE INY
Created Date:
06/28/04
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
3,451.03
3,451.03
Comments: The consumer has a complaint against Litton Loan Servicing. The
consumer has no e-mail address. The consumer states that he obtained a
$33,000 loan with Ocwen, and he felt that the loan was illegal. The
consumer states that since he felt that the loan was illegal he stopped
paying on it. The consumer states that Ocwen then sent the loan to
Litton Loan Servicing and they filed a foreclosure. The consumer states
that the home was built on government land and they city had interest
in the land. The consumer states that he was supposed to have a five
yeast loan and then the city would have no further interest in the
land. The consumer states that his father passed away, he and his wife
had to sign a new agreement. The consumer states that he wasn't to sign
50
a new loan and was to be free. The consumer
states that the new
agreement was stating that he owed $46,000. The consumer states that
now Litton Loan Servicing is stating that he owes $48,000. The consumer
states that he had to pay $4,600 to stop foreclosure. The consumer has
no e-mail address.
Created By:
SCRAWFORD
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
Am Requested:
48,000.00
Amt Paid:
9,003.16
Ref No. : 4544364 Contact Type: Complaint Source: Consumer TCS? N
Comments: The consumer is saying that Litton Loan Servicing picked up her
loan. The consumer is saying they do not do conventional loans. They
handle HUD loans only. Her loan is a conventional loan. The consumer is
saying she made a mistake with her checking acct and stopped payment on
a check because the money wasn't in the bank. The consumer later was
told they were not able to take the payment out one month because they
had the wrong acct number. The consumer is saying she later sent them a
cashier's check for $6915.00 to make four payments because of all that
had previously happened. The consumer is saying that none of the money
she is paying this company is going towards her principal. The consumer
is being told she is behind on her payments now. The consumer is saying
she is not. The consumer is being told allot of what she has been
charged for is fees and an attorney. The consumer is being told by
Litton she has been in foreclosing. The consumer is being told by their
attorney this is not true. The consumer had not heard anything about
this until just recently. The consumer is also saying her monthly
payment has gone up. She does not know why. She is being sent the bill
with the late charge already on it. The consumer was told she needed to
contact an attorney in regard to what is going on. There is no email
address. UPDATE: 01/05/06. Consumer complains that Litton Loan
Servicing is difficult to deal with and there is no change in the
situation. Consumer has made monthly payments on time and is not
getting credit
For it. JF.
Created By:
MPHILLIPS
Updated By:
Org Name:
Am Requested:
Amt Paid:
JFLACK
Updated Date:
2,226.00
1,738.00
01/05/06
Comments: My bankruptcy (Ch.13) plan states that I am to pay 288.46 per
week from my paycheck. It also states that 1/2 of those payments are to
go towards current payments, and the other 1/2 goes to arrearage. The
court order also states that they are not to be charging fees or
interest on the arrearage. The company is reporting, in my credit
report that I am two years behind on my payments which is not the case.
The first half of the payment is going to arrears but the second half
is eaten up in fees. I have paid 15,000 in the last year and my balance
has increased instead of decreased. This is ruining my credit and is
stopping me from being able to refinance my
Home.
Created By:
BKEENE Created Date:
06/09/04
Updated
Date:
51
Updated By:
Org Name:
Am Requested
Amt Paid:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
1,250.00
1,250.00
Ref No. :
4334437
Contact Type:Complaint
source: consumer
TCS?I!
J
Comments:
The company claims there is a past due amount on our loan. We
have sent three qualified written requests to dispute the
amount. They have sent us many, many letters. They have never
provided any proof or reason for the overdue amount. They
continue to call and say our loan is in arrears. They took
over our loan in December of 2003. We are at wits end with
these people. We have made every payment to them on time. We
appreciate any help you can offer. Thank you.
Created By:
Updated By:
Org Name: Amt
Requested:
BKEENE
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
2,407.15
Amt Paid:
1,717.00
Created Date:
04/21/04
Comments: The consumer writes to complain on Litton Loan Servicing. The
company has probably had her mortgage since 04/2000. The consumer
reports that the company has placed forced insurance on her mortgage
every year since 04/2001. The consumer reports that since that has
happened she has had nothing but trouble from this company. The
consumer reports that her mortgage payment goes up, and then when she
finally straightens it out again they place the insurance back on it.
The company is claiming to the consumer that they do not receive her
proof of hazard insurance documents, which the consumer does send to
them. The consumer states that the company is holding a credit around
$2000.00 in her escrow and will not give a refund to her. The consumer
reports that she almost lost her home because the company told her that
she could use the money to pay two of her house payments and then sent
her to foreclosure. The consumer did not loose her home to foreclosure.
Created By: CSHORT Created Date: 04/08/04
Updated By: Updated Date: Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER
Amt Paid:
2,717.88
Comments: They have attached an $11,606.76 escrow account shortage to my
mortgage payment. They are requiring this shortage to be paid within 12
months, which is a $1, 176.99 increases in my monthly payment. They
notified me 6 days before the first increased payment was due. I sent a
letter and have had no reply in over 60 days. They sent me 8 notice of
default and acceptation of loan letters in one day. They have accepted
my regular payments in bother January and February. We have never
missed a payment in three years, now they are threatening foreclosure,
without verification of debt.
Created By:
WFRIDAY Created Date:
03/31/04
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS - CIS
Amt Requested:
2,300.73
Amt Paid:
1,123.74
52
Comments: Litton says I am in default, I sent info stating I was not.
Received 16 letters within 9 days of another with different amounts
they said I owed. As looking into this company they have done this to
others also they are causing me to be very emotionally upset. Can’t get
anywhere with them
Created By:
DBRAHLEK
Updated Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
1,594.26
Comments: MAIL: Consumer's complaint was sent by their loan management
company. The management company indicated that 2 checks were sent to
Litton Loan Services Mortgage for payment. One check was from the
management company and one was from Arizona Escrow. The mortgage
servicing company did not apply the funds properly and claim that they
sent the funds back to the consumers/borrowers. However, the funds were
never raved by the borrowers and the servicing company claims that the
checks are still outstanding. The servicing center will not work with
the management company to rectify the situation. The company's contact
information was not given.
Created By: DBRAHLEK Created Date: 03/17/04 Updated By: Updated Date:
Amt Paid:
1,954.49
Comments: Litton is my mortgagee. They are giving me very poor service,
for the past year. They are attempting to increase my escrow by an
amount which is not true. I have tried to contact them, but it is near
impossible to reach them. They have charged me late charges for
payments, while they had possession of the payment check (which was
sent early). These people are the worse of all lenders I have ever
dealt with. I need to know if there is another agency, that I can file
further complaints about this company. I have copies of all letters
sent and cancelled checks, to proof my side of the story. Thank You.
Created By: DBRAHLEK Created Date: 03/16/04
Amt Paid:
1,756.60
Comments: The Company is stating that my father Celadon Puns Jr. is
30,000.00 behind on his mortgage, but they refuse to prove it. I spoke
to Jill Simon and she told me “I can and will not do that." I was told
the same thing by Roxana in the Bankruptcy department. Litton has sent
a payment history only after I complained to the Better Business
Bureau. The payment history went from March of 1998 to January 2004.
After my father and I reviewed the payment history we noticed that
payments weren't applied and there were charges they we could not
figure out where they were coming from. When I asked Litton to explain
where all the checks were applied and the balance for each year and an
explanation of all charges they told me they would not do it. I was
told that I needed to send the dispute to there Foreclosure attorney
(Lumber and Associates). Which I did53 and the Mirada at Lumber told me
that this dispute would not stop the foreclosure. They would review the
payment history and send me a letter of explanation. I don't think this
is right that the can charge $30,000.00 with no explanation or show
proof of charges. My dad is going to lose his home on April 8, 2004 at
the foreclosure sale and I don't know what else to do. PLEASE
HELP!!!!!
Created By:
WFRIDAY
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
10,000.00
Comments: Mortgage Fraud, Credit and Billing issues ever since the loan
was transferred and bought by Litton Loan 1/1/2003.Unexpained charges,
foreclosure charges 1 month after servicing loan through 12/31/03
default and intent to accelerate letters certified mailed with no
signature by Litton representative or employee, Checks written and held
then electronically debited out of my account weeks later to then
charge late fees ,electronic debits have never been authorized by
me,Nonposting of 2 payments in the amounts of $2613.70 each. one to
where Litton electronically debit but will not post that debit to my
account, Have never sent me a statement to verify payments received and
posted nor any posting of principle and interest only a statement that
this information will be forthcoming. Charges of forbearance, attorney
fees, misc.suspense, and $1111.00 late fees. The prior lender have
reported 25 months never late through 1/1/03, Litton has me in
foreclosure process 1 month after servicing loan.1 am only one of
thousands of Litton Loan consumers that are all going through the very
same nightmare and Litton plans to foreclose on my home in 3 weeks and
I cannot get anyone to help me get these issues resolved. Please
HELP.
Created By:
DCRASE
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
10,944.81
Comments: Our credit report reflects a foreclosure paid from Litton Loan
servicing. However, we had received a fax from Steven Ruddy stating
that our loan would be reported to the credit bureau as "Account
Settled" based on the provisions of a short sale on our property. We
abided by the provisions as approved and we are left with a foreclosure
paid on our record instead of what was promised in writing which, was
an account settled. We are now more financially stable and would like
to purchase a new home. Unfortunately, we are unable to get any loan
for 3-7 years due to the foreclosure paid statement on our credit
report. We have written letters to Experian and Equifax. They could not
do anything for us. We have called and the representatives say they can
not help us. Steven Ruddy called us back yesterday but we have not been
able to get back to him as of yet. All we ask is that this is removed
from our credit report and replaced with a "Short Sale Paid."
Thank You.
Created By:
DBRAHLEK
Updated By:
Org Name:
Ameriquest:
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
46,894.07
54
46,894.07
Amt Paid:
Comments: On January 20, 2003 I was late by two and one-half months on my
mortgage payment to Litton. I was told by one of their phone workers
that if I sent in $786.00 by the next day there would be no problem. I
sent the money on January 21 by Western Union Quick Collect, certified
funds. On January 30, 2003 I sent $1500.00 also by Western Union
certified funds. This caught me up completely on my payments.
Meanwhile Mrs. Sheila Roseau had contacted Quality Loan in San Diego,
CA. The two companies were requiring me to pay an additional $1,990.65
over a five-month period, by certified funds to Litton Loan.
Mrs. Roseau was VERY intimidating. I called Jennifer Bosom at Quality Loan
to ask if any foreclosure work had been done by their offices, she said no
but go ahead and sign all the pa perwork. She told me it would be no problem
to default later. Later when I called her she said there was nothing she
could do, I had to pay the extra money.
From February through June, I did pay all the extra money they wanted.
Then another person at Litton, Monica Bradshaw, told me I had to pay an
extra $400.00, plus two late fees which she had promised would not be
charged.
I have paid my July and August mortgage payments but Litton is still
threatening me with foreclosure. I am refusing to pay the extra $516
they are calling for, and I want credit for the $1,990.65.
I think Litton should be called on the caret for harassment,
intimidation and fraud. Thank you. UPDATE: 10/15/2003 Consumer calling
to find out the status, and it was explained that the ft-c does not
become involved in individual disputes. Consumer is reporting that
Litton Loan is adversely affecting her credit. RAL
Created By: DBRAHLEK Created Date: 08/15/03 Updated By: RLOPER Updated
Date: 10/15/03 Org Name: PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
1,990.65
Comments: Consumer states that he had a home loan with a mortgage co.
Linton Loan Services. Consumer states that the mortgage co is going to
foreclose on the loan. Consumer states that the co. is ignoring the
facts. Consumer states he has contacted an attune. Consumer may file a
dispute with the CRA1s about the inaccurate info. Created By: ABAUGH
Amt Paid:
56,700.00
Comments: Litton put a foreclosure message on my credit report in error,
sent me a letter a year ago saying they would remove the derogatory
information and as of this date they still
Have not done so.
I cannot refinance my home because of
This!
Created By:
RBROWN1
Created Date:
08/07/03
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
19,000.00
55
Amt Paid:
19,000.00
Comments: Consumer mailed in complaint. Consumer contacted the Litton
Loan Servicing LP and asked them what the cost to pay off his
forbearance is and was told $ 3,906.89. He told the agent that he was
sending in the payment immediately. He sent in 2 checks one for $750
for his regular payment and one for $3,906.87. Their payment was never
credited to the forbearance. Through numerous calls to the company
nothing has been solved. Consumer wants the check back credit to when
the payment was sent in to cancel the forbearance.
Created By: CHARLAN Created Date: 07/23/03 Updated By: Updated Date:
Amt Paid:
3,906.89
Ref No. :
3130453
Contact Type:Complaint
source: consumer
Comments:
Consumer writes to file a complaint against Litton Loan
Service which holds his mortgage. Consumer is reporting that
the company claimed that he does not have fire insurance on
his mortgage, so they obtained the insurance for him at a
Premium of $3687.96. Consumer has sent them proof of
insurance 3 times, but they still are trying to collect that
Money, which was taken from his escrow. No phone #s provided
Created By:
SBUSTER
Created Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
Updated Date:
3,687.96
3,687.96
07/03/03
Comments: I was trying to refinance my house and Litton is the co.
serving my loan. Three weeks into the process they started saying I was
paying a month behind and they are reporting that and now I can't
refinance my house.1 have all my check stubs and I am not behind. They
have over 200 dollars worth of late fees and they are killing my
credit. I just want them to straighten this out. It has been over 2
months and I still can't get anything resolved. They won't help me or
return my real 1 what hill d I do???? Please help me. ! ! ! ! (b)(6)
Created By: AHOWARD Created Date: 06/27/03
Updated By: Updated Date: Org Name: PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
695.00
Comments: Consumer states that his loan was sold to Solemn Bass. Consumer
states that Litton Loan Servicing is the company that he uses to
collect the loan payments. Consumer states that he paid his normal
56
mortgage amount plus he paid off the arrearages on the forbearance in
TCS?
January of 2003. Consumer paid over $3400. Consumer states that the
account was placed in escrow. Consumer states that he received a
statement in February showing that his account has not been paid.
Consumer states that they placed the money to a different account.
Consumer has a copy of the check showing it has been cashed. Consumer
states that it is showing on his CR that he is still behind. Consumer
states that the company will not return his ph calls.
Created By: MRANDLE Created Date: 06/04/03
Amt Paid:
3,400.00
Comments: The date above is the date the company first told me there was
any difficulty with my December 2002 loan payment. Prior to that, they
told me my January and February payments had not been made, and they
had. I also made the December payment. It was made by phone, and I have
a confirmation number. The loan company says the bank reversed the
payment for insufficient funds. There were sufficient funds. The bank
says the loan company never submitted the payment I made to them. They
have charged me late fees and reported me late to the credit bureaus. I
have been trying to untangle this mess with them since January, when
they first told me I had not made a payment which I had in fact made.
My loan was transferred from Fremont to Litton in January. Litton is
persisting in charging me late fees and reporting me late, which is
ruining my credit, and making it impossible for me to refinance away
from them. I did make a separate payment to them as they never
collected on the original one, and I did it as soon as they told me
they had not received that payment.
Created By:
TLENTON Created Date:
05/12/03
Updated By:
Updated Date:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
Am Requested
1,762.70
Amt Paid:
1,762.70
Comments: Litton loan service has accused me and my husband of not
sending them 2yrs mortgage payment, when we have sent front and back
copies of certified checks for the payments they say we have miss. We
also tried to talk with them over and over again and they refuse to
listen to us. We also had to hire an attorney to stop them from
foreclosing on our home. We are right now going through another chapter
13 because of them. Even the trustee’s office is confused as to what
Litton loan service is trying to do to us. We suspect predatory lending
practice is taking place with the mortgage company. There are also 30
other people just to name a few that are going through the something as
us. Can you please help us? Thanks
Created By: NSHOUSE Created Date: 05/06/03
Updated By: Updated Date: Org Name: PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
12,000.00
Comments: My loan servicer almost blew the sale of my house. They said
that it would take 7-10 days to collect my mortgage payoff information.
They took that long so that they could keep my interest and because me
damages. Every day is more taxes that
57 I have to pay on the property.
Industry standard is 24 hours MAX. They are robbing us blind. Please do
something!!!!
Created By:
NSHOUSE
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
20,000.00
Ref No. : 2928533 Contact Type: Complaint source: consumer TCS? I! J
Comments: This loan servicing company has been servicing my loan since
March, 2003. Statements don't reflect payment of March mortgage pmt.
Pmt was sent Feb. 28 via Express Mail (tracking code EU931311373us) in
form of USPS money orders. COMPANY'S CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE STATES
OFFICES NOT OPEN AND TO CALL BACK LATER NO MATTER WHEN THE NUMBER IS
CALLED. THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTACT THE COMPANY TO CLEAR UP THE MATTER.
PLEASE HELP!
Created By:
AHOWARD
Updated
Date:
Updated By:
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Amt Paid:
1,608.00
Comments: In December of 2000, Litton forwarded to us a FORECLOSURE
ACCELERATION LETTER, and demanded over $2000.00, to stop this
acceleration. Litton bought our loan in November of 2000. We sent them
our first payment November 17, 2000. The other company had been paid
the last payments for September and October of 2000. Litton said to me
since I sent those payments to OCWEN (our initial mortgage bank) and
OCWEN had not forwarded them to Litton, we received the Acceleration
Letter and our first threat of foreclosure (only 2 months after they
had purchased our loan). After a complaint to the Better Business
Bureau, we finally started getting things in writing. We are in the
final stages of our fifth (5th) loan modification agreement, they
continue to agree with us to settle, then they add more money to the
loan, deny their own agreement, refuse payments, and it starts all
over. Our original loan was $108,000.00, they have us now owing them
$130,000t1 and if we want to keep our home, we must settle by their
demands.
Also, I have had verbal agreement, but they still refused payments.
This has been a nightmare for us. We had to file bankruptcy to save our
home, and that still didn't work. Our credit is SHOT and we now have to
give them more money and high
Interest.
Created By:
AHOWARD Created Date:
04/11/03
Updated By:
Org Name:
Am Requested
Amt Paid:
Updated Date:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
2,910.00
2,910.00
Comments: Wrong Form? Litton Loan Servicing took over servicing of my
mortgage January 2001. Feb 2001 phoned and said I was $10,000 behind. I
said I would pay $7500, plus regular monthly payments and after 6
months would add to my monthly payments until balance of $10, 00 paid
off. Litton agreed, I sent the money as promised. 6 months later Litton
Reps said there was no agreement, stated
different amounts that I was
58
behind. I request a moratorium on my foreclosure that has resulted.
Litton is selling my property 4/4/03. This should be stopped because
Litton has failed to apply $800 that I paid them & I think has failed to
report that $800 as income to IRS, plus charged me late fees different
from my original contract, has replied to my written requests with
meaningless information and then stuffed meaningful replies into my
files. They have stalled in replies to settlement negotiations in order
to drive costs up. They conducted a sale on the courthouse steps in Feb
2003, and were unable to provide a buyer that was there any info on how
to buy and now deny it ever happened. Have e-mailed my attorney about a
settlement packet, but I have never gotten such a packet and now the
sale is set for 4/4/03. I know of at least 10 others who have had the
same problems with Litton. Furthermore there is something very fishy
about the owner servicer relationship. I thought my contract was owned
by Headlands who became Green ... sold to PNC Mortgage who became Wash.
Mutual who sent me to Litton BUT according to my county records; State
Street Bank & Trust Company of Mass. has been owner of record all along.
Created By: AHOWARD Created Date: 04/04/03 Updated By: Updated Date:
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid: 24,000.00
Comments: Consumer paid up front a prepayment penalty of 11.925.00. The
consumer agreed to pay that amt as part of the loan conditions.
Consumer’s loan went into foreclosure and was informed to pay another
21,019.74 for prepayment penalty when the home went into foreclosure.
Consumer was never informed of this when obtaining the loan. Created
By: DINGRAM Created Date: 03/27/03
Updated By: DINGRAM Updated Date: 03/27/03
Amt Paid:
21,019.74
Comments: My mortgage loan with Wilmington Savings Fund Society (WSFS)
In Wilmington Delaware, was sold to Litton Loan Servicing
Effective 3/1/02. Litton sent their notices to the condo
Address in DE, not to the correct address (as was given to Litton by WSFS).
The condo tenant ignored certified mail notices Litton sent. It wasn’t
until my father (Ed Broadbent) went to check on the condominium & was given
the certified mail slips from the post office did I know what was
happening. Included in this unclaimed mail was the NOTICE OF D EFAULT &
INTENT TO ACCELERATE. Subsequently, after much telephoning & writing I had
to pay, over & above all the late fees incurred an additional $750.00 for
them to reinstate the loan.
What I want is for Litton to refund the $750.00, my attorney fees of
$450.00, additional late fees in the amount of $148.30. I know that
this is their modus operandi to obtain extra revenue from these
transfers of loans.
When I received the letters from Litton via Mr. Broadbent, I sent the
back payment & that check was returned to me with a letter saying it
wasn’t enough, & Litton proceeded with their process --foreclosure.
It wasn’t until I engaged an attorney that the resolution was reached.
This is a scam that Litton uses to bilk additional monies from the
loans they buy. This cannot possibly be legal, if it is legal, there
should be a public record of this unconscionable process.
Created By:
CPHELPS Created Date:
02/27/03
Updated By:
RCONDON Updated
03/03/03
59 Date:
Org Name:
Am Requested
Amt Paid:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
1,348.00
1,348.00
Comments: My wife and I do not have the best credit. We are not a good
loan risk. We have flustered and struggled to stay on our feet.
Litton Loan Lap bought our mortgage a several years ago and have been
confusing us ever since. We fell two months behind in our mortgage
payments in August of 2001. They defaulted our loan and returned our
checks. I pleaded with them on the phone and they said they would
"refinance" the loan at a lower interest rate.
For one year they did not except a mortgage payment and in March of
2002 we received our new loan. The interest rate went from 9.5 to 8.5
and the loan went from 88,000 to over 100,000. We had no choice so we
accepted.
They also cancelled our homeowner’s insurance policy and billed us for
over 2,400. Four months later our mortgage payments went up an
additional 500 dollars a month. This was for the insurance. I faxed
those copies of insurance that I paid on my own and I have not been
reimbursed for that. I did however obtain a new insurance policy on my
own (deluxe) and it is under 500 dollars a year.
I'm not saying I'm a great person, I just think these are reasons
people stay in debt. Thank you for listening to my complaint and I hope
you can help Litton Loan Lap become a better mortgage company. I feel
scared and helpless knowing someone has the power to take my home.
Created By:
RMCLAUGHLIN
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS -CIS
Am Requested:
100,000.00
Amt Paid:
100,000.00
Comments: Consumer reports that Litton Loan Servicing charged her for an
account that she had previously had with Ocwen. Ocwen sold the account
to Chase Manhattan. The consumer has already paid the Ocwen account
during a foreclosure and the consumer has the receipt to verify the
transaction. The consumer refused to pay the charges to Chase Manhattan
and now there loan servicing dept. with Litton Loan Servicing has put
the consumer back in foreclosure and she had to pay alot of extra fees
because of their mistake.
Created By: E DUN I GAN Created Date: 12/18/02
Updated By: E DUN I GAN Updated Date: 12/18/02 O
Amt Paid:
11,000.00
Comments: Consumer states that he had a mortgage with a company. The
consumer states that he played 3 payments 3 months in advance. The
consumer states that right after he did this, the mortgage was sold
over to Litton. The consumer states that Litton refuses to acknowledge
these payments and states that the consumer owes them. The consumer has
provided proof to Litton of payment but they refuse to cooperate.
Created By:
AHOWARD
Updated By:
AHOWARD
Updated Date: 10/31/02
Amt Requested:
Amt Paid:
3,468.87
3,468.87
60
Comments : Consumer got a call from this company to enter into a program.
Consumer entered the program for $640.00 to bring the consumer's account
current. Company reported the consumer 180 days late, but was never late.
Consumer requested a statement on where the consumer's money is going and
the company refused to give t he consumer a statement. The company has been
taking money out of the escrow. Consumer does not have a work number or an
e-mail address. UPDATES: 11/1/2002: The consumer stated that when the loan
was bought, the consumer is being punished twice for credit delinquency.
The consumer is missing over $2000 from his escrow account. The company
claims that the consumer has been with the company since 1984. The consumer
never gets statements. The consumer has contacted the BBB. The consumer
believes that the compa ny uses credit information to commit extortion. The
company uses fancy terms that do not apply or are too vague as an
explanation. JV UPDATE: 11/18/2002 Consumer stated the BBB in TX is going
to remove the company from their listing. The consumer took the case to an
attorney and verified that it was fraudulent. The company worked for HUD
and gave herself as "power of attorney" over the consumer's property. The
consumer was told by an attorney that he would need to pay $5000 in order
to creep his home back. The consumer states that Solomon
Brothers are being investigated already for consumer fraud.
>
ONS.
UPDATE: 12/20/2002 Consumer stated that the consumer's credit
Continues to be updated because Experian and Experian Scorex
Also owns Litton Loan Servicing LP. The consumer had a
Delinquency on home in 3 of 1996. Company will not correct
Information. The consumer stated that there is a conflict of
Interest. They are also tied in with Salomon Brothers
Reality in NYC. ONS. UPUDATE: 12/26/2002 Company i s acting as
A government agency, but they are listed as third party
Collection agency DMB Full
Created By: S GARNER Created Date: 10/21/02 Updated By: DBRAHLEK Updated
Date: 12/26/02 Org Name: TOLL FREE NUMBER AND CONSUMER SENTINEL
Amt Paid:
2,000.00
Comments: After clearing a repayment plan for prior foreclosure, Litton
has continued what we consider predatory mortgage practices as
described by our attorney. Litton claims that we owed them $5290 and
our records clearly indicate the account is up to date. The harassment
via recordings, certified and other type of mailings is constant and
when we try to call back and discuss this matter, we either get treated
poorly or they transfer us to "someone's" voice mail from which we do
not get return phone calls. They are presently holding over $4,000 in
screw overage which they are refusing to return to US. All the
correspondence we get from Litton ignores our position that the
mortgage is up to date. We do not appreciate this kind of treatment as
US citizens and human beings. Thanks for your consideration.
Created By:
CPHELPS
Created Date:
10/09/02
Updated
Date:
10/10/02
Updated By:
HBUCKMON
Org Name:
PUBLIC USERS
-CIS
Am Requested
5,290.00
Amt Paid:
2,580.00
61
Litton Loan Services Consumer Complaints
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/litton_loan.html
Paul of Sycamore IL (10/05/08) my home loan was sold to Litton Loan Service from SunTrust in
April 2008. After our first payment they started applying late fees. We attempted to call them and
could not get a person on the phone. In July they increased our payment, on a fixed loan, to over
200.00 dollars additional a month. We called for an explanation and again no answer. We left
messages with no reply. I am self employed and with the economy the way it is I could not afford
the increase in my loan, not to mention my wife is being laid off from her job, which has required
us to relocate. We can not sell the house due to the economy, so we have decided to lease it.
However, we are quickly falling behind on payments but are unable to get anyone on the phone at
Litton to discuss our options, and the increase in our Loan. I found all the reports on the internet
and really started to panic. It would appear I am going to get hit by Litton like so many others. I
have received letters of threatened foreclosure when my payment was less than 30 days late. I am
frustrated and angered that a company can get away with damaging peoples credit, causing people
to lose their homes, and nothing is being done to protect the consumer. I am starting to wonder if
bankruptcy is my only alternative.
Courtney of Carol Stream IL (08/19/08) I just became a victim of the scam that many others have
had to face. I've had Litton for 2 months now. My first month’s payment was fine. This month’s
payment they claimed to have never received it. I called them last week and they said because I
sent it US Mail that there was no way for them to track it and I would need to pay my balance in
addition to the late fee. Also, I would need to stop payment to the check I had mailed and pay the
fee to my bank to stop that check.
Just today I received a letter in the mail saying my check #651 (which is not the check number of
my payment) in the amount of $2010.94 (which is not the amount of my check) drawn on Bank of
America (which is not my bank nor has ever been) was returned because account closed. They are
saying I need to send a replacement fund in addition to a service charge of $25. I'm not sure what to
do at this point. I really hope this company gets what they deserve!
Kristina of Woodstock IL (06/18/08) Litton Loan is has racked our credit for life. It all started back
in 2003. We purchased our home and had Fremont Investment as our holder. We had a low interest
rate with an arm. Our payment was $1700 a month. They sold our mortgage to Litton in 2004.
When it transferred, we were not having our taxes and insurance escrowed. When we signed the
papers with Fremont, somehow we signed for escrow. Because of this, Litton decided we owed
back escrow and we were immediately 2 months backed up. So, we decided to refinance with a
different company because Litton was so hard to deal with. We did and guess what, Litton got it
again. Our mortgage payment went up when we refinanced to $2480.00 and was at 6.5% on a 3 yr
arm. In a two year time frame, I had alot of misapplied payments and therefore got behind with
them again. They never could give me an answer to where the monies went. Because of the issues
of the misapplied payments, our credit went down the toilet. Every time we got caught back up,
payments got misapplied. So, when our arm came due, we could not refinance. Our original
papers said that our interest rate could not go up more than 1 point in the first 6 months. Litton
went from 6.5% to 9.5% and jacked our payment to $3800.00. They said, in the small print. I
immediately put the house on the market and within three months, had a pretty good offer. Litton
62
then said I had a $10,000 prepayment fee. My loan papers state a 1 year prepayment fee. Litton
again said, in the small print. Behind 2 months in mortgage payments, Litton would not wave the
bogus prepayment fee, and the deal was lost. My offer at that time was $428,000.00. We continued
to struggle trying to sell. Last January, Litton decided to offer us a fixed interest rate of 7.5% and
bring the loan current. They said to send them $3300 and that would be the first payment of the
new loan. We sent the money. When our first statement came, it said we owed our first payment.
When I called Litton, they said the $3300 was closing costs. I still have never gotten any papers on
the refinance, but that is water under the bridge. In the continuing months, we had more
misapplied payments and went into foreclosure. We moved out, but still had it for sale. The
furnace gave out this winter and the pipes froze, doing $80,000 worth of damage. The insurance
paid out and Litton said that I needed to sign the check to them and they would notify me as to if it
was in their best interest to fix the property. After talking to 10 different people, I was told that it
would not be in their best interest and to try to sell the home AS IS and that I had till August before
the auction. Luckily, I got a buyer for the property. The offer was lower because the damage to the
property. The offer was $250,000 plus the insurance check for a total of almost $300,000. It has to be
done as a short sale though. Four days after the offer came in and I notified Litton, our sale date
was moved up from August 7th to July 19th. Litton told us all the information we needed to send
them to get the sale done and Holt the auction. This was three weeks ago. I sent them all the
information three weeks ago. I had called over 30 times and never got a phone call back. Last
Friday, I was told by a foreclosure rep, they had no record of a short sale. My lawyer faxed the
papers again on Friday. Today is Tuesday, and I finally got a call back who told me, they have no
papers on a short sale. Told me to fax again. I am going to get my home foreclosed because of
Litton and their practices. I have done everything in my power to make my payments and stay in
my home, but this company doesn't care about anything. I have tried to sell the property, but they
do not care. My home was 3600 sq ft and we had to sell everything we had to move into a little
house, because our credit was so shot, we could not move into anything that required a credit
check. We will have to claim bankruptcy.
Annette of Maywood IL (03/17/08) I filed a Chapter 13 on 8/29/08 Litton. They had stated
foreclosed on 8/2/08. All mail was sent to another lawyer, not the one I hired. In the month of
January, I received a letter stating that I was over $6000 behind. I called, and no one ever returned
my call. So in January again I received another letter stating that they were going to court on
January 28. I received a letter from the trustee of my Chapter 13 stating that my biweekly payment
was going up, so I just assumed that the $6000 was placed in the Chapter 13. On Feb 5, I received a
letter from Litton stating I have 14 days left to save my home, so I filled out all the paperwork,
submitted it, called and faxed the information along with $1,300.00. On the day of the sale I called
and was told that the sale was postponed until 4/9/08. I waited for the papers to come so I could
sign; there have been no papers thus far.
Angela of Sullivan IL (02/11/08) they tell us our payments are behind and it seems we are never
caught up because they hold our payment and always charge a late fee which is their fault. I want
to sue them. They are ruining our credit and we are paying out hard earned money and we cannot
get a new loan because they make us look late They tell us our payments are behind and it seems
we are never caught up because they hold our payment and always charge a late fee. This is
ruining our credit and paying out hard earned money. We cannot get new l
John of Libertyville IL (03/04/07) I had refinanced through Litton and sold the property about 1.5
years after. I was charged $10,000 in pre-payment penalties. They never told me of this at my
63
closing. Also, I've tried to get copies of my closing statement showing the disbursement of the
$10,000 on 5 different occasions, and they never send me the documents! I can't claim the penalties
on my income tax that would save me 20% of $2,000.
Debbie of Dennison, IL (02/21/07) our mortgage was sold to Litton Loan. Of course, we knew
nothing about it being sold. What a nightmare dealing with Litton Loan. They are always charging
late fees because they hold onto our payment until after the due date. On our last statement it
showed on a $783 payment, $700 was for interest and only $83 went on principal. What a rip off
company! Of course, we can't find anyone else to refinance us due to living in a manufactured
home, not to mention our bad credit now.
Phillip of Columbus IN (09/22/08) I got behind on the loan they sent me modifies. I was excited I
have a 10 and help interest with a balloon they gave me a new 8 and half. Instead of paying 1179 it
went to 850 and a totally of 105 thousand dollars. I finally got a balance on the loan but they kept
foreclosing procedure going on my property. Had a notice on my door a sheriff sale. Called them
up they kept reassuring me that the modification would go through. 2 weeks before the sale I
contacted an attorney. The last 24 hrs we filled bankruptcy its in chapter 13. They raised the price to
118 thousand and well not corporate on justifying the new amount my credit is very bad now. I
fired my attorney cause he won't petition the court for a hearing on this matter. I am paying the
trustee plus 1200 to Litton and 1052 to the trustee I get no paperwork my old attorney says they are
not breaking the law. I want an audit of this account and can't get it
Marilyn of Noblesville IN (12/01/08) Our home is being foreclosed on, regardless of the amounts
paid and agreements we have signed for remodification or refinancing - twice. We have tried to
work with the Loss Mitigation Dept. at Litton, but can never get a phone call back from them. Even
a Realtor couldn't get a return call to get a payoff balance amount, or to see if a short sale was an
option. The house was due to go to Sheriff's Auction on October 4, 2008. We moved into an
apartment in expectation that it would be sold; but the house has not been sold! Litton and their
lawyers couldn't get the correct information and forms to the Sheriff's Dept. in time. We had an
offer on the house but couldn't get Litton to answer the phone - let alone an answer to the question
of whether they would accept the offer. Here we are, Dec. 1, 2008 and we finally have been told the
house will finally be auctioned Dec. 18, 2008. In the meantime, we've continued to have utility bills
at the house (don't want to turn off the utilities due to possible freezing of pipes), as well as those
for our apartment. We have been affected like so many others with the economy. My husband has
been let go from three different jobs in the last two years due to economic downturns in the
industry he works in. He is now working at a grocery store (he has an electronic tech degree) as a
utility clerk (carts and bagging groceries). It doesn't pay much (1/3 his previous salary), and the
additional utility bills are killing us. The stress is phenomenal. We are behind on other payments
now due to this, and I fear losing our car. With a special needs daughter who has multiple monthly
doctor appointments and medical bills, it is just that much more stress we don't need. If we lose our
car, my husband can't get to work (no mass transit available here) and I can't get my daughter to
appointments. Needless to say, we argue a lot about finances. I say turn off the utilities and let
whoever buys it worry about any problems. We couldn't then, and can't now, afford all the delay
Litton has put us through.
Carl & Susan of Kokomo IN (04/21/07)We have gone thru a bankruptcy this last year. In 2/07, the
trustee made a huge payment to our mortgage acct. of which most of the payment was consumed
with interest. Since this time every payment that we make, they purposely wait to post to our
64
mortgage acct after the check clears our bank. Of course, it's always posted after the due date, when
in reality, the pmt was received many days prior. This now has happened to us 3 months in a row.
The 4/1/07 pmt has not even posted to our mortgage acct; however, our check cleared our bank on
4/2/07. I have sent e-mails to them regarding questions, now they have blocked any access to our
acct online. When we call any phone number that is provided, after the automated service is thru &
we wait to speak to a live person, they hang up on us. This has now happened 6 times. We now are
forced to contact our arty & the trustee’s office with this matter. This company held a check from
our insurance company from storm damage to our garage roof for a year & a half because of our
bankruptcy. The check was in reality cashed by them a month after they received it, but would not
send us any money until our attorney forced legal action. Just received a check for the full amt from
Litton Loan on 4/14/07 and our insurance company sent the check, which was held by Litton in
9/05. Caused delay in repairing our garage roof, hope to fix in 6/07
Michelle of Whittier CA (01/15/08) Litton Mortgage's company website indicates that they provide
the highest level of customer service. However, I have yet to see that. We're currently waiting to
purchase a home, and because of them it's been on hold for a month because they don't want to
provide the payoff amount for our lender to transfer funds. Closing date had been set back in
December 2007, and they came back and said to wait because they were not ready to receive funds.
What company wants to continue to lose money on a home that's been sold due to foreclosure?
Then when the broker tries to get an answer from them to see when they'll be providing us with an
amount, the customer service rep gets mad because he calls everyday. What do they expect? If
they say they're going to let us know in 12 hours, then they say that the file has been transferred to
another rep; then after that they say we're still working on it, or better yet a machine answers, and
no one ever calls back. The last we heard was that they would let us know in 10 days; we didn't
even get a call on the 10th day. I would not recommend them at all, and would hope that other
mortgage companies stop transferring mortgage accounts to them. They have put our move on
hold and have caused us to rent storage and to redraw loan documents, which mean paying fees on
that again. Mentally - very stressful, especially when their customer service representatives are
upset because we're only seeking an answer.
Karen of San Jose CA (05/28/08) was qualified to re-finance my mortgage 2 and 1/2 years ago. The
payment was $3700.00 a month. I was shocked that I qualified to make the payment. I did not take
any money at escrow; it was to recover from being behind. Well I lasted 2 and 1/2 years of making
the payment to who else LITTON LOAN. I HAVE GONE THROUGH MY SAVINGS TO MAKE
THE PAYMENT. I tried to get help from Litton but I could not get anyone to call me back. I did get
put through one time and I was told I could save my home if I sent Litton $40,000.00 and then made
my payments on time. Yea I have $40,000.00 sitting around to send to you. This Thursday at 9:00am
my house will be sold at Auction. I have had this house since 1982.... Now I have nothing. Let's
thank Litton kids, thanks Litton CREDIT DESTROYED LOST MY HOME AGED 20 YEARS AT
ONE POINT THOUGHT ABOUT SUICIDE.
Marc of Rialto CA (02/18/08) our problem started when 9 years ago we took out a 2nd on our
home. And Litton bought our loan. It took time for them to get our loan documents and we were
still making payment to the original lender. So all of a sudden we were behind. A few years after
catching that up they said we missed 7 payments. At that time we were not keeping good records
and really could not figure it out. Paid the $7000 they said we were behind. This drove us into
bankruptcy where we paid back the debts. We paid it off all in full, but since then we have been
65
keeping track of our statements and have noticed several disturbing things, like we borrowed only
$50,000 have paid in 9 years over $60,000 and still owe $50,000. I found out I got a simple interest
loan (whatever that is) and have paid nothing in principal and even when I include more money
indicating on the check Principal Payment they apply it to Interest. We paid a late fee that they said
we owed but did not pay late. We sent a separate check with late Fee and they applied it to interest.
When we get the statement they don't appear on the statement. Some statements show up with
nothing on them, even when a payment has been made. At one time we were paying the loan 2
months early and still nothing. When called and questioned why, they don't know how to answer
any questions. I actually got one Rep in the BK dept. that tried to help, but all of a sudden she no
longer worked there! I, for one, am going to refi, and get a good lawyer!
Jaime of Dublin CA (11/12/08) I have told Litton that my loan is paid on the 15th of each month. I
have had to write them alerting them of my rights and their illegal tactics of late night calls. They
push for a payment within the first 4 days of each month. Every month I get calls to my home that
start on the 7th and miraculously end after the 15th of the month when they receive the payment. If
I pick up the call no one speaks on the other end. When I decide to not pick up the call a message is
left.
Yolanda of Sun city CA (09/22/08) I was 2 - 3 months delinquent on my mortgage because I got laid
off from my work. I contacted Litton Loan and asked for help. They told me I was not eligible for
Loan Modification because I was behind on payments and they are going to put me on a
forbearance agreement but once I agree on the forbearance agreement they will start working with
me on the loan modification. Shortly, after I was on the forbearance agreement I contacted them in
regards of the loan modification, now they say I am not eligible because I agreed to be on a
forbearance agreement. I did everything they told me. How am I getting punished for doing what I
was told by them?
My friend had me contact HomeSaverProgram.org and they worked out the Loan Modification
with Litton Loan. I am so glad I found this company or I would have lost my home by now. It
ended up costing more money with me trying to deal with Litton Loan myself and following their
stupid instructions. I wish I would I known about HomeSaverProgram.org way before I started
dealing with this Mortgage Lender from hell.
Sandra of Fairfield CA (09/08/08) I had fallen behind on my payments with Litton servicing. I had
been asking for help! It took me almost six month to get a loan modification and what I receive in
fact was not what I thought it was. I was also told it is earthier this or that. I can never speak to the
person who I need to speak with and the people are very rude on the phone to you. I also keep
receiving certified letters telling me that I need to pay this amount in full or foreclosures will take
place in 45 days. No one ever call me back from the company. I have yet received a statement in
the mail telling me how much I owe. They have lost money order that I have sent to the company
and telling me that they have not receive my payments and all kinds of other things. Now the have
reported to the credit Boreal that I was late 30 days or more on my payment.
May of South Gate CA (07/06/08) Our Loan was sold to Litton Loan Services on June 1st of 2008. I
immediately looked up this company and found many complaints against this them. So I called the
company to ask when and how to send my payment. They stated they couldn't speak to me
regarding the loan because it was still with Fremont. I had to wait until they had all the paperwork
on June 1st. I called on June 1st and they said that I couldn't make my payment online until all the
66
information was in their system. I told them I didn't want to be charged any late fees, although in
my loan agreement I have a 15 day grace period plus Reaps regulations does not permit them to
add late fees the first 60 days. She told me not to worry and no fees would be charge. I went online
July 4th to make my second payment and I was charged 2 late fees on my first loan. My second
loan was charged a 1 late fee. I emailed them my concern and they replied with another email
stating someone will properly search and respond in 60 days. I'm afraid they will ruin our credit,
and try to foreclose on our home we've had 9 years. I did not pay the late fees because I don't have
extra money to do so. Someone please advise. It doesn't seem right that company can cause so
much pain by breaking contracts or agreements. If they continue to add late fees I will not be able
to keep paying my house.
Jed of Mccloud CA (04/15/07) I have just lost my house to a Litton Loan foreclosure. My wife and I
purchased our home in November of 05. The loan was sold in January of 06 to litton loans.
Immediately the gave us notification of being behind on our payments for December and
Jan.....because the payments had been made to our original loan carrier. The issue of those
payments already being made was never cleared up. We argued with them about the payments
and tried to straighten it out for months.....my credit was destroyed and my initial goal of
refinancing in 2 years was now impossible.
I spoke to a lawyer and he told me that there was nothing I could do about what had happened to
my credit, and that my best option was to stop paying on the house and sell it before they
foreclosed. That is what my wife and I chose to do.
I spoke to Marcus R briefly after trying to contact him for a solid two weeks in January. He told my
that I had until March 29 to sell my home.....I found a buyer in Late February. I decided to
renegotiate my loan contract with litton to make sure that I would have enough time for escrow to
close. They told me that I needed to send them a restructure payment of $4500 and he gave me a
phone number of the person to contact about making the payment.
I called the number and they told me they would only accept payment in the form of a cashiers
check and to send it to the address on my foreclosure notice, I asked for specific instructions on
how it was to be sent and they did not provide any instructions....I asked who it should be attention
to? They said don’t worry about any of that just send it to the address and then they hung up on
me.....one of the hundred times that I called and was hung up on throughout the whole nightmare.
On February 22 I sent the payment. I contacted litton collection department and they said they had
received it but it had not been processed yet on the 4th of March. On the 13 of March a woman
from Caldwell bankers came to our house and asked my wife for the keys because our house had
been foreclosed on and litton loans was the new owner of our house.
I couldn’t believe it. I spent eight days trying to get in touch with someone at litton loans and
finally when I was able to speak with someone....He told me that their was nothing I could
do....they had accelerated the foreclosure and my restructure payment had not been received on
time. Then he attacked me about why had I waited so long to try to call and tried to insinuate that I
was the one who was negligent.
We did NOT get ANY notification of our loan rate change. We were lied to and we were told we
had a 30 year fixed loan! All correspondence was supposedly sent to an address that was NOT
listed as our mailing address! I asked for copies of the docs and Jennifer told me it would take
67
anywhere from 30-60 days to retrieve them. I went to my own files, 3 hours later I had the docs! In
the docs my mortgage friend found that Litton Loan had the correct address all along! Now they
say we are 15,000.00 behind where in truth, the 1723.13 since August 2008 was not applied to our
loan! Where is our $8,300.00!
Litton Loan is trying to take our home away from us illegally! I own a body-shop. It takes
everything I have to make my house payment. I have been in business 28 years. I work 6 days a
week, 12 hour days. I cannot afford to hire anyone I work alone. I have owned this house for 15
years and I will prevail. Where is the Congress rescuing Bill?
Patti of Laguna Nigel CA (12/26/07) Litton bought out my loan with Sebring in Jan. 2007. Since
then they have ruined my credit. How? I send a payment on the first of the month, and it shows up
as arriving 3 weeks late. I decided if they were going to play the "let's hold her check and charge
her late fees" game, I would do an automatic payment through my bank. I did this only to have
Litton return the payment and then claim it wasn't paid. They charge all kinds of unwarranted fees
and then hold my payment in what they call an escrow account, not crediting it to my mortgage
until it would be way over due. I feel this company is extremely unscrupulous, dishonest, and
nothing but run by a bunch of crooks. They stuck my payments in an escrow account charging me
for insurance and taxes that I had already paid! The list goes on and on. Nobody in his or her right
mind would purposely do business with Litton. That must be why Litton has to buy out other
company's loans. They have destroyed my credit. Litton claims I am behind on payments, when in
fact I am current. I have wasted way too much time even dealing with these crooks.
E of Elverson PA (12/31/07)After refinancing with E-Loans, our mortgage was sold to Litton, and
within in weeks they wouldn't accept payments or discuss any reasonable payment to let us catch
up. We ended up selling our home and paying them 38K in interest on a loan we had only signed
for 6 moths prior, we had no choice but to sell and lose.
Joyce of Womelsdorf PA (03/15/08) my bankruptcy was discharged in December 2007. In which
$10,728.00 was forwarded to Litton Loan. January 30, 2008 I received a statement that I owed them
$7,170.92. I spoke with my BC attorney who informed me that the monies were forwarded to them.
Keep in mind, during my chapter 13 I made my regular mortgage payment of $498.00 to them
every month. In February, I received another statement that I owed them $4,426.08. Of course with
many calls to them, they don't know where my monies are, keep telling me it's getting audited. I
have late charges accruing of $920.00, a corporate advance fee due of $2700. I emailed the VP &
executive resolution, to find out today they have me in default. They are showing on my credit
report, and statements that I'm 6 months behind on my mortgage. This company needs to be shut
down. Customer service reps are not polite. They keep asking me when I'm going to make a
payment and I'm up to date. No one can find the BC monies. My pay off request is unreal, Original
loan amount $64,800- Principal balance $55,288.46, Payoff amount $68,401.25. I can't get to the
bottom of this and am awaiting a letter of foreclosure.
Manuel of West Chester PA (10/06/08) My wife and her sister took out a loan that went to Litton
soon after their mom past away. The rep who gave them the loan took complete advantage of their
trust and lack of information, and they signed a 30 yr loan, for $30-some-thousand dollars. No
lender should ever ethically suggest such a loan for such a small amount. However, time went by
and my wife made all the payments on time. We met and got married in 2001. At the end of that
year my wife and I had taken a personal loan to pay for our real state taxes. In 2002 we were
68
contacted by Litton saying that we own the taxes for 2001. My wife kept sending them the
monthly payments, but they began to refuse our payments and sent them back. They claimed that
the taxes were due and that an Escrow account needed to be open and paid for in order to pay the
taxes. Also, they penalized us for all the payments they returned... about 8 of them. They threaten
to foreclose our homes, even after we had sent them a copy of the personal loan that was used to
pay off the taxes (we sent them a copy of the bank's cashier check that was made out to the local
borough). They didn't care, and continued to try to foreclose, sending the Sheriff's office to post a
Sheriff's Sale sign. Like others, we could not get through to them. My wife contacted a median
company that would supposedly work on our behalf with Litton, but they couldn't get through
them either. And, when they were able to do so, Litton refused their offers. Litton wanted the full
escrow amount, plus all of the outstanding balance plus late fees, etc. We were hopeless, and we
filed for bankruptcy as a last resort. Through our lawyer, and her dealings, Litton claimed that we
own them almost $70K dollars, including their lawyer’s fees and a whole bunch other nonsense
fees. We will finish paying off the bankruptcy in the fall of 2009, and the first thing that we will do
is try to get rid off Litton. They set up my wife and her sister for interest only payments. We've
been paying them for almost 15 years and the principal has yet to be touch. I believe that when we
do go to pay them off, they need to recalculate the payments and the time paid, but I have a feeling
that they will give us some ridiculous and outrageous bogus amount. Litton Loan Servicing
should be taken down by the Federal Government, as well as all other predatory companies out
there. All of their loans should be audited and the corresponding adjustments be made. Fees
should be credited when applicable, and they should be fined and possibly even shut down. All
existing loans should be passed to another trustworthy institution appointed by the governing
agency, and/or the customer should be given the opportunity to go with another institution of
their choice. Bankruptcy, embarrassment, financial instability due to paying into the bankruptcy
and Litton Loan (yes, we still have to pay them - - part of the bankruptcy covers their fees /
charges, and we have to send them the regular monthly payment), emotional stress over bills, etc.
Catherine of Pittsburgh, PA (12/11/06) this is the second year that Litton is raising our mortgage
due a supposed lack of escrow. I have found that they charged us for a city tax (and supposedly
paid that tax to Pittsburgh) when we live in a suburb. Last year I had our tax collector talk with
them and we thought it was all straightened out. We cannot afford to have our mortgage
payments go up willy-nilly just because of incompetence, and I really do not have the time to be on
hold for 20 minutes at a time to try and resolve this issue every year.
Tonia of Louisville KY (12/01/08) After 2 years of dealing with our crazy adjustable rate 80/20
mortgage, we finally gave up our struggles with Litton Loan Servicing. Litton lost 1 year of our
payments, tried to file foreclosure, but with the help of a bankruptcy attorney, payments were
found. Now we are in another foreclosure status after we were paying via a loan modification plan
(they offered!). Maybe this is Litton's way of liquidating their stock of loans? It bugs me to no end
that I'm in foreclosure because they can't seem to get their records straight! Now, to add more
pressure, we put the house up for sale, finally got an offer, but they are at a quandary on how to
handle their 20% portion of the mortgage?!?!? Incredible and incompetent. Please do something
somebody! Foreclosure for no reason at all. Credit ruined. Thanks Litton Loan.
Evette of Omaha NE (11/26/08)In July of 2007 I was diagnosed with AML (Acute Meyloid
Leukemia) and subsequently was in the hospital for the next five months fighting for my life.
During that time, my husband took over the bills and contacted Litton Loan to let them know what
was going on. They informed him that, due to the sever ness of my illness and the possible length
69
of recovery (if I recovered and went into remission) we were eligible for a loan refinance or
modification. My husband filled out all the forms they sent to him and sent them back - and we
never heard about it again. When I finally went into remission and returned back to work, our
bills were astronomical and we were forced to file for medical bankruptcy (the mortgage was not
included), my husband contacted Litton Loan to find out about the refi/modification, and he was
told that my credit was not good enough for a refinancing or modification. We do not have that
great of loan terms anyways, and now, just last week, Litton sent a letter to us in the mail telling us
that as of December 2007, they were raising out interest rate. As far as I'm concerned Litton Loans is
just one more company in a looonnnnngggg list who really know how to uphold the American way
of greed!
Wanda of Manchester NH (11/17/08) Litton Loan ignores me and NACA for a restructure on my
loan and foreclosed on us while we were working with NACA. Now they ignore me as I ask for
redemption and forgiveness loosing my home they want us to vacate by Dec 8 2008. Litton still
owns my home no one bidded at auction its REO. I want to stay and work something out but they
won't talk to me.
Jon of Denver CO (11/06/08) We have been trying for months to get our loan modified. Today, 1
week before foreclosure, I finally got someone in their foreclosure department to tell me that they
would not work with us because we have defaulted on the loan. They sent us a request for
modification due by 10/17 but they don't actually show that in their system. This company is
fraudulent and crooked and I'm filing a complaint with our State Attorney General's Office.
Laura of Klamath Falls OR (10/06/08)I had fell behind a couple of payments on my loan, when I
called Litton to tell them I had sent them a payment they told me my home was in foreclosure as of
that day. I went ahead and made payment arrangements on the loan. I paid $4100.00 to make my
loan current. They told me I had to pay $3995.80 in attorney fees for the 1 day my home was in
foreclosure. I told them that it was crazy to have fees of that amount in 1 day. Not even a whole
day, hours. They told me to contact their attorney’s office to discuss it with them. I did many of
times only to be told they did not have the paper work and they could not help me. I called Litton
back and told them to show me proof of the fees. They in turn sent me a quote on their letter head
that stated such fees. I explained to them that if in fact they paid those fees on my loan, I wanted a
receipt of some sort showing that it was the amount paid. They have refused to get any proof to
me. I wrote a letter through my attorney’s office and got a response of nothing that I asked for.
They have also sent me threading letters of default on my repayment plan when I was current and
not in default, threading to foreclose on my house unless I paid. I am now in default and about to
loose my house cause I could not make the extra $566.00 payments they wanted for the attorney
fees on top of my regular payment. I called and asked if they could help me and stretch it out
further so I can keep my home and they told me NO! I don’t know what to do anymore. I have
documented copies of everything from them to me and from me to them, but that does not seem to
help. I am having my house foreclosed on me and my family. The stress alone is enough to make a
person want to die, let alone the humiliation of having to let people know what is going on. Why I
am missing work to move.
Mary of Bluff dale UT (10/02/08) I fell behind on my mortgage, it was with Avelo, and they
worked out a loan remodification with me and approved me and sent them the money to finish the
remodification. My loan in the interim was sent to Litton Loan. Since then I have been trying to talk
to someone that knows anything. They have in turn denied and already approve remodification,
70
have the money and are still foreclosing. I hired an attorney to demand what is going on and stop
the foreclosure and they are totally ignoring him as well. I have sent 27,109.00 in and they can't can
account for it. I am faced with filing bankruptcy tomorrow. These people need to be stopped. I have
everything in the world on the line. I have also filed a complaint with the Texas Attorney General
office, online. I encourage everyone else to do so. Maybe in number we can stop these people. Loss
of my home, loss of money sent on the promise of an approved remodification. Loss of any job
potential in the future with bankruptcy on my report.
Michael of Westbrook ME (11/24/08) Litton purchased our home mortgage on or around 11/29/05
from New Century Mortgage for $135,000 at 9.775% interest with an expiration date of 1/1/2036. In
2006 Litton paid out city taxes of $1954 through our escrow account. In 2007, our taxes from the
City of Estbrook, ME were $2,200.30, which was being escrowed through our monthly payments.
Without notice on 10/1/2007 Litton made a payment of $4,309.05 and stated it was for other taxes,
when in reality the payment was made to Attorney who had filed a lien against the house for an
outstanding debt that was thought to have been taken care of during an earlier bankruptcy as it did
not show up on two previous title searches. On our 2007 Annual Tax and Interest Statement
showed Taxes Paid as $6,509.35 while our actual tax bill was only $2,200.30. Now Litton Loan
Servicing has sent Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate and is threatening Foreclosure. The
economic harm will be the loss of our home and the continued mounting fees including late fees for
the negative escrow balance.
Anita of Turner ME (09/22/08) I'd been having a problem paying my mortgage and they put me on
a payment plan. I still had a problem paying the additional fees so my husband and I decided to
sell our house. Meanwhile our broker had the hardest time trying to get a payoff from Litton. It
took her about 3 months before she got it and we finally closed on the house on June 25th, 2007. I
thought I was finally done with this loan company.
Today 09/22/08 I applied for a loan to purchase a vehicle and the dealer told me that Litton is still
on my credit report as owing them $104,000.00. This is ridiculous. I called Litton and their saying
my loan is paid in full. When asked why it still shows on my report they told me I'll have to write
to their research department to find out why.
I shouldn't have to do that. If you pay for something that is paid in full that's how it should read.
I've paid off vehicles and have never had problems like this. My 2nd loan through Beneficial for the
same property states paid in full on my credit report. So why no Litton? And why should I have to
ask them to research it? I can't purchase a car or another home until this has been cleared up.
Kerry of Greene ME (09/19/08) I needed to modify my mortgage, so I called in April 2007 they
refused to help me until I went delinquent. Once delinquent they suggested I put my house on the
market for short sale. Which I did in July 2007. They also told me if I found qualified buyers, they
would pay me $1500 for working with them at closing. I submitted 4 different offers from qualified
buyers; these offers would have almost completely paid off my total debt. Litton ignored calls
from myself and my realtor for the last 13 months. They did not return any of our voice mail
messages or emails. They never answered on any offer. When we did speak to an actual person,
they were always rude and constantly transferring my account between people. They told me to be
patient. All the while collection calls are being made to me, and foreclosure proceeding began with
their lawyers. No one would look into the short sale, or my 4 offers. My credit is in the dumps
now, my house is up for auction today, and the collection calls still keep coming, and I can't speak
71
to an actual person. I was never notified that the house was going up for auction, and it is now
September 2008. I had to read it in my newspaper. To date I still have not spoken with the lawyer,
and all my documents were at the court in May. I did everything they asked me to do, so that I
could get help, and they never once upheld a word they said. I moved out when I thought the
house would sell when the first offer for short sale was submitted. This offer was 10,000 short of my
debt, so I thought for sure it would go through. Even after I moved I still kept up the house (oil,
plowing, cleaning) so winter wouldn't damage it. This cost me $5000 during the winter 2007-2008.
My credit is in the trash, and I will now have to file bankruptcy - which will again cost me more
money. I have been living in constant stress for 13 months. I have been humiliated by being served
by the police at my work; my home has foreclosure notices on it and in was in the paper. The value
of the house has now gone down because despite my attempts, there were still damages done to
the house over the winter due to it being vacant. My son and I had to move to an apartment. This
has been a traumatizing experience for us both. Also my realtor has work diligently on this
property, had 4 offers submitted, and now she too gets nothing for her work and time.
Ronan of Beavercreek OR (08/30/08) I got a notice from Litton Loan that they needed proof of
insurance. I contacted my agent and he sent necessary papers. When I continued to receive these
notices my agent sent the info. By hard copy, email, phone message several times. I have received a
letter from Litton Loan that they have added $6,535.27 to my loan amount to cover insurance,
which I already have. And my insurance doesn’t cost that much. Then I receive a letter from Litton
Loan stating that they added $809.09 to my account to pay for property tax that was paid. My
property tax was not that much. I have called, left messages, griped to the lady that answered the
phone and she is only responsible for sending the caller to the right person and department. I am at
my wits end trying to get someone to call me back or even respond to the emails I have sent. If
there is anyone who got any response and the complaint satisfied, let us know what you did. If
anyone asks, do not go with Litton Loan for anything. Their web site tells us how great they are,
but I have yet to find out what is so great about them. As of today, Aug. 28, 2008, we have gotten
$7,344.36 attached to our loan amount. I don’t have the greatest health and my husband has several
small strokes. If the stress of this goes on much longer, I dread consequences.
Barbara of Bribe Wareham OTHER (08/13/08)I had a loan with Litton Loan for a property Holly
Springs N.C. in Dec. they sent me a letter saying I had not paid enough escrow and the mortgage
double so I was force to sell the house. After I sold the house and paid then off they sent me a
escrow check of 240 dollar it should of been 1,400.00 dollar I keep calling and they keep sending me
to a different department. I guess because I live out of the country now they feel I can't do anything
can you help me please
Ben of Washington DC (08/08/08) I was conned and discovered into a sub prime loan. I was
promised a lower payment. I now owe more than before. The govt. that swears to honor and
protect the people. Do so but it does not protect the US people. What do I have to live in Darfur,
Indonesia or some other 3rd world country to get help from the elected officials was elected to
office to fight for the people. This company Litton loan purchased a sub prime mortgage. Why
would they purchase these types of loans knowing that they are the considered illegal and the
downfall of the US economy? Litton loan tried to foreclose on my and my wife’s home when she
was fighting terminal cancer. We refi the day before foreclosure and got screwed big time. To make
matters worse Litton would not accept funds from our settlement company which screwed us out
of 20k. The day of the court house sale they would not accept a reg. bank check; it had to be
certified funds. Keep in mind that the amount owed was 250k and the home appraised at 600k, I
72
DO NOT HAVE TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL TO EXPLAIN WHAT TYPE OF LOAN SHARKS
THAT LITTON LOAN GET AWAY DAY IN AND DAY OUT. HOW CAN THE GOVT TURN A
BLIND EYE TO HOW THIS COMPANY OPERATES
Alan of Waverly IA (08/25/08) I have left a message before about Litton and thought I would give
you a update... we lost our house in the flood June 9 of 08 and it is now aug well of course we are
behind . we have received a chi from flood insurance and let me tell you when Litton wants money
they call 5 times a day but for us to get any back its a fight they have just told me that because we
are behind they cant issue us any money to rebuild till we become current.. WHAT ABOUT OUR
HOUSE WE HAVE NOTHING AND ALLL THEY CARE ABOUT IS YELLING AT US AND
DEMANDING MONEY DURI9NG THIS TIME...HELPPPPPPPPPPPP
Alan of Waverly IA (07/26/08) we were bought by Litton loan service a year or so ago and on June
9, 08 we lost our house due to a federal disaster flood in the process Litton told us that they will be
keeping our money from the flood insurance chi and that leaves us homeless they are not willing to
give us any of the money unless we agree to rebuild and our house is not rebuild able..they have
put us on hold, hung up on us and yelled at us about how we are to get our government involved
what can be done we have 4 kids and us .. It was the first house we have ever bought and this is
how we get treated... HELPPPP please they want to foreclosure on us by the end of august of 08
but yet we will not work with us we will not have a house, we will be homeless and we went from
middle class to low poverty due to the flood and now they want to kick us while we are down
Charles of Raleigh NC (07/14/08) my wife and I were very satisfied with our mortgage being with
SunTrust for the year and a half that we have had our house; our payments were never late until
Litton bought our account from SunTrust. We were making our payments automatically taken out
of our checking account, so when we got this little card in the mail saying they had our account,
imagine the surprise and shock we had. When I tried to set up an autopsy account with them, they
told us that they don't not take auto payments and they don't split payments like we had set up
with SunTrust. We got in contact with SunTrust to refinance our home and when we got
approved, Litton advised them that we were late on payments when we had proof of payments
and I called them and they had even told us that we were caught up on all payments but they still
advised SunTrust that we were behind, now they want us to pay them the $1200.00 a month for
two months past due which we are not, before they will let SunTrust know that we are current so
we can close on the refinancing. I have heard other nightmares about this company and they
should be investigated and blacklisted or shut down, no wonder we have so many foreclosures
now than we have had before, with companies like this one! I am a disabled veteran who suffers
from PTSD and the stress has caused insomnia, dramatic weight loss, loss of concentration because
I am always wondering what they will try to do next. Not only that but my wife and I live on a
budget and if we have to pay them $1200.00 at the beginning of each month, that will leave us with
little to no money for groceries, gas or our other bills such as electric, water, phone or anything else
for that matter.
N of Kansas City MO (06/27/08) Litton bought our loan on April 1st 2008. I called at the beginning
of April and was told I was not in their system yet and to call back. I called back and talked to a
representative and let them know my husband was in between employers, we had gotten behind
and that we were on a pay arrangement with our prior mortgage co. They did not care anything
about a payment plan. They refused to work with me and started telling me what they were going
to do if I didn't pay. During this time I spoke to about 5 to 6 different reps and got 5 to 6 different
73
answers. I found a realtor who suggested I do a short sale because my home is very upside down
and after 3 other prior attempts at selling it, we weren't successful. Anyway, I received an offer for
$100,000.00 we owe 129,000. My realtor faxed the paperwork about 5 different times to 5 different
numbers and we're still told, it was never received. Basically, I came to the conclusion that they
want my home and want to foreclose. This went on for 6 weeks. Finally, the buyer we thought we
had, backed out. Our home is going up for a sheriff’s sale on 08/14/08. I don't know what else to
do. They refuse to call me back and I can't get anyone to help. My credit is ruined. Litton should be
stopped.
Nicholas of Mililani HI (06/17/08) This Company has an automated message and calls our home
every day at 800IS in the morning. The message asks for a Christy and obviously there is no one at
our home with that name. I have asked them to remove us from their calling list but they have not
done so. The calls wake my family up on a daily basis - it is draining.
Lisa of Southgate MI (05/01/08) Litton was great with us when it came to 'modifying' our Home
Loan when we got behind last year. BUT, when we had to file an insurance claim with our
Insurance Co, Litton has been absolutely incompetent and uncooperative with the process. We had
to sign over the insurance check to Litton and then they would disperse it to us in two halves. We
were waiting for Litton to send the 1st half after many numerous faxes and re-faxes. We eventually
had to use our own money to fix the water damage in our home because it was in shambles and we
couldn't live that way any more. We were 95% complete and had to call them for the inspectorwhich took TWO WEEKS to get one to the house. Then it took another TWO WEEKS to send the
money. Then, we had to send over the depreciation check to Litton and it has been going on a
MONTH now, trying to get our money. They claim that they didn't get the fax, and then say it takes
72 hrs to get the fax, and then someone else says that they get faxes within two hours and then back
to not getting the fax, back to it takes 72 hrs to get faxes...over & over & over. Different person,
different answers every single time. Because we used our own money to repair the damage. We
would get behind on our other bills, including the Mortgage. So they would want yet another fax to
authorize them to take the payments from the check that they were holding. They deliberately
hold that money until were behind so that they can take it from the insurance check. Each time, the
money dwindles away before we even get it. It's ridiculous! This ins. claim was opened in January
and we still have yet to receive all of our money. Litton should be ashamed at how they conduct
business and there should be some kind of consequences. I am refinancing the first chance I can get!
Which, in this economy, won’t be soon enough?
Rick of Casper WY (03/20/08) they got a payment and did not enter it for two weeks. Then they
said we were late. Then the late charges started and keep going. Then we were in default, so we
had to come with more money or they will foreclose. But they will not take payment until it is
straight, so more late charges - a never ending game. And no one will help because credit is bad, so
how do you fight them? Got behind on everything, no one will talk to me. I am losing my house
and have no where to go. I have no credit and have four people I have to worry about plus a baby
coming and don't know what I can do.
Scott of Lexington SC (01/17/08) my home loan was bought out by Litton Loan. Prior to this I had
never been late. I was notified that my loan was purchased, and then it took 6 weeks for any
information for payment to them. From that time onward I was being charged late fees. Even when
I sent in my payment on time, after the first payment they still managed to add a late fee somehow.
I refinanced ASAP and have not had any problems since, but I still have on my credit: late
74
payments to Litton loan. I tried to get it corrected and sent them a letter, but still they would not
remove them. This has affected my credit in that I have 3 lates from Litton loan. I managed to get
refinanced and now will never go with anyone but a real bank.
Brandi of Louisa VA (09/23/08) my real-estate taxes and insurance are included in my mortgage (at
my request) at I called to request that my escrow account be canceled. I had faxed in a letter on
August 29, 2008 stating that I wanted it canceled immediately. Virginia James became very nasty
with me and told me that if I didn't pay the escrow portion and insurance portion or my payment
then even if I made my mortgage payment on time they would report me as being 30 days late. My
taxes are current and my insurance for 2008 has already been paid.
I am in the process of trying to refinance through the credit union where my husband is employed
but with closing and everything this takes time. I have never been late on a payment and have been
harassed and treated like a sideshow freak ever since my loan was sold to Litton from SunTrust.
Kelly of Callaway VA (07/30/08) I do not have a loan with this Litton Company. However, I have
been trying to buy a house from them since May of 2008 and we are now almost in August of
2008!!! The house was on the market and I stumbled across the listing in mid April. We set up an
appointment with our realtor to see the house. The minute I laid eyes on it, I knew I wanted it. We
immediately put a contract on it. The couple that had the house was divorced and was in
bankruptcy. We were supposed to close on the house May 30, 2008. My realtor had to go to 2
bankruptcy proceedings in June 2008; because we couldn't close on the deal since the owners
wouldn't cooperate and were in bankruptcy and the loan company refused to communicate. My
realtor was assured (verbally, unfortunately) that the deal would be done once he got everything
settled from the bankruptcy proceedings which he spent 2 full days in court over. The loan
company would agree to release the loan and the house would be ours, since we have cash placed
on the table. And have offered full asking price for the house. When he (our realtor0 held up his
end of the bargain; he then contacted the mortgage company. He has been getting the run around
since the last week of June and as I said we are now almost in August, in fact today is July 29th. The
person handling the account was supposedly on vacation until July 2nd. When she was called July
3rd, someone told our realtor that she was out of the office until the following week, because she
decided to extend her vacation. When called the week she was supposed to return from her
extended vacation, our realtor was furred yet again to voice mail. Our realtor has placed numerous
phone calls to be furred to voice mail and no return calls. I called the company myself today and
left a message for Teresa, Vendor Manager who as of 9:36pm has still not returned my call. This is
absolutely ABSURD; I have cash ready to pay full asking price for this house that we signed a
contract on in MAY and this stupid company refuses to work with us... Have you ever in your life
heard of anyone refusing to take cash on top of that when they are offering the full asking price on
it??? This company is completely backwards. I am solo fed up with these people it is unreal.
Kathie of Alexandria VA (11/09/07) my loan was also sold to Litton Loan. I am a realtor and my
sales this year went from 15 million last year to absolutely ZERO this year. I have always told my
clients to always communicate with their lender - the lender does NOT want to foreclose - they will
do everything they can to help you - a lot of them will lower payments, tack late fees to the end of
the loan, etc.
Boy, do I feel like a fool now. It is not Litton's fault that I am in this position - it is mine, however,
they have not worked with me AT ALL!! They won't consider doing ANYTHING to help me pull
75
through. So, as of November 29th, 2007 they will be the proud owner of my home on the East
Coast.
They don't have to tell you about the pre-payment penalty - it's in the note that you sign with
whoever you get your mortgage through. However, holding your payments so they'll be late - task!
Task! Make your payment over the phone - yes, it's another $10 - but that's a lot less than the late
fees.
Samantha of Wytheville VA (01/08/08) On January 2, 2008 I called Litton to make a payment
arrangement for my already late December payment. The gentleman on the line said, let's go ahead
and set this arrangement up for you. I took that as I'll make note of this and you can call in by the
date promised. Much to my surprise, he actually took my payment on that promised day (which
was a Saturday). I thought I needed to call it in so I did on that following Friday night, January 4.
Today (January 8) I checked my bank statement and it shows two payments for Litton Loan for
nearly $800.00 each. I called Litton to clarify the situation and have the latter transaction reversed.
Well, Verna Smith simply said there was nothing she could do about it because apparently I am a
dumb person who made the duplicate payment so too bad.
On top of this, they are charging me over $1400 in what they call corporate fees which they will not
tell me what they are; they just keep saying that I can request a copy of them which I never receive.
Nicole of Racine WI (12/11/07) shortly after my husband died, Litton Loan Services bought my
mortgage and it has been a nightmare ever since. Immediately they raised my interest rate on my
arm and have done so several times. I have called them at least 100 times (no exaggeration) and
every once in a while I will get to speak to someone who is unable to assist me. In October, they
told me that they had a program for people like me who fall behind. They said they don't do
refinancing but they will freeze my interest rate and add the difference onto the end of my loan.
The requested ALL kinds of personal and financial info and in Nov. I still hadn't heard anything.
After calling several times, I finally got in contact with someone who said they now need to come
into my home and take pictures of each room, sort of like an appraisal. I told her I had never heard
of that during a refi but that it would be fine. They got someone out the next day (imagine that).
When the person came to appraise my house I asked what they thought it would appraise for and
she replied, "Oh, I'm not an assessor, I just see if it's in good selling condition- I'm a real estate
agent." Sure enough the following week I received a notice of Default and Intent to accelerate on
my loan. I feel totally tricked by them. I felt the whole time their intent was to allow my home to
foreclose. When I did actually speak to a person when I called, I always asked if I should be making
payments in the mean time. Each time they said it was not necessary, that it would just be sent back
or put on hold until the process was done. My husband was an attorney before he passed away, I
am definitely going to be contacting some of his friends and see if there is any legal way to hold
them accountable for their deceptive practices. My home is currently in foreclosure and I cannot
reach anyone at there place of business.
Steven of Sisseton SD (11/10/06) Litton is one poor company to work with and would advise to
avoid. They purchased a second mortgage from another company I had a loan with and now am
paying them with a high interest rate. I fell behind on a payment and now they are threading to
foreclose on me. I talked to me and they stated if was to send them so much dollars it would be
caught up. I did and now all of a sudden that money was not used for payment but for late charges
that were accrued in there past, one I never knew I had. So now I’m supposedly behind again. Now
76
I’m getting these threading letters and I can not get in touch with them. They do not answer there
800 number or I'm put on hold forever, or just get hung up on. They hold second mortgage a bank
holds first, can they foreclose on me with out confronting the bank who holds first mortgage. These
guys are really a pain.
Zeal of Wixom MI (11/06/06) Litton Loan is the worst to deal with, they do not return calls, you are
constantly hung up on, and issues are ignored. Since my account has been with them payments
have been put in Forbearance Suspense if they are more than the payment amount - even with
detailed written instructions of where funds should be applied. Payments have been sent back or
not receipted and late payment or Default Notices generated with threat of foreclosure for partial
payment. Insurance forced on the account even though they have been provided with proof of
coverage from outside source. Extra payments not accepted and increased ARM rate applied early.
The duress experienced is unexplainable when your home is at stake with a loan service that just
doesn't care, and attempts to underhandedly defy FDIC regulations.
Christina of Wilmot NH (10/01/06) I was running a month behind on my mortgage payment and
made payment arrangements with Litton Loan Servicing to catch up. While I was only past due 30
days I received a notice of acceleration and foreclosure. I called back and reiterated the
arrangements. Not only did they not take the payment out on the arranged day, I wasn't able to
contact anyone in their office today who could help me and they have forced my account into being
over 60 days late, although the cash was available for their withdrawal.
I had a similar experience with them a few months back, when they tried to take my mortgage
payment out of my savings account instead of my checking account. They assured me that this
would not be reflected on my credit report because it caused a payment to be late, but it did show
up and now they say they can't do anything about it. I truly believe they try to steal people’s
houses.
I will now have a mark on my credit of an account being over 60 days, because Litton did not take
the payment from my account on the agreed day and have forced the account into delinquency of
60 days.
Kimberly of South Hadley MA (01/17/08) we refinanced our house about 3 years ago through AFS
Financial. Then our loan was purchased by Litton. About a year after that, I was looking at my bill
and noticed that my Escrow balance was over $500.00 in the negative. When I called them about
this, all they told me was that when the tax assessor assessed the taxes for my area, he came up
with $1100.00. I told them that we had been living in the house for two years (at that time) and that
we had NEVER paid that little for our taxes. When we bought the house, we were paying $1700.00,
and at this particular time we were paying $2000.00. They said they could do nothing to help us.
Skip forward 2 years and a monthly payment that was now up to $1402.08 until a couple of months
ago. I had to call to make my payment over the phone, at the very end of my grace period. I gave
the woman all of the information she asked for and was told the payment would be through in a
day or two. I received a call the following week, and the gentleman was wondering if I was going
to pay my mortgage for that month. Already disliking the company for the past problem, I
explained what had happened the previous week. He put me on hold to check it out. He came back
a few minutes later and said the lady had keyed in the wrong information, and we ended up
paying someone else's mortgage. I was furious. He said he would fix the problem and that we
would not get any late charges. Well, the next two weeks we received 3 letters, 2 of which were
77
looking for us to pay the mortgage. Calls of frustration went to them again. They said we were all
set. The third was a letter stating that we had made the payment and that they were thankful for
our business This Company has left both my husband and myself on edge with them ever since we
got them. With the mortgage payment jumping up twice, it has not been easy to pay some other
bills.
Susan of Methuen MA (12/21/07) I purchased a home in 2003 through Ameriquest. In May 2006
my loan was sold to Litton Loan Servicing. The nightmare soon began. They have returned
payments and have misapplied or failed to credit payments received on a timely manner, charging
unwarranted fees. Litton Loan and their attorneys are the worst to deal with; they do not return
calls, you are constantly hung up on, and issues are ignored. The duress experienced is
unexplainable when your home is at stake with a loan service that just doesn't care and attempts to
underhandedly defy FDIC regulations. On Dec 31, 2007, my 4 children and myself will be homeless
because no one will rent an apartment to me because my credit has been tarnished for no reason.
Ivan of Winthrop MA (01/16/07) South Star lending sold our loan in April of 06 litton has been
scamming us since the recently put a false late charge which has dripped my credit score to the
mid500 when I bought my score was mid 600 after 1 year of on time payments I should be in the
mis 700 we can not re-if we may lose our home we have 3 children in school they have put us in a
horrible position and should be brought to justice!! I work 2 jobs to make the payments we had to
re-if to afford to fix the property we now have to possible sell these companies MUST be stopped, it
is not fair lower income people suffer .. PLEASE HELP ME>... Because of the mental stress my
family is falling apart,
I may be losing my home. My wife is filing for separation, her diabetes is getting hard to control
from the stress, my children can no longer play sports we had to go to the Salvation Army for
Christmas we can not afford food only the MTG.
Darrin of Buffalo, NY (09/25/06) I financed my home through Fleet bank 10 years ago. They sold it
to Litton Loan. From that point on I have had nothing but problems. First of all, after taking over
my loan they stated there was a miscalculation in escrow and they were increasing my payments to
compensate. They also didn't pay my homeowners insurance which was to be included with the
mortgage payment. Because of this the insurance company canceled my policy and Litton put their
own policy in place and increased my payment again! I re-instated the original policy twice and
had the Insurance agent forward the policy data to Litton and in every case they didn’t pay, the
policy was canceled and the payment went up! My payment was $320 and it went up to $540
monthly - all on a $37,000 home.
Melissa of Harrison NY (08/25/08) my husband and I are in the process of buying a short sale
home. We signed our contract in April of 2008. We have been waiting ever since for a closing date.
We have been told that the seller's initial bank involved went bankrupt and a new bank took over
the loan (Litton Bank - over 2 months ago). No one will give us, our realtor, or attorney any contact
information for Litton Bank. I've attempted to call and they will not release me any information.
The women told me to have patience! Information can only be obtained through the seller's
realtor, whom has been helpful, but she too is waiting upon the bank for answers. We have done
everything in our power to expedite this process (i.e. handing in proper paperwork promptly, etc).
We have paid inspection fees, and we have already paid twice to extend our current mortgage rate.
This bank has been taking a very long time and it is costing us money. The seller has moved out
78
already - so how is it fair that banks are allowed to take their time in this process causing others to
pay for it! We feel that this bank is playing games and never giving any solid answers. During our
inspection, it was noted that the house needs a new roof ASAP due to water leaking into house
(other damages noted as well) - we are willing to accept the house in it's conditions and willing to
pay for house as is (given that it's a short sale). However, given that this process is taking forever,
the house can be in further physical damage than before thus the need for us to pay for further
damages. In addition, we have paid for inspection fees, and we have paid money to extend our
current locked mortgage rate - because we have good intentions of buying this house. If the bank
cancels this contract, we will lose an additional $3000 from our mortgage company for canceling.
This is completely outrageous. I've researched on the internet and found that there have been many
complaints against Litton Bank and it should be put to a stop. There has to be a way to protect
buyers from these scams.
Carrie of Bronx NY (07/11/08) Litton Loan Serving LP is a company that needs to be monitored
very closely. I am trying to get rid of my mortgage. So I send in additional principal, each time I do
they apply it the way they want to. MY advise to you who have dealing with Litton Loan Serving
be vigilant they will try to get money any way they can and I believe this company. I think this
company offers poor service. By them having to reverse the payments will this effect my
outstanding balance interims of the interest.
Susan of Clewiston FL (12/31/05) our loan was bought by Litton loan, it has been trouble from day
one. This company holds loan payments 6 to 10 days to charge late fee's , then it takes 6 to 7 months
to get the charges corrected and they still keep the over payment and put it to your loan? Once you
get that taken care of they charge you for insurance that we already have, then the whole thing
starts over -- letters telling us they are going to foreclose on your loan, they tell us now you pay the
extra charges for them to file foreclosure. The loan gets bigger and bigger. This has gone on for two
years, and we have asked for the pay off and as of yet no pay off.
Becky of Hollywood FL (10/25/08) In 2002 my husband was fighting with the VA and we got
behind on our mortgage and we went into foreclosure. At the time of the foreclosure our loan
balance was 72,600 after fighting with Litton for a year they sent us a loan modification which the
new loan was 79,900 which we agreed to. After a month Litton said we owed them another 10,000
dollars which brought the loan to a total of about 90,000 dollars which is totally ludicrous.
This company has been all over the news and thousands of complaints and never gets investigated
WHY WHY WHY. They tack on insurance which is outrageous and take forever in responding to
their clients, they are rude, cold and should not be allowed to service anything. They will do
anything in their power to prolong a matter which pertains to them making and extra penny let
alone a dollar. We have now filed a lawsuit to have the extra 10,000 dollars removed because it was
not part of the new loan modification. So now they claim our lawsuit papers were mis-directed.
When we first started to save our home, in the Judges chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida speaker
phone conversation between Litton and our attorney, Litton accused the judge of sleeping with our
attorney, which needless to say did not go over very well with the judge. The stories never end a
book on corruption should be written about Litton. All this has placed alot of stress on myself and
my husband who ended up having open heart surgery since all this began. My credit report shows
the foreclosure started and has never been removed, when questioned about it they say next year,
but knowing Litton next year will never come.
Faith of Jupiter FL (12/02/08) Small Business Owner been in business since 1989 and suffered some
79
financial difficulties over the last 6 months and feel behind in our mortgage. Missed an October 20,
2008 default date and were 3 payments behind. Sent payment a couple days later, they sent it back
and started foreclosure proceedings on our home. Have been in contact with Litton Loan way
before the default date and now after 2 months of trying to negotiate a loan modification, or one of
the many programs for Fannie Mae loans that have been approved by the government, we are not
getting anywhere.
They lied to us and told us our home was set for sale on January 7, 2009 and there were bids
already on our home. I spoke with their attorney’s office and they said there had not even been any
hearing and there was no sale date, etc. Their attorney’s office said Litton is not one of the
approved lenders to be able to do any loan mod being offered by the govt. such as extending the
payments over 40 years, etc. and we can get no one to help us in this matter.
We had faxed documents, federal expressed different information they requested and they said our
file has not been assigned to anyone yet and it could take 3 to 6 months before they could review it.
I actually said they don't want my house, do they? The Litton Rep told me yes, they do, they
already have bids on your home, which I found out is not true. We are a small business that has
keep many families in a paycheck for many years and we have suffered a difficult year and now we
are going to lose our home because we cannot get anyone at Litton to try and help us. I had to hire
an attorney to answer the complaint for foreclosure, but can you tell me why this company cannot
work with homeowners to try and keep them in their homes, especially since I have a Fannie Mae
loan. Please help us before we lose our home.
Gina of Melbourne FL (12/02/08) Litton purchased my mortgage in06! 07 my arm was up! Called
Litton to refi! My credit was 690! Mortgage crisis hit! They told me that they couldn't refi because of
market value of my home less that what I owed! I said that I couldn't afford the then rising rate of
10 1/2 to 14%! Litton said we can't help unless you are two payments delinquent! So I took Litton’s
advice, missed two payments, called them back! Litton said, Oh we can't refi you now, YOUR
CREDIT IS BAD!!!!! You think? It's been a year now, I'm still in the house, and they won't accept a
payment that I can afford, but insist on 50 thousand over market value! I leave messages, no one
calls me back! Then I get automated calls from Litton at 8pm saying that their counselors have tried
to reach me today! NOT!!!! Until Litton Loan, I never had a payment problem or a credit problem
that was my fault! Now I have to find a rental place for me and my two kids! Not easy with bad
credit and pets! I have no one to help me move or any money to move! I've been seeing a
chiropractor for a bad back for several months now that has eaten up all my savings!
Chris of Clearwater FL (11/12/08) FYI: Avelo is Litton! Or was, I mean. Anyway, we totally got
suckered into a sub prime mortgage by QUICKEN. Had a 7/1 ARM w/ line of credit, from Wells
Fargo: County taxes doubled and needed to refi. In a jam. (Perfect credit), principle balance was
being paid down; we just needed about 3k to pay the taxes. QUICKEN to pay taxes but could NOT
do so if we went with a traditional 30yr. We did not know what a sub prime? mortgage was, and
QUICKEN said our interest rate was locked for the full 30yrs. Turns out that we won't even get 60
months out of the 5yr introductory interest period that they pulled on us. They lied, our mortgage
went to Avelo last year, and in June, 08, our mortgage went to Litton Loan Servicing (a debtcollector!?!) Say it isn’t so. We have had nothing but problems since they began servicing our loan.
They are currently asking us to pay more money into our Escrow Account to build a [surplus]
cushion. We tried to explain to Litton that our taxes and insurance have gone down since our
escrow was initiated. Our insurance premium was reduced by half while we were with Avelo,
and Avelo amended the Escrow payment to reflect the decrease. Now with Litton our county
80
taxes have been reduced by another $400 dollars, but because of Litton’s fluctuating Escrowpayment receipt dates, they are trying to say we are short????????? They will really be sorry, when
we walk away from this place and leave them on the hook for Quickens fraudulent appraisal
practices. Our home was appraised at 220k (the amount needed to secure the loan) our home is
currently worth 154k. A neighbor has had his for sale at 150k for more than six months and has not
had one offer. If the government really cared about the people, us, these mortgage companies
would not be writing SUBPRIME mortgages right now. The problem has been identified, and still I
continue to see these ads all over the web, refi 400K for only 1200 a month. Unjust laws must be
broken.
Robert of Miami FL (07/07/08)The billing Department doesn’t know what accounting is doing I
had an account with Ameriquest with an automatic withdraw from our checking account every
months for at least three years, I had for some personal reasons to file to bankruptcy, because of
this, Ameriquest told me they were Not Longer capable to withdraw the money directly from my
SunTrust Bank account and, because of that, I started sending electronic check payment; some time
after this, they sold the account to Litton Mortgage Services and the Problems began 1. They notify
me to a wrong address that they purchased the loan from Ameriquest; I noted that payments were
not been cashed from my account during two or three months and I called Ameriquest to find out
why they were not cashing the checks and told me about Litton 2. I contacted Litton and told and
provide to them with the check numbers and the total amount of each check sent to Ameriquest
and I was told they will look for the checks and credit them to my account... a month later they
cashed three checks in a row and I continue sending the checks to the PO Box number they gave me
that day 3. After this, they cashed a check the following month but the next month after they
didn't, the following month they cashed two of them almost at the same time and this happen
several time during 2006 and 2007 4. Because I am a missionary in Africa but with residence in
Miami, my house was at a time rent to a family and notify me that they signed some documents
coming from the Court because they were going to foreclose my house because of non payment
during the past Year, they provide me with the detail information of their lawyer and I called and
explain that the entire thing must be a mistake because I had prove of the payments coming
electronically from my bank every month, I requested a fax number to send the information, they
mentioned to me that according to the information provided to them by Litton I didn't make a
payment for the last 6 months or a year 5. I faxed the info an called to verify if they received; I told
the attorney that another two check were cashed during that period of time and to be more exactly,
the day before my call our bank officer confirmed a new check was cashed by them (all this
happening after they file and after they served the people on my house which could be taken as
final payment for the loan as done in other court cases); what happen after this was incredible, the
attorney told me he will talk to Litton and what happen was, they put one of the last two payment
they received back into my account and after that, they returned all the payment coming from our
bank 6. Litton manage to continue and got a day for foreclose from the court and a day was set
without me knowing any thing about it, when I realized how serious this was, I got an lawyer and
showed the evidence to the Judge and stop the Foreclose 7. Later during a Mediation and during
the entire time they were asking me to provide prove of payment and not willing to provide me
with a list of check received and credited to my account because they knew will show the argument
they used to Try to foreclose was not valid and their case will be throw away 8. During the
Mediation they insisted that they could refinance if I Will prove that I had temporally economic
problems... I refused because is not true and furthermore, the entire amount of money for those
missing payments are on my back account 1. Now, I had a hard time trying to refinance my loan
81
with another institution because the provide the wrong information to the credit bureau 2. I spend
already over $7,000 in lawyer’s fee and Mediation that I didn’t need to expend if they knew what
they are doing, I agree that we must get together and bring a law suit to Litton for been in an
industry that they do not have the knowledge 3. I have to go to trial the 07-17-2008 and I would like
to request a document from them recognizing they made MISTAKE
Cynthia of South Saint Paul MN (12/17/08) In October of 2004 I purchased my home with a first
and second mortgage and was sold to Litton Loan 2 years later. In 2006 I fell behind and Litton
offered to extend a month of my mortgage payment over a year. I did not read the fine print which
indicates that they will be reporting latté’s to the 3 major credit bureaus for 12 months. In 2007
Litton offered a remodification of my 2 loans (I was on arm) and interest was going up every month.
In order to keep my house I did such a thing. In doing the remodification they kept my escrow then
charged me an escrow fee which was added to the new loan. Not sure why they did not apply the
current escrow to new loan-neither do they. In August of 2008 I would have been able to refinance
because the wait period was over. During 2007 and today I have applied for or reapplied for other
loans only to be rejected or the interest was outrages. I affiliated this to the late reporting from 2006
not looking at my credit reports . I went to my local bank in August of 2008 in hopes of getting out
of this with this awful company only to find out that Litton did not close out my first 2 loans for
2004. So when you look at my credit report it clearly shows 4 Litton loans-2 from 2004 and 2 from
2007. If I was late on a payment it reported it on all 4 Litton loans. Since August I have been
fighting with the credit bureaus and Litton loan to remove the 2004 loans. When I talked with the
credit bureaus yesterday they told me that they removed my second mortgage from 2007 but left the
one with all the lates from 2004-2006. Still unable to fix because the credit bureaus told me that
even though they see the double reporting from Litton that they can not remove unless given
permission by Litton. Litton sent me letter stating that they did not find any reason to remove and by
the way I am behind in a payment. I now have to send they credit bureaus copies of my loan
modification (not that 5 months of paper work and proof was enough) Since 2007 until today they
have greatly affected my credit . They are scammers-because if they remove the 2 mortgages then
my credit will go up and I can refinance with a legit company. I have contacted an attorney who
deals in this matter and a law suit is very favorable. I have to compile every loan I had applied for
from 2007 to today because I have been wrongly over charged or denied due to the double reporting
of loans/lates from Litton. This has been 5 months of frustration but I am hopeful that Litton will get
what they deserve and I in turn can move on. Word of advise get a copy of your credit report if you
remodified your loan with Litton!
Shannon of Hugo MN (10/14/08) Litton bought out my mortgage in June 2008. In May we had
tornado damage and I was issued a check in my old mortgage companies name so I had to wait
until 6/20/2008 for Litton to have my loan on file so I could issue them the check to sign off on and
send back to me to have my home fixed. I overnighter everything that they asked me for and was
told it would take 72 hours for them to reissue me a check. In is now 10/14/2008 I have contacted
them since then at least 2 times a week every time that I speak to someone they assure me that they
are sending the check out that day. As of 10/14/2008 they still have not issued me the check. It has
been 5 months and there is always a different excuse why they didn’t get to issue me the check. The
check that they have been sitting on for 5 months is $10000.00. I live in Minnesota and we are
approaching the beginning of winter within the next month or so and they have not issued me the
check to fix the roof siding and done. I have 1 year to have the damages fixed on my home to have
the insurance company to release the deferment money. It has now been 6 months and winter is on
the way I do not think that we will have enough time to fix the houses before my one year deadline.
82
Jackie of Albertville MN (08/30/08) We are in the process of a short sale. Everything was fine. We
have two offers on the table so we started to get everything going by sending Litton certified mail
ALL documents needed to do the short sale. They ordered an appraisal and they came out and did
their inspection of the outside, which was strange. They ended up switching negotiators to Tiffany
who never calls our realtor back. We decided to contact Litton ourselves to find out what the heck
is going on. Apparently, Tiffany doesn't exist and neither does any of our paperwork that we sent
them certified mail signed for on June 27th 2008. They said they had record of the paperwork being
received, but nothing was noted in the system as to what was received. They blame it on them
moving from the Houston office to the Dallas office. They also blame our realtor for not following
up, which is a load of crap. She is in constant contact with them and this Tiffany who exists never
returns her calls, now we know why. Now the negotiator Corey has the nerve to say we have to
send ALL the paperwork again. So now what? My credit is already shot. Litton collections keeps
calling us, actually they are calling our relatives. They even have their attorney involved. Their
departments don't talk to each other so they just start the foreclosure process. Maybe they would
save some money if they just accepted our sale and moved on. If they want to play games they are
the only ones losing out. If they don't accept the offer soon, our buyers are going to walk away and
we are at square one trying to find a new buyer. Which means, more late pays on our credit and if
it never sells, a foreclosure? At this point, we are ready to let them foreclose and eat up all the costs.
All I have to do is file bankruptcy to protect myself. What do I have to lose, my credit [is bad] now
as it is because Litton is playing games. Until this house sells, my credit is being ruined.
Tracy of Prior Lake MN (08/21/08) I have read all the complaints here and I do have to agree. It all
started when I lost my job. I also had a mortgage with Freemont Investment and Loan. They were
willing to work out a repayment. Then I got a postcard saying Welcome to Litton Loan. WHAT???
They are claiming I was further behind then what Freemont says I was. How is that possible? Since
Bush has signed that new bill starting Oct 1, I am going to try and get away from them. I bet they
will fight it. They will have to take a loss on the loan in order for me to refi. I think this will be a
nightmare also but I will not stop. I worked hard to purchase another home after my divorce and I
will be damned if I will let them get away with screwing me over
Kathryn of Rochester MN (10/06/06) an application of restructure was submitted on line and Litton
notified back in June of 2006 that I needed help. No reply or message was communicated. Several
calls were made in July and August to which I was transferred six or seven times, hung up on, and
when requesting a supervisor was told he was on vacation. The name of the company holding the
mortgage was requested from Litton and I was told that they did hold the mortgage and
transferred me to that company which told me they had sold it. After contacting that company they
could not find me in the system so I called Litton back and another lady told me that they, Litton,
held the mortgage. This has gone on for three months. They delay, don't respond, don't leave
messages, don't offer alternatives as advertised on their web site and the customer reps are rude
and have no knowledge of the information.
Lauretta of Minden NV (12/10/08) It's been very frustrating trying to work with Litton loan. It's
been 5 months now and we're on the verge of losing our home. They give me the run around, I’ve
sent in loan modification paperwork twice from me and once from someone we paid $ 960, hoping
he could get further than I could. He hasn't. I actually was able to get a real person on the phone
today, a gen. service rep person who stated all loan modification was stopped and closed on my
house back in October cause they couldn't reach me! What a lie! I haven't gotten messages from
83
Litton. For months they've somehow flagged my acct so that when I call them, their phone system
would transfer me to someone’s voicemail and then not let me leave a message. Their letters to me
never make any mention that I did talk to someone, did follow their instructions and sent in my
loan mod paperwork (multiple times now) and should be now be in process. Letters all say the
same thing: you’re delinquent and pay or we'll foreclose! My 2nd mtg. lender was willing to work
with me, but what is the point if I can't get Litton to even talk or follow through with me and my
paperwork. Somewhere in that co. is all my vital info and loan mod docs floating around and no
one there has a clue or even gives a damn for that matter. There’s a good chance we'll lose our
house and it will be because Litton didn't want to work with me or even talk with me. In trying to
make ends meet, my husband and I attempted picking up extra work, ended up draining all our
savings, maxing out our credit cards, cashing in pto/vacation pay, selling my jewelry, arguments
over finances causing huge strain on our marriage. I started having chest pain, blood pressure shot
up, had to go see the doctor, all caused from stress over house. Our mtg. pmts are over 50% of our
income. We never thought our house would lose approx 130,000 in value in 2 yrs. We can't refi, our
credit is ruined, and Litton won't work with us. I made a pmt ($2,573), doesn't seem to make any
difference, according to their letters. I almost feel as if they would rather us go into foreclosure than
work with us in keeping this house. I wish someone could step in for Litton and work with us
homeowners instead of the runaround and lies. Can you help?
Daniel of Las Vegas NV (11/30/08) was never late on my payments until we had two bad renters
and I was laid off. We were one month behind when I contacted ocean view equity. Ocean view
equity was hired to help get a loan modification because Litton would not do anything for me
when I asked. September 2008 ocean view equity sent paperwork to Litton and bay view. We have
been inquiring about this loan by phone and in writing for months and everyone know we want to
keep our home. Mid November 2008 ocean view equity notified me that there was a loan
modification done but had to be approved first.
On November 28th 2008 I received a letter from national default servicing corp. #6022646101 it said
that we had 30 days to dispute this loan from Litton loan servicing, we are in default and recorded.
When we talked with ocean view equity matt notified me not to make any payments because if you
do the lenders will not do a loan modification.
If the United States did not have this recession I would not have had problems with my renters or
me being laid off 3 times. We did have a good credit report until now. Is there any organization
that works with or governs loan companies? We really need to correct the situation that we are in.
my wife and I have four kids, we do not want our kids to be homeless.
Kevin of Sparks NV (08/08/08) Our Loan was four months from maturing in April of 08. We
noticed on past invoiced that along with our monthly payment that there were other charges that
kept getting bigger. So in April we called Litton Loan and asked what the charges were about. Any
way after the gave us an answer we decided we should pay them the additional fees which came to
about 1800 dollars our loan payment is 329.10 dollars. Any way we sent this in with our payment in
April. When we got our next statement in May it showed the same charges on the statement. We
called Litton Loan and they said yes they got the payment but it was held up for some reason and
they would put in for a request for it to be applied. So we paid our next payment and waited for
June’s statement. Well it came and guess what the charges were still there. So we called Litton
again, got a different person of course, and we were told the same thing the money from April was
still being held up they did not know why but the would put in a request to have it released. So we
84
made our June payment. That meant in my book I had one more payment to make so we waited for
our July statement well when it came in you guessed it the charges were still there only now there
were more charges I guess they were charging me penalties for there mistake. So we called them
again and complained again and we got the same story. We made what I thought should have been
my final payment. Well to my surprise in august they sent my July payment back said it was not
enough to pay off the loan we also got another statement showing that the finally credited our
April payment but they charged us interest on there mistake. Basically instead of owing 329.10 they
say we owe 2000 dollars. We are at a loss for what to do I guess we are going to try to get a lawyer.
We are on very tight budget, because I have a medically disabled son and we bought a new car
because we thought we would have the extra income for the loan going away. We needed the car
because our old car was not dependable and my son has lot doctor appointments that I have to take
him to. I thought it would be nice to have some thing we would know that could get my son were
he would need to go in an emergency. Now I do not know if we can make the payment with Litton
over us.
Mary of Las Vegas` NV (03/26/08) when my loan was sold to Litton Loan Servicing maybe
07/2007, I sent my payment in on one check. I have two interest only loans and I paid both loans on
one check. Well they applied both payments to one loan and my second loan went into default.
After I called and thought I had gotten it straighten out they did indeed apply the money to the
default one but they continued to report to my creditors that we were pass due on that particular
loan. In October 2007, I submitted a letter for modification of my loan. In January I received a letter
stating that the modification has been approved and they also gave us our modified amount
effective 01/2008 for $1,413.64. We also received a voice message saying that it had been approved.
We have been paying the modified amount every month. Now when I go to make my payment in
March they tell me that we are in default for over $2,000.00 because we should be paying $1,962.00
the amount that our mortgage adjusted to. Every time I call I can never speak to a person that will
be able to clear this up for us. The reps always give me a hard time and say that the litigation
department does not take phone calls, and that my modification is not complete. Well we
submitted the necessary documents ask of us to sign and returned and we paid the $350.00 fee.
They are now telling us they can't help us and their reporting us to the creditors as not having paid
our mortgage since 12/2007. We honestly do not know what to do, we can't refinance because they
are ruining our credit. Repetitive also will say they will email the modification office and have
someone calls us within 24hrs but it never happens. So we have no idea what to do or if we are
going to lose our home. I have had to go on anxiety medication in order to perform my job at
work. It has caused great stress in our marriage and it is bringing our credit scores down
tremendously. We are suffering financially. For starters we were mislead in purchasing this loan in
the first place, not by Litton, but they are just as much contributing to our stressful life by not
cooperating to get this problem solved, they don't care. My husband does not sleep at night and
neither do I and a lack of sleep causes more anxiety and we are in a state of dismay.
Marilyn of Hale Thorpe MD (01/15/06) Litton Loan Servicer, LP/US Bank NA, Trustee and
Washington Mutual knew reason why my cousin, a homeowner in Baltimore City was not making
his mortgage payments was because of his death and not refusal to pay his mortgage payment.
Instead of appropriately notifying the probate court of his death, Washington Mutual sold his loan
to Litton. Inappropriately, Litton filed a foreclosure action in circuit court circumventing the law by
taking possession without a court order, illegal breaking and entering the home and took whole
contents of household without the family’s permission. More conduct that is reprehensible is
85
attorneys for Litton were involved with bidder/purchaser that defaulted on their loan finance
obligations and all argued over the deceased home for (6) six months. The defaulted purchasers
may not even be U. S. Citizens that are involved in this real estate property flipping scam. I
contacted Litton Loan Servicer and its attorney’ trying to recoup his home from foreclosure.
However, Litton’s Attorney, Friedman Law firm, refused to speak to me and did nothing to return
home back to family.
Asian of Hebron MD (09/26/04) my husband and I purchased a home on 12/15/2003 thru First
Horizon Home Loan. Our loan payment for January came out at settlement. I paid February loan
payment on time. Then I paid March loan payment on time. After making the March payment, we
received a letter from First Horizon saying our loan was to be transferred to Litton Loan on
2/17/2004. First Horizon issued a check to Litton containing our March 2004 payment. Ever since
Litton says we never paid March. I have paid every month since on time to Litton. Our payments
are in a freeze account. I provided Tom Smith the front and back copies of the checks I used to pay
February and March to First Horizon as he requested. In August I was told by a customer service
rep that these items and additional items requested were received June 30, 2004 and that the
company had 60 days to finish investigating. On September 22, 2004 I was told by Ricky Hubbard
in collections dept. that these items were now lost and I needed to reissue them new copies. He also
told me that my bill for October was sent our Sept. 15 and we still have not received it, so
tomorrow I will make my October payment by phone. I have talked to a number of employees at
Litton and no one can fix this problem. First Horizon told me on Sept. 23 that they will have
someone contact Litton. I mailed a request letter Sept. 23 to Litton.
My husband's mortgage is a balloon rate loan, so we want to refinance in January for a fixed rate
loan. My husband paid off all items on his credit when we purchased this home. We were told that
all of our loan payments had to be on time for a year to refinance for the fixed rate. Since the loan
transfer, Litton says we are a month behind every month and also imposes a late fee every month.
We are afraid that this matter is going to prevent us from refinancing in January.
Agric of Bowie MD (06/24/07)I got a letter from Litton Saying that they wanted to help me get back
on my feet so I faxed them my explanation letter along with my pay stubs and W-2, they said that
my account rep handling my account was on vacation and she was the only one to help me. I
explained that I was going into foreclosure soon and that they sent me a letter wanting to help me
get back on my feet and I had no response in almost three weeks. My house went to foreclosure. I
called the banks attorney and they said that they would get back to me once they heard from
Litton. I called Litton and left messages but no response.
Debbie of Frederick MD (07/31/08) our loan was sold from Freemont Investment to Litton Loan
Servicing. First payment to them went through fine. Just rec'd. A couple of calls - every day for (2)
weeks that our payment had not been rec'd. Looked them up and saw all of the complaints.
Realized that same thing might be happening to me - which they have my check but said they
didn't that way they get the late fee. I did a stop payment on that check (so they can't put it through
next month) - cost me $30, next time they called I did the electronic payment - cost me another
$9.99. Still their word against mine - but I am waiting to see what happens.
In the mean time, I have contacted our Mortgage guru - explained what happened, all of the
complaints I've seen and that we might be one of their next victims - he is trying to help us get out
of this loan.
86
Kelly of Manalapan NJ (12/09/08)I could not get any help from Litton Loan and my home was due
to be sold 12/15/2008 I found these email addresses and sent out my hardship letter explaining all
the problems I have had with there company. Within 3 hours a Mr. Noel C called me back and has
been helping me ever since. Maybe this can help you. What you can do to get some movement is to
put your hardship letter into the body of an email, along with your loan number and your contact
info and send it to each of the email addresses below..........the responses come fairly quickly Then
follow up with a call directly to the ERT. Litton Loan Executive Resolution Team Direct: 1-713-2184592 Fax: 1-713-966-8852 llitton@litton.C-BASS.com (CEO) efolk@litton.C-BASS.com (CFO)
akelley@litton.C-BASS.com (Senior VP) steven.droddy@littonloan.com (mort retention mgr)
michael.whitfield@littonloan.com (loan retention mgr)
Sandra of Brick NJ (09/30/08)3/2/ 2007 I went into a repayment plan and made all payments
through the written agreement which ended on 9/2/08 I then received a letter stating I was falling
behind and may go into foreclosure. I have been trying to call them and get disconnected halfway
through 5 times. One representative told me he was on the phone 22 min and that was to long. I
cant get any resolution because no one knows what they are doing and this is my home on the line
Robert of Keansburg NJ (09/27/08) I went Bankrupt and Lost an Investment Property. Currently
my Bankruptcy has been discharged as of 08-29-08. Today I have received more bills and
Foreclosure Notices from Litton Loan Servicing demanding Payment for a Property that was
discharged in a Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court. We cannot take the Calls, the
Mails everyday, and the threats to take everything we own. Since I lost the property in the
Bankruptcy is there any way someone somehow can legally get these people out of my life. If they
do one more thing or send one more Certified Letter we are suing them for the Original Value of
the Property they have in question which is 389,000. After our Bankruptcy I lost my position with
my company so every letter, phone call, threat and more are affecting our Physical and Mental
wellbeing. We are trying to rebuild our lives and Litton is preventing that from Happening. The
house was given up in the Bankrupt they should sell it. I do not own the property according to the
US Court.
Stefan of Kansas City KS (04/25/06) there are many of us who are experiencing major problems
with Litton. The complaints vary from fraud, mismanagement of funds, and accounts, inaccurate
tax forms, lying, emotional distress, and many other complaints. There have been civil suits against
them. This company preys on low-income, low credit individuals like us. And someone needs to
check into their practices.
We, as many others, are currently in foreclosure; we have made arrangements twice only to be told
there weren't any arrangements. It is causing stress, sleeplessness, emotional distress; my father,
myself and my 2 children are going to be homeless due to their lies and rude customer service reps.
Ramona of Lubberly LA (03/31/06) Litton Loan Servicing out of 4828 Central Dr Houston, Texas
77081 www.littonloan.com has scammed us since they ended up with our mortgage. They are very
rude and dishonest. They lie and are very cruel people. They have added very high insurance rates
to our mortgage and you never get to stay on the phone line with one representative it is always let
me put you through to someone else. Always a letter of threat of forecloses. My now deceased
mother and wife are on the mortgage. My mother battled over the phone with them two days
before her death to lower our mortgage payments before her death and they agreed to $409.00 a
month which they now deny. My wife called and she talked to 5 different people witch gave her 5
87
different stories. They were very, very rude
Robert of Zachary LA (10/02/06) as with most of the complaints, we were affected by hurricanes
Rita and Katrina. We entered into an agreement for 2 month forbearance, and then they
conveniently forgot about it. This has led to nothing but misery, including a declining credit score,
missed payments, and ultimately, foreclosure. As I scramble to find somebody to refinance me, I
stumble across this site. Had I only known before...?
Now, this will lead to me losing the house that I've been in for 9 years, and having to find a place
for my myself, wife, 2 small kids, and disabled mother-in-law.
Chad of Broussard, LA (11/13/06) I'm living a nightmare since my loan was sold to Litton Loan
service. My home will be sold if I don't come up with $8,211. I've been calling everyday trying to
talk to someone and I never get a call back. It's time that this company is dealt with.
Jackie of Shreveport LA (04/19/07)Litton loans never informed us about the court order to take our
house -- my mother happened to see it in the newspaper. When I tried to contact them I was told it
was too late. My loan was sold to litton, they were always so rude. They would put me on hold for
anywhere from 15-min to an hour and they would just hang-up the phone.
Louis of Kenner LA (01/18/08) Litton Loan Svc. has taken money from us that our insurance
company says is our content money ($46753.35) and has yet to release them to us. They will not
return our phone calls and they hang up on us. They have also been rude. We have asked them to
put the money they are holding towards the payoff and that we would then pay the rest in full and
have even tried to pay the rest but they sent us our money back and said that it was not enough
and that they do not take personal checks. They will not even take a bank transfer. So how are they
staying in business if they don't take your money? They have all kinds of excuses and our attorney
says they refuse to sign the checks that they have for them as well. So how are we supposed to get
something done? I believe that they need to give us our money.
Suzanna of Raceland LA (11/02/08) So many things have happened. Fees after fees after fees.
Home currently in foreclosure-set to be placed in sheriff sale in 3 days. No one will return phone
calls-they won't even call their own attorney's back. I am going to be forced to make a deal with
them to keep my house. The insurance supervisor told me they have been overcharging me since
2005. It's been a nightmare. I could go on and on and am looking for an attorney to help me file a
big old lawsuit against them. Quickly. I had to borrow thousands from family members and
friends. I can't sleep, I’m humiliated, scared, angry, sick.
Ray of Mesa AZ (08/30/08) Sold my home @auction after seating up repay plan had been signed by
my self. The proper funds where in Litton Loans account before sell date. They out and out lied to
me and the are trying to keep the moneys sent. Sold home out from under me. I have lost 80,000 in
equity.
Gary of Yuma AZ (04/30/08)My loan was sold to Litton by Ameriquest at about 20 cents on the
dollar at first everything was ok but then we started getting hit with late fees and when I called
Litton to see why this was going on they said because you must be sending your payment out late
so my next one I sent reg. mail and they had to sign for it , it took two(2) days they called me
wanting to know what I was trying to prove I told them this way I know it don't take 16 days for
88
mail to go from Yuma, As. to Houston, TX. but after that every payment I sent was late they even
put on the computer read out (copy of payment history) that we even had checks returned I have
turned Litton in to the Better Business Bureau,U.S.Distrect Court, Attorney General and the
Consumer of Finance but was told by all of them that there wasn't anything they could do but they
would keep a watch on them well big deal like that’s going to scare them into doing things right
one of them places should go in there and shut Litton down and go through all the records but not
let them know they are going to do that I'd bet more than half the office people would go to jail and
if the BBB, Attorney General, Consumer of Finance and the U.S.Distrect court can't help people out
when they are getting ripped off by a place like Litton why are they there who do they help is it the
company’s like Litton who knows just maybe all 4 of them are being paid by places like Litton to
just say there is nothing we can do Litton has us right now at about $1500.00 behind but the
payment we got late on was for $592.00 and has been paid up two times but never hit the books
and Litton says they know nothing about it we have been turned down around 200 times on trying
to get a refinance, there are two other places that have pulled shady stuff on us one is a car
dealership here in Yuma, As. the other one is Wells Fargo Financial Auto both were proved to be
fraud on the contracts they did on us and once again on these two places the BBB,Attorney General,
Consumer of Finance and the U.S.Distrect court says they can see it is a case of fraud but there isn't
a thing they can do but keep a eye on them I say thank you vary much that helps a lot.
Regina of Kingman AZ (02/26/08) WMC Mortgage sold my loan to Litton -- this is interest only.
Loan went from $697 to $983 per month. I made the new payment but was offered a loan
modification if I was having trouble with the new payment. I'd been unemployed for 2 years and
living on savings. On 9/24/07 I submitted, per Eric Galvin's request, a letter from my new
employer, bank statements and personal letter explaining my hardship. I called back on 10/10/07
and was told he was waiting for docs. I called several other times, but he's never at his desk.
Finally, on 1/7/08 I reached him. He said the loan modification had been approved. I was locked in
at the $697 payments for 2 years, and the only caveat was I must refi within that 2-year period.
Since I am now working, I told him that would be fine. He said to continue making the payments at
the $983 rate until I received the proper documents. On 2/8 I rec'd a form letter stating my new
payment would be $990.17 effective 4/1/08. I sent numerous emails saying some thing's wrong
here. They sent form emails back saying my file was under review. No one ever returned calls.
Today I got a Fed-Ex letter from Deborah Kennedy saying my loans in DEFAULT, I owe $474.95 for
their attorney fees; and if I don't sign the agreement form, I will be placed in foreclosure. My loan
has never been in default. I had a late notice once because THEY changed my payment date
without telling me. My 9/21/07 to 2/15/08 payments has been $983. (I have the bank statements to
prove it.) I am in no position to lose my house. I will continue to make my payments, but I am
adamant about not paying attorney fees for this blatant misrepresentation. I am faxing them the 16
pages of complaints I just downloaded from this site and a copy of my last 6 month payments. I
cannot understand how they can legally do this. With this city I'm in and the market bogging so
desperately down, I do not believe I can refi. Am I just cheated, or do I have recourse? I refuse to
sign their demand letter. I make $13.50 an hour -- not a rich lady and truly unable to legally fight
these people.
Annemarie of Mesa, AZ (01/25/07) we refinanced our home Aug 2005. It has been a nightmare.
Since day one we have been getting collection calls from this company saying we are late on our
house payment. They have been misapplying or failing to credit payments received on a timely
manner, charging us unwarranted fees, threatening and sending us certified foreclosure
89
documents.
We recently sold our house, thinking we could move into a new build, but we are having trouble
finding someone to finance us due to negative report from Litton to the credit bureau.
Sarah of Chandler AZ (12/08/08) Wow! I just read everything on Litton. I have been dealing with
every single complaint written with Litton. I went through a 4 month battle with them. Calling and
getting incompetent loan counselors that told me the wrong sale date, leaving message after
message with the foreclosure rep and also sending her letters via fax to call me, and then going
back & forth with the foreclosure attorney, REO department and foreclosure department. I always
got voicemails, and I never got a return call. I started to wonder if anyone worked there.
After 4 months, 250 documented calls with times & dates & individuals I spoke to, 25 letters
written, I decided to file a complaint with the BBB of Houston, TX. I received the first eviction letter
from the realtor after my house went up on auction. The bank took possession, but I was still
fighting for my life. I received the 2nd eviction letter, I still didn't leave.
Finally, I received my court paperwork for the legal eviction. I kept fighting. I was not giving up. I
am a single mom of 2 kids, and we literally had no where to go if we were forced to move.
I am pleased to say we are in our house, with a much lower rate, & lower monthly payments. I kept
my house, but I was persistent. I work over 40 hours a week, but would honestly spend 4-6 hours a
day on my cell phone calling & working on Litton. I never gave up. It cost me almost losing my job,
a ton of weight loss, anxiety, panic, no sleep, and migraines, but I kept my house.
Once I got to the right area, the individuals I worked with in the Executive Resolution Team were
wonderful, caring, and human. They listened. I can't tell you how great they were! They wanted to
hear my story. They were willing to listen. They cared. Granted, I had a file full of what I did every
day for 4 months. I had to show proof. I had to work to get it resolved, but it was worth it. Don't
give up!
Mark of Dallas GA (12/06/08) I complaint earlier regarding Litton Loan not forwarding my
insurance check in order to complete the needed repairs on my home. I sustained damage on
October 25, 2008, to my home. The insurance company sent me the check on November 06, 2008. As
of today Litton Loan still has not forwarded the check to me. The repairs have not been initiated,
and Litton Loan continues to lie with regards to sending the check. In fact, they told State Farm a
Michelle on Nov 30, 2008, that they had spoke with me that same day, and that the check was in the
mail. I never spoke to anyone. I never signed up to be with Litton Loan, my mortgage was transfer
to them. I wouldn't recommend them to anyone. Their customer service [is bad]. They lie. My
house has been uninhabitable since October 25, 2008. We have been forced to spend the holidays
with other family members. Every month I pay my home owners insurance, and for what. Litton
Loan has no intent on forwarding the money that originally for the repairs. Since then I have been
forced to make some the repairs out of my own pocket, and Litton Loan thinks it can keep the
money. In fact Litton loan told us that they plan on applying the money to the principal, it this
possible.
Mark of Dallas GA (11/13/08) On October 25, 2008. I sustained water damage to my property listed
above. My Insurance Company, State Farm, came out to access the damage. They told me that the
check would be made payable to my spouse, myself and Litton Loan, and that I would have to send
it to them to be endorsed and they in return would send it back to me. On October 31, I phone
Litton Loan to get further instructions, and they told me to endorse the check and send it in and I
did so. I sent the check to them on November 06, 2008 via Federal Express, Gaurantee Next Day.
90
They stated that had just received it on November 10, 2008. I phoned them today to follow-up,
since no one called me. Today, when I called, they told me that they would hold n to half the check
and release $4,000.00, and that they would release the other half after 90% of the work was
completed, and only after they send out an inspector to evaluate the repairs. My question is this,
how is it that a mortgage company can hold back your funds, and send them out when they feel
like. In addition, if they are so concern then why don’t they pay half of my homeowners insurance
and half of my deductible? This is my sixth home, and I never experience anything like this. They
are trying to dictate who will do the repairs and when. My house has been uninhabitable, and
Litton Loan continues to play games. They asked me if my loan was current, and I told that yes it
was, with the exceptional of my late charges, which I was originally told that, that would stop them
from processing my insurance check. I told them I always send my payment at the end of the
month, but never to I go over 30 days. Now they're telling me that when the 15th rolls around I will
considered delinquent and, that they will hold the check until after I make my November’s
payment, and only them will they release half, and the other half after 90% of the work has been
completed. Today, I was given three different stories.
Russell of Oxford GA (11/29/07) I purchased a home in 2005 through a local mortgage broker.
Eventually the loan was transferred to Litton Loan Servicing. The nightmare soon began. I would
typically pay additional money as additional principal so that I could get the loan paid off early
and save the extra interest. I kept seeing an entry on my statement named Forbearance Suspense. I
have never received a satisfactory explanation of how Forbearance Suspense is defined by Litton
Loan.
By doing simple math I determined that the additional payment is defined as Forbearance
Suspense rather that being applied as directed. Needless to say this causes additional interest
charges on the account, which defeats the purpose of prepaying the principal.
Additionally, as others have recounted here, I had a problem with my liability insurance, which is
escrowed, not being paid. This caused the carrier to cancel the policy (rightfully) and Litton
installing their own insurance at, literally, four times the cost of my private liability insurance.
After several months of attempting to deal with that mess the company agreed that they did, in
fact, escrow the insurance money and finally paid my carrier. However, they would not refund the
difference between the cost of my private insurance and their own policy. Fortunately there were
no losses sustained during that time at my home. In speaking with my insurance agent, who
contacted Litton religiously during this time, this company is infamous for these tactics.
Further, the payment seems to change at the will of Litton with transparent explanations regarding
the increase. Looking behind the increases it seems that the shortages claimed by Litton are caused
by their actions, either negligent or intentional. Their actions in causing increased fees and
additional interest all benefit the bottom line of Litton so one has to wonder if the actions may be
intentional rather than negligent or brought about by incompetence.
Customer Care is a joke, for the most part, at this company. Occasionally I would speak with a
professional and courteous representative but that was the exception rather than the rule.
Unfortunately I do not have the names in front of me of all the people I have spoken with regarding
this account. I had no idea that there were so many complaints against this company. Unfortunately,
as the customer, we have no choice in who services our loans after we have signed all the mortgage
papers and closed on the loan.
91
Angel of Atlanta GA (06/07/07) my loan was sold to Litton Loan Servicing in May 2007. I was not
sent any correspondence or notified of the sale. I am not pleased with all that I have discovered
about Litton. My loan was sold to them without me knowing about it until about 3 weeks after the
date of sale. I pray that every person and family that has a loan through Litton for any reason
receives peace and justice. I pray for all demons to be cast out of this company.
Edwin of Snoqualmie, WA (09/25/06) we bought our home in May of 2006 and received an 80-20loan. Our first payment was due on 7/1/06 to Washington Mutual Corp, which we paid in full
6/27/06. Our loan was sold to Litton who failed to properly service our loan. They never mailed
us statements and refused to give us our loan number over the phone or change our billing address
so we could receive our statements. They proceeded to send us a default letter on the second
mortgage and violate our rights under the Federal Credit Reporting Act by unfairly reporting us to
the three credit bureaus claiming we were late on our payments for the 1st mortgage. We never
knew that they had our 1st or second mortgage. We found them to be rude and incompetent.
Catherine of Bellevue WA (10/02/06) there are three main complaints that I have with Litton Loan.
1. They lie. I requested that they NOT auto deduct my payments as I am refinancing and will be
paying the loan off today (the same day the payment was to come out of my account). They said
that as long as I have the paperwork faxed to them by last Friday, there would be no issue. They
still took the money out of my account.
2. Customer service refused to assist me. The customer service representative would not credit the
money back to my account. They refused to assist me in resolving this issue. They told me that
there was nothing they could do, and IF there was money available after the payout, I MIGHT
revive it in MAYBE 30 days.
3. They steadfastly refused to allow me to speak with a representative.
Kay of Spokane Valley WA (12/28/07) our home mortgage was purchased by Litton from Chase in
May of 2007. According to Litton, Chase failed to forward our payment history to them. So, we
were placed in foreclosure. After several months of trying to straighten out their mess, Litton, told
us there was nothing we could do and that it was our fault. O.K. I can live with that, even though
we have every receipt of payment. I mentally couldn't continue to argue with them. We were
placed on a repayment plan to pay back late payments Litton said we owed, from when Chase had
the mortgage. Every payday, I went to Western Union and made the $1392.50 payment. We started
calling our rep. from Litton on Dec. 6, 2007 and everyday after that up to Dec. 27, when finally my
husband reached a real person. He was informed that our house is in foreclosure proceedings
AGAIN. Because and I quote: "You are two months behind on your payment." I have completely
had it with Litton. I don't understand how this company can treat people like they do. We make
our payments. We purchased this house for $90,000.00; when we had it unofficially appraised to
refinance awhile back, it was $134,000. We have cleaned it up and put down new floors through
out. If any one has an idea of how to put Litton out of business for their BAD business practices, let
everyone know. As school employee's we are paid once a month--the last working day of the
month. We as a family we don't do the extras. For Christmas, my children received three gifts each.
As a parent I feel like a failure. I am on anti- depressants; and the old saying of you is worth more
dead then alive, is true. I don't want to lose this house, but I seriously don't want to fight with
Litton anymore either. Our credit is trash, there is no way to refinance, and I am done.
J of Steilacoom WA (04/25/08) Our Mortgage was sold by Chase Home finance, to Litton Loan
92
Services, without notice, back in July of 2007. We didn't find out until March of 2008, when trying
to gain our information for taxes. Come to find out, all of our payments that were paid, in full
(sometimes over) and on time, have yet to be credited to our loan. We are being charged late fees,
excessive insurance fees that we were never notified about and derogatory credit ratings have
financially damaged us. Litton refuses to acknowledge the payments that our bank continues to
supply them and the dates that they have CLEARED my checking account. They currently have me
over $9000 delinquent and are threatening with foreclosure on an account that has been paid ON
TIME, each and every month. Their condescending attitudes and derogatory communication over
the phone is more than any human being should ever have to put up with. Without notice, they
have increased my escrow insurance and tax amount by 4 times and have me delinquent on my
escrow fund. I am currently paying HUGE finance charges on a vehicle that I purchased, due to
the remarks on my credit report from Litton. I have been denied a refinance on my mortgage due to
Litton’s derogatory negative remarks on my credit report and in getting insurance quotes, my
premiums doubled as soon as they were given my SS #. This false information on my credit file is a
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and they refuse to address it. They are also telling me that
I'm wasting my time fighting it as they have not received any payments that my bank has proven to
them WERE made AND ON TIME.
Donna of Shoreline WA (06/25/08) I am a home buyer trying to purchase a home that Litton holds
the title on. Today is 06/25/08 our offer went in on 04/22/08 were had written in our paper work
to close on 06/23/08 and here we are with still no word from them. We are currently renting and
had to beg to get just one more month to stay here. Now we have no place to move to and of course
only our earnest money left and that's not enough to get you into another rental. I just want to buy
a house, and now they will foreclose on it and wont even get what we offered them... Stress and
anxiety. Strain on my marriage. More headache and heartache than I ever could have imagined
Barbara of Anacortes WA (07/04/08) I had filed a bankruptcy in 2005 due to a medical problem that
I have. My loan was with Wash. Mutual...the loan was discharged on my bankruptcy (Chapter 7).
About a year later up pops this company LITTON LOAN SVC and they are trashing my credit
even more now...saying that I owe them for an account that was discharged on my bankruptcy. I
do not understand how a company can make you pay for something that was discharged and in
the first place, I do not and never have a loan with Litton Loan. I think what has happened is that
they must have purchased my account from Washington Mutual AFTER my bankruptcy was
discharged....and now they say that I HAVE to give them $80,000. We all need to get together and
form a Class a law suit. They do not return calls; they refuse to take the wrong reports off of my
credit report. They show me as having an open account with them, which I do not have and have
never had. They continue to report late payments..... They have trashed my credit much more than
when I filed my bankruptcy. My credit score was just coming back up when they stepped into the
picture and created my nightmare. They are rude, uncaring, and when confronted with the law in
black and white....they choose to ignore it. They don't recognize the bankruptcy laws...they don't
care...they are going to try and collect anyway. I am not a loser, and I pay my bills. I had a medical
problem....this was beyond my control...so I filed bankruptcy....that should have been the end of
this....but is not with Litton.
Angela of Kelso WA (07/29/08) Litton Loan acquired our loan from another company in 2006. We
have never had a late payment with this company from 2006-2008. In May of 2008 my husband's
check was returned NSF. When I found out I called and paid $100 in NSF and late fees as well as
the original mortgage payment. I used my bank account to pay so it is not even the same account.
93
Now Litton says that my payment was returned NSF. My bank and my bank statement say Litton
is lying. They will not apply my payment or return it to me. They are continuing to charge me NSF
fees, late fees, and are reporting me to the credit bureaus for non-payment. I continue to pay
monthly what I actually owe while I try to work this out. I faxed them proof of my payment 3
times and they say I never faxed it, even though I have proof it went through. I even faxed it to a
representative's (Tiffany) personal fax number and now I am told I cannot talk to her because they
are not allowed to transfer calls or email outside of work. They will not let me talk to the research
department because they say they do not accept calls. Please help me if you know who I can talk to
about this company to get this mess straightened out. My credit is damaged. I cannot refinance
with another company as long as Litton says I am behind in my payments.
Jennifer of Houston TX (09/06/08) I used to work for Litton Loan servicing and as much as I hate to
admit it the customer service Litton has is horrible. I was only their for one year but saw how
horrible homeowners were treated on a daily bases. People did not want to help them so they just
transferred the calls to get away from helping. Plus so many mistakes are human mistakes from
Litton employees but the company does not like to admit that. I personally had to research a couple
of homeowner’s information because somebody else dropped the ball and the homeowners were
not getting any answers. I am glad I am not with that company. If you have a loan with them you
have to keep sending them letters because that’s the only thing they document. Phone calls are
useless.
I of Pearland TX (03/17/08)Everybody that Mr. Larry Litton has messed over, why don't you go to
hcad.org (Harris County Appraisal District) and get his address in Pearland, TX, and personally let
him know you want your money back and/or your paperwork straightened out?
Moby of San Antonio TX (01/13/08) Litton Loan Servicing has ruined my credit, I am not able to
refinance nor take out a home equity loan. They started by claiming my payments did not arrive on
time, adding fees to my account. I solved that by sending my payments through Western Union,
which cost me, extra. Then in 2004, 2006 and 2007, they took my mortgage payments and applied
them to a Lender Placed Insurance, even though I paid my own insurance and taxes. The first time,
after many months, I finally proved to them without a doubt that I had indeed renewed my home
insurance within time. (Even if I did have an escrow account, don't I get to choose my own
insurance company? Why did they not forward the money they took from my mortgage to my
current insurance company?) Anyway, they finally admitted that I was right and had money
coming back to me. Foolish me, I told them to just place my refund towards my mortgage payment.
So, I thought my payment was paid for that month.
But the following month I received a letter saying I was late and that my payment was not received
and I faced foreclosure. I called them up and tried to explain the situation and gave them the name
of the person I spoke with and the date. It did not help. I faced foreclosure unless I came up with 2
payments plus fees and I got reported to the credit bureaus.
In 2006, I went through a repeat; I was reported as being late for three months, that's how long it
took me to dispute. This time I just asked that my money be sent back to me.
In 2007, they did it again, three more times to the credit bureaus. In May, I actually sent them 3
payments. Again they sent me back my money after months of disputing them. By this time, of
course, I wanted out of Litton Loan Servicing, so I applied for a refinance loan. This is actually
when I found out that Litton had been reporting me as not paying on time. Litton failed to correct
94
my credit report as being current and now 7 months later, I still cannot get them to correct my
credit report. This is how they keep me at their mercy, I'm stuck with them. No mortgage company
will finance me since my credit report states that I do not pay my mortgage on time. So to all the
Litton customers that were a month or two behind on your payments, do not feel bad, they
probably would have gotten to you anyway. I have documentation for all the payments I have
made and I have documentation of the money they refunded me in case an attorney can help me. I
would also like to mention that dealing with Litton is time consuming and mentally stressful which
is the weapon they use. I would have given up a long time ago but I have family members that
pitch in when I am ready to give up. I am almost worn out, please help. Litton Loan Servicing had
ruined my reputation and causes me and my mother emotional distress. I have $200,000.00 in
equity in a home but cannot borrow against it because of my credit. I wanted the money to make
repairs on the house and sell it. Now I am forced to sell the house as is at a much lower price. Also,
I am currently paying 9% interest on both properties and need to refinance but I cannot because of
the damage. What mortgage company is going to finance me when my credit reports claim I do not
make my mortgage payment on time? Worst damage that Litton has done is to my mother that has
cancer and is worried sick that we may lose the properties. Litton likes to mail foreclosure notices.
We know that at any time Litton can claim we owe them extra money and if we cannot come up
with the money while we dispute their claim we may lose our property.
Tara of Lebanon OH (11/11/08) Litton didn't send me information as to where to send my
payments until 3 months later. One week after receiving notice, my house was put in foreclosure. I
never received call from them nor did I ever get an answer from customer service - after 2 or more
hours on the phone, I would get hung up on. The whole thing was crazy the way it happened. By
the time I got the Loan modification offer, I only had 10 days to get it back to them. I sent it back to
them the day before it was due (sent overnight registered with return receipt). I had to notify the
court and their attorney in my answer that I had signed the agreement. Shocker to me was that 14
days after it was due and sent in, I was approved! My loan was originally 84K; %9.95 ARM for 30
yrs, with a balloon payment of 77K at the end of that term, my payment at that time was $847/mo
with nothing escrowed. When they did the loan modification, with all fees owed to them that I was
behind on, this came to a new total owed of over 88K that I owed. with the approval, they knocked
my principal down to 62.9K, 7% fixed for 28yrs with everything escrowed into a payment of
$527/mo. Now my home will be paid in 28 years, and everything is current, and they even went
back to the credit companies and corrected my status with all of them as current. took off where it
showed I was behind, which raised our credit scores. I could not believe it. Persistence is what it
takes to get things done with this company, they are far behind due to the numerous loans they
took in from Fremont, and in turn, it has made their customer service in all departments worthless.
Catherine of Cincinnati OH (04/09/07) my loan was sold to Litton Loan Servicing. I paid my
property taxes in January because I signed a paper with my original loan that the tax was not be
escrowed. I faxed them a copy of the check and followed up to make sure they received it. They are
charging my account for the escrow of the tax and will not stop. No one will return my calls.
I have left messages pleading for help and get no response. They sent me a letter stating if I did not
pay the extra tax amount - my payments will be reported as late.
My payments are being reported as late and I am constantly upset about this as I was rebuilding
my credit.
95
Tonya of Bellevue OH (02/15/08) my parents have actually lost their house due to Litton Loans.
Several times they received letters that their house was in foreclosure. Every month, their payment
was never the same; one month it'd be $1061, then up to $2000 the next. This last time they got a
lawyer because they didn't know what else to do. The lawyer told them to make their payments in
an escrow account until it was settled. However, yesterday, they received a phone call that Litton
had sold their house to themselves. Mom and Dad are distraught. Litton would never even call
Mom back--or her attorney, for that matter. So the attorney resigned, thinking that he didn't want
to take all their money for something he couldn't ever really get started or finish. How can these
people do this? How can they refuse to take money for a loan and then turn around and foreclose
on your house? Didn't Bush just sign some law about decreasing the amount of foreclosure
happening? This house was my grandma's. She and her husband designed and built this house.
This company needs to be put out of business, and an example needs to be set with severe
consequences that would stop any other company from doing the same. We as blue collar working
folks need to band together and stop these people. There is strength in numbers. I will be
forwarding these complaints to Congress. My dad is a heart patient and has had several heart
attacks. I was so afraid that something would happen to him as soon as he heard that he lost the
house his mother gave him. I'm still not sure that he won't. It only happened yesterday that Mom
and Dad got the call that the house was sold without them even knowing. My mother is 50 years
old and not in the best health, and she is slowly giving up. I don't know exactly how much money
they have paid unduly--not to mention the insurance that Litton has purchased when the house
was already covered with mom's own insurance.
James of East Sparta OH (10/14/08) Our loan which was with Avelo since July 2007 was never in
default until November of 07 till March of 08. We came to a payment arrangement and agreement
with Avelo and paid the agreement accordingly which was paid in full by May of 08. Since all
payments were paid as agreed to Avelo all letters of foreclosures had stopped. In June of 08 Avelo
sold all their mortgages out to Litton Loan Servicing LLS. Since July of 08 when our first payment
had started with Litton Loan Servicing the foreclosure and default letters started again we were
even paying more than double our monthly statement amount of 656.80 a month even after July of
08, and more charges that didn’t make sense were being added to our loan. We contacted Litton
Loan Servicing to see why or an explanation as to why our loan was back into default again all they
could tell us was when Avelo had sold out to them that our loan was still in default, but had no
access to any records that Avelo had before they were switched over to them. Which is not true we
have every payment made since 2006 to Avelo as well as to Litton Loan Servicing? They refuse to
try and correct a mistake on their part and told us it will take 60 days to investigate the situation
and that we had to send them by fax a copy of all receipts of payment made to Avelo mortgage
company so they can further investigate. After that initial contact with Litton Loan Servicing the
notices had stop for two weeks and now we are getting them again and we are not behind on any
payment. Credit damages, bills falling behind can barely afford food for the family or medical the
children so desperately need because of this and the prenatal care my daughter and his wife needs
at this time.
Jessie of Galloway OH (09/19/08)My husband and I purchased our 1st home back in 2005. A
couple of months after we were married. Right after we moved in Litton took over our loan. I was
working for a lender at the time and knew exactly what they were about. I told him we were in for
trouble with them just because I knew how they worked. Well not even 1 month after we moved in
we got a letter from them. They were raising our payment because our property taxes went up. UH
wait a minute we just bought the house, the re taxes did not go up, so on the phone I was. I let the
96
girl I spoke with know that I was not an uneducated homeowner and I had the website up right in
front of me and they had a matter of 24 hours to get it changed or my attorney would be contacting
them. Well they got it fixed. There was a time we sent them their mortgage payment, they pushed
that payment through out bank for $600 more than what the check was written for. Which by the
way when you live paycheck to paycheck that causes other things to bounce? It took them 2
months to get us our money back. During that time we had to stop our direct deposits, stop direct
debits, call all the companies and explain what happened. Borrow money from family to get those
bills paid and we opened a new account at another bank. Well finally they gave us the $600 they
overtook plus another $800 for the fees and other stuff (which they weren’t going to give back but
ended up doing so after again I had to bring up an attorney). Fast forward to now. We are 30 days
past due and we got a call the other day. My husband in a not so nice way told the little India girl,
look we tell you people this 3x's a day when you call. My wife lost her job, has been looking and no
one calling her back. We cant pay you right now. She then not so nicely told him we had two
options either pay what is due or pack and get out. My 2nd mortgage is a lot nicer to deal with.
They are willing to rework our loan but with out the help of Litton we are stuck. I have tried to
contact other lenders to see if anything can be done once I get a job and am told nope your over
equity we cant help you. Litton wont help us, they tell us that our interest rate is at the lowest it can
possibly be. They don’t offer deferments, so when I do get a job we can have a least a month to get
something together for them. They are just down right nasty when you speak to them. They
transfer you to 3 different people so you can tell them the same story. They call and call and call
daily. I don’t ignore their calls I take them and I am honest with them and the only response I get is
so when can you make a payment. It is just a never ending cycle with them. Not sure when they
will understand that I am unemployed but they don’t seem to be getting it. We now have to put
the house up for sale. Oh did I mention that the value of our home has dropped by over 20K in the
last 3 years. And from what I read Litton is not so quick on the short sale process. Dragging it out
for months and months. The entire time calling and harassing the owners for payments they know
cant be made. Our credit is all jacked up now, and we are losing our very first home. The kids are
devastated that we are going to have to leave the neighborhood where all their friends live and it is
just down right embarrassing for them. I am stressed out. I cant sleep, my nerves are shot. I cry at
the drop of a dime. My marriage is suffering now because we are just both stressed, we are arguing
all the time. And the cost of apartments was I live am not much more than what I was paying in a
mortgage payment. So we are just in an all out bad position.
Eddie of Jacksonville AL (01/16/07) Litton bought my mortgage from countrywide -- sent me a
letter that was for foreclosure then sent me payment coupons. Called Litton for 3 days straight -no
response.
Jennifer of Gulf Shores AL (03/04/08) we started having trouble making payments in fall of 2007.
My husband had had 2 surgeries and then was laid off, and I was not working at the time. I spoke
with Litton Loan several times a week keeping them up to date and making payments the best that
we could manage, trying to avoid foreclosure. In November they told us that we had to be caught
up, or the foreclosure process would begin. They would not talk about any options with us; it was
just the same conversation over and over: Why are you behind....Please pay us money. On the last
day before the foreclosure process was to begin they told us that we could apply for a deed in lieu
or possibly short sale the house if we could find a buyer. EITHER way we should go ahead and
leave the property ASAP because GA has the fastest foreclosure in the country. So we moved at
the beginning of December and still have the multiple phone calls a week, but now it is me and my
realtor calling trying to see if all of our paper work is in order. It is almost impossible to get a return
97
phone call from these people. If you do get a person, they tell you that things are being processed
and that it is normal to not receive any correspondence. On February 11 we got an offer on the
house that is $17,000 short of the original loan price from 2004. The offer was never accepted or
rejected by Litton Loan--not even a counter offer. Fast Forward to March 3, 2008: My house may or
may not have been foreclosed on today, but I do not know because I cannot for the life of me get
anyone on the phone. AND had I known that it would take this long, I would not have moved in
December and paid 3 extra months of rent. Plus, I feel bad for the potential buyers who have been
just sitting around waiting to hear from Litton all this time. What a giant waste of my and the
realtor's time. We have gotten so many papers and documents together it is ridiculous. And to get
no response at all is infuriating. A 'No' would have been better than just never getting any answers
for almost HALF A YEAR. I wasted money on rent, and I could have still been in the house. I
wasted many hours compiling paperwork, forms, etc. to try and sell the house via short sale, deed
in lieu, or other--lust the realtor's time. AND ultimately the house looks like it is still going to
foreclose due to my non-payments, yes; but also Litton's refusal to assist us in alternative options
that they pretend to offer.
Steve of Irondale AL (05/04/08) Litton Lending bought our mortgage in early 2008 from City
Financial. The first of April and informed us that we owed them $3000 in late payments, and that
they had tacked on an escrow account. They said that our homeowners insurance had lapsed and
that they paid our property taxes, neither of which is true. They never bothered to call to verify that
in fact the insurance is indeed current and that we paid our property taxes late last year. We have
proof that the escrow is not necessary and that we indeed paid both accounts in full and are not
delinquent. We were told that they would not remove the escrow even though we have sent them
proof of payment. They always tell that the information is not in the system. They also refuse to
try to settle things peacefully. Every customer service rep that we have spoken to is both
condescending and extremely rude. As a result our credit is ruined, and pours payments sure so
high now that we are not able to make the full payment and are therefore behind. I have tried
everything I know save to hire legal counsel to resolve the matter. Thanks to Litton Lending we are
deeply in debt and are unable at this time to get out of it on our own.
Mary of Mobile AL (07/14/08) Litton bought my mortgage in April 2008 from 1st Franklin. I was a
couple payments behind and wanted to catch up. They told me that they were not ready to accept
payment as the info. Was not in their computer. They said they would notify me. I told them I can't
pay the late fees and they assured me there would be none. This was a rental property and, after a
divorce I was moving out of state and wanted to sell it. I called them to ask about doing a short
sale, as by now they had stated that I was three payments behind and had added several late fees
and 'corporate fees'. What was supposed to be a $33,000 or fewer payoffs became at $48,000 pay
off. The loan originated at $38,000. They emailed me the paper work for a short sale and asked me
to fill it out and send it back along with a letter of hardship, tax returns, bank statements, and wage
statement. I did so twice. The first time, they claimed to have not received it. The second time, they
told me my case would be handled by Mike Brockton. I received a cash offer on the property with
an anxious buyer. However, Litton has not responded to the request and paper work for the short
sale. Repeated calls from my real estate broker and the realty attorney, along with myself, have
been ignored. I have left message after message begging for a response. I am now in a position
where I have to re-rent the house with the frustrated would-be buyer living right next door - who
had asked me to have the house vacated so that they could renovate and his brother could move in.
This has further damaged my credit and I lost a great renter by being told by Litton that this
process would take 4-6 weeks. The rent was $750/month and now it is sitting there vacant. Also,
98
this is damaging my credit as I cannot afford the payments nor am I willing to pay all the fees and
late payments that they have added because THEY would not let ME pay them and catch up. Also,
I'm not sure why I owe - after a few months, $10,000 more than the original loan, especially when I
had paid it down into the $20,000's.
Gene of Gadsden AL (07/20/08) Despite not ever being late with my mortgage payment, I was
reported as being late to the 3 major credit agencies. After going through the dispute process with
each of the agencies, the late payments have been removed from my credit report. However, I now
have a more serious problem. I received a foreclosure notice today. My payments have been
debited from my bank account each month and I have records to prove it. How can they do this?
No one from the company will ever call me back despite numerous voice mails. What can I do?
Help! I was not able to refinance to an FHA loan with a much lower interest rate due to my
artificially low credit scores. I am also unable to finance any new purchases such as a new
automobile that is desperately needed!
Wayne of Biloxi MS (10/23/08) Litton has held our mortgage for several years now and it has been
one problem after another. No matter when we send in our payments it always shows that we were
late. They tack on fee after fee that we don't understand and have cost us thousands of extra
dollars. They charged us for a home inspection that never happened. That charge us over three
thousand dollars for homeowner's insurance when we already had our own policy, of which proof
was sent to them. Every month it is something different, some new charge, something we've never
heard of. Litton has to be the most evil corporation on the face of the earth. My wife and I stay in
constant worry about what Litton will do to us next. My wife and I both are disabled and cannot
afford to be toyed with by a company such as Litton.
Chadwick of Bram MS (08/12/08) I put my house on the market because I could no longer afford it
due to being laid off of my Job. I found a buyer and actually agreed to a price to sell it for and the
Litton loan bought my loan in the middle of me trying to work out the deal on my house. The
original loan company had agreed to take a short sale on the house that way I could get out of it
and now Litton is telling me it could take up to 90 days for them to do it and now I owe 16k more
than I did before Litton Bought the loan. I need to sell it in the next week but now I do not know
what I am going to do I am going to lose my buyer and with the market these days it could take
months and months to find another one.
Priscilla of Pascagoula MS (09/07/08) I have had a loan with this company since I bought this
house from someone over ten years ago. About 4 years ago I did a loan modification. My payments
were changed. Then a month later my payments went up 250.00 dollars when they put force place
insurance on my house-so then I was back where I started with high payments-I was then placed in
foreclosure and was forced to file bankruptcy was the only means of saving my house. So for over 4
years I was paying this extra 250.00 a month not realizing that this money was just adding up in my
escrow account. Earlier this year I realized I had over 4,000 in my escrow-so I contacted Litton to
get my money so I could get me some real insurance instead of this force place crap-and boy did I
get the run around. Everyday I called got several different people and the run around. They said
the sent the check-and 3 weeks later not check. Then they said they sent a 4,000 check regular mail.
Who does that? (When actuality they cut the check-zeroed out my escrow account and redeposit
into THEIR account) So when I'd call the rep would tell me that my escrow account was zero and to
wait for the check. It wasn't until someone in the bankruptcy department took it upon herself to
help me and he was confused as to why they redeposit the money into their account. When he
99
contacted them they said they needed to verify if I was current on my mortgage before they could
send the check out I was finally able to get my check. My advice is to keep calling. They want you
give up and get depressed. I don't take any chances. Each month I pay my mortgage by western
union. I don't mind paying that extra ten dollars. It is worth it. They have a history of misapplying
payments, saying they never received them so this gives me a piece of mind.
R. of Williamston NC (01/07/08) my parents are seniors and have lived in their home for 27 years.
In 2005 my parents ended up refinancing their home. Their loan was sold to Litton Loan Service.
Their payment has increased several times over the course of this loan. They have gone from
payments of $600 to $1000 per month. One of my parents passed away in Nov. 2007. Prior to this
death, a third party agency has made several attempts to get them out of this loan. Litton applies
payments in a manner where it is beneficial for them--the lender. Loan modification seems to be a
foreign language for Litton. Customer service consists of people taking orders but do not solve
anything. This nightmare has been going on for approximately 2 years now. My parents dealt with
this problem for as long as they could before it mentally and physically drained them. I am not
surprised to find these comments regarding Litton business practices. What I do not understand is
that they keep doing the same thing over and over again. The payments have caused financial
hardship, which I believed did not help during the illness of my parent.
Frank of Mint Hill NC (03/11/08) I am in the Real Estate business, enough said. I have been taking
a beating for about 6 months now. I have fallen behind on my home payment about $8,029.00. I just
learned today that the homes are in foreclosure. I have not received any letter from Litton or the
attorney they are using stating that the is in foreclosure or how much is owed to bring the home
current. I did not know they could foreclose on a home with out informing the home owner.
North Carolina is a deed state and I have the right to redeem the property right up to 10 days after
the date of sale. Litton is trying to pull a fast one and obtain this home from under my feet without
giving me a chance to bring the loan current. I have made several calls to the person handling my
account and of course she has not returned any of my calls. My wife is on the heart transplant list
and it is making her illness worse by her warring about losing her home. It got so bad that her
deliberator shocked her because of the streets this is putting her through.
Gregory of Mint Hill NC (11/19/08) Freemont sold mortgage while we were negotiating a
modification, Litton filed for foreclosure immediately dropped it. Gave us modification program
that is at 8% variable and with all fees and lawyer fees that we have incurred per them. Mortgage
has grown over 30,000.00. Meanwhile while negotiating modification, can never get same person
on the phone. No other written correspondence, Litton filed for foreclosure 01 struggling to find
alternative program to save home. Stressed, unable to sleep, angry that govt. is helping all these big
company’s but what about those of us trying to keep our homes?
Anthony of Wagram NC (11/12/08) Let them know we would send Money near end of month to
catch up on 3 months payments next thing I know we get default papers in mail and will Send
money let them know we would send money Nov. 13, find out no record and now it is already sent
to default attorney on Nov. 3rd and now have to catch up payments plus attorney fee of 1700.00
which makes no sense to me. who has time to fight it if you want to keep your home....either way
they have you..........have no other choice but to send money further behind, how can you ever
catch up if they are steady adding fees. Do not give deferments because they are only servicing
company. something needs to be done... some kind of communication should be available with
100
lender and they don't like to help with that either....somebody please help that is 1700 I could use
toward my house payment that would be 2 and 1/2 payments... come on..
DO WE NEED ANY MORE PROOF
OF LITTON’S SCHEME?
How many more stories need to be told and
how many more lives and families need to be
destroyed?
101
STRUCTURED FINANCE
Servicer Report
Litton Loan Servicing, LP
MOODY'S AUTHORS:
Fern Wang, CFA
Associate Analyst
(212) 553-4621
FeiFern.Wang@moodys.com
Jason Grohotolski
Analyst
(212) 553-1067
Jason.Grohotolski@moodys.com
MOODY'S
CONTRIBUTOR:
Aleksandra Polovetskaya
Senior Associate
(212) 553-4523
Aleksandra.Polovetskaya
@moodys.com
MOODY'S CONTACTS:
Warren Kornfeld
Senior Vice President
(212) 553-1932
Warren.Kornfeld@moodys.com
Brett Hemmerling
Investor Liaison Specialist
(212) 553-4796
Brett.Hemmerling@moodys.com
MOODY’S WEBSITE:
www.moodys.com
COMPANY CONTACTS:
Larry B. Litton Sr.
President and
Chief Executive Officer
Litton Loan Servicing
(713) 966-8800
llitton@litton.c-bass.com
James F. Schneider
Managing Director
C-BASS
(212) 850.7790
RATINGS
Primary Servicer
Subprime Loans
Second Liens Loans
Special Servicer
SQ1
SQ1
SQ1
RELATED RATING
MGIC Investment Corporation Senior Unsecured Debt
Radian Group, Inc. Senior Unsecured Debt
A1
A2
Ratings Publication Date: December 6, 2004
SUMMARY OPINION
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed Litton Loan Servicing LP's ("Litton")
SQ1 ratings, Moody's highest Servicer Quality (SQ) rating, as a Primary Servicer
of residential subprime mortgage loans and second lien loans and as a Special
Servicer of residential mortgage loans. Moody's ratings are based on Litton's
above average collection results, strong loss mitigation, strong foreclosure and
REO timeline management, and above average servicer stability.
Litton is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC ("C-BASS"), which is owned by MGIC Investment Corporation
(46%), Radian Group, Inc. (46%), and C-BASS management (8%). MGIC Investment Corporation and Radian Group, Inc. are rated A1 and A2, respectively, for
senior unsecured debt.
Litton primarily services loans that C-BASS either owns or loans that have been
securitized and C-BASS owns the subordinate and residual securities of such
securitizations. Litton also performs third-party servicing. Litton's servicing portfolio totaled 210,634 loans for an unpaid balance of approximately $23 billion as
of October 31, 2004.
COMPANY BACKGROUND
Litton Loan Servicing was founded by the company's CEO, Larry Litton Sr., in
1988, and was acquired by C-BASS in 1996 C-BASS was formed in July, 1996
and is a joint venture company among C-BASS management, MGIC Investment
Corporation (NYSE: MTG) and Radian Group Inc. (NYSE: RDN). Litton is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of C-BASS.
jim.schneider@c-bass.com
COMPANY'S WEBSITE:
www.littonloan.com
102
March 31, 2005
Recent Acquisition
In October 2004, C-BASS announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire a portfolio of
assets from PCFS Mortgage Resources ("PCFS"). PCFS is a division of Provident Bank that was acquired by
National City Corporation in July 2004. The transaction that C-BASS conducted with PCFS closed on December 1, 2004.
The acquired portfolio includes the residual interests and the servicing rights from a pool of securitizations
backed by loans with an aggregate principal balance of approximately $800 million, third-party mortgage servicing rights on a portfolio of loans with an aggregate principal balance of approximately $7.6 billion, and
PCFS's servicing operations in Atlanta, Georgia.
Litton's role in this transaction is significant because it is integrating PCFS' Atlanta, Georgia facility into its own
operations as a secondary call center. Litton has successfully acquired servicing portfolios in the past, but has
never before integrated an existing servicing platform into its operations. Moody's recognizes the additional
challenge of integrating the PCFS servicing platform and will closely monitor Litton's operations and loan servicing performance.
MGIC Investment Corp
C-BASS Management
Radian Group, Inc.
C-BASS, LLC
(New York)
Litton Loan Servicing
(Houston)
SERVICING PORTFOLIO
Litton began its third-party servicing activities and began purchasing the servicing rights to mortgage pools in
2002. This resulted in a substantial increase in the overall size of Litton's portfolio from 2002 to 2003. Litton's
portfolio contains large numbers of loans with below average credit quality. Many of the loans are seriously
delinquent at boarding. The five states having the largest concentration of loans by unpaid balance were California (24.9%), Florida (7.4%), New York (5.3%), Texas (4.8%) and Illinois (4.6%).
Litton's servicing portfolio consisted of $15.3 billion of subprime residential mortgage loans, $1.1 billion of second liens, $770 million of first lien nonperforming or re-performing prime residential mortgage loans, and a small
portion of FHA/VA, HUD, and manufacturing housing loans as of March 31, 2004. See Figure 1. Fixed rate,
fixed balloon, and adjustable rate mortgages made up 40%, 8%, and 52% of the portfolio, respectively.
2 • Moody’s Investors Service
103
Figure 1
Litton Servicing Portfolio
by Product Type
$20,000
$4,000
$18,000
$3,500
Manufactured Housing
Servicing Portfolio ($ Millions)
$16,000
HUD Re-performing
$3,000
$14,000
FHA / VA
$12,000
$10,000
$2,500
2nd liens / HLTV
$2,000
Subprime
Non Performing &
Re- performing Prime
$1,500
Third Party Servicing
$8,000
$6,000
$1,000
$4,000
$500
$2,000
$0
$2001
2002
2003
Mar-04
Year Ending
Figure 2
Litton Servicing Portfolio
$20,000
500
$18,000
450
$16,000
400
$14,000
350
$12,000
300
$10,000
250
$8,000
200
$6,000
150
$4,000
100
$2,000
50
$0
Average # Loans per Employee
$ Millions
by Deliquency Bucket
REO
Bankruptcy
Forbearance
In Foreclosure
90+ Days Delinquent
60 Days Delinquent
30 Days Delinquent
Current
0
2001
2002
2003
38047
Year Ending
104
Moody’s Investors Service • 3
SERVICER ABILITY
Litton Loan Servicing LP's primary servicing facility is located in Houston, Texas. Litton is in the process of integrating the secondary servicing facility located in Atlanta, Georgia acquired through the PCFS transaction.
Litton's existing platform in Houston, Texas uses LSAMS as its main servicing system. The newly acquired site
in Atlanta, Georgia will adopt the same system. The two servicing sites are now completely virtual. Any call
overflow in one site can now be directed to the other site.
Litton outsources welcome calls for all servicing transfers and 1-29 day collection calls to Advanced Call Technologies (ACT). Currently, ACT has 18 collectors and two supervisors dedicated solely to Litton. Litton is in the
process of cross-training its customer service and collection staff and may gradually migrate to a blended customer service and collection management environment in which staff members can perform both functions.
Litton uses an internal lockbox to process payments. Exceptional payments received are processed daily. In
addition to checks, Litton accepts payments via Speedpay, ACH through the web, Quick Collect and Electronic
Funds Transfer. Payments are applied using LSAMS rules-based payment logic.
Litton uses a Voice Response Unit ("VRU") to provide borrowers with basic loan information. The VRU also
allows borrowers to request payoff statements and verification of mortgage and routes calls from delinquent
borrowers to the collections department. Litton uses Lereta Corporation for flood zone updates. Release processing is outsourced to an attorney in Houston, Texas.
Collections Management
Moody's views Litton's collection results as above average. Of the subprime loans that began our 12-month
static pool analysis as 30 or 60 days delinquent, 52% improved in terms of delinquency and 33% rolled into a
worse stage of delinquency by the end of the 12-month period. Twelve percent (12%) of the subprime loans
that began the static pool period as current rolled into a worse stage of delinquency. Of the second lien loans
that began the 12-month static pool analysis as 30 or 60 days delinquent, 55% improved and 34% rolled into a
worse stage of delinquency by the period's end. Eleven percent (11%) of the second lien loans that began the
static pool as current rolled into a worse stage of delinquency.
Figure 3
Collections Performance
Subprime Loans
2nds Liens
Current to
Delinquent1
12%
11%
30 & 60
Day Success2
52%
55%
30 & 60 Day
Setback3
33%
34%
1 % of current loans that are delinquent after 12 months
2 % of 30 or 60 day delinquent loans with improved delinquency after 12 months
3 % of 30 or 60 day delinquent loans with weaker delinquency after 12 months
Litton's collection strategy focuses on prioritizing the riskiest loans. Litton's calling campaigns are structured by
product type and age of delinquency using a Davox power dialer and Centerforce Optimizer software. Litton's
collections staff does not use scripts in their calls; instead, collectors are trained to solicit cooperation from borrowers in resolving delinquencies. Litton uses Planet Codes to track payments in the mail.
Litton makes multiple attempts to contact delinquent borrowers through telephone and the mail. Litton has
improved its collections by utilizing creative mail campaigns and other consumer collection techniques, such as
sending a "page 2" letter at day 82 to entice delinquent borrowers to call in. Litton also sends loss mitigation
videos at day 90 that are designed to prompt borrowers to contact Litton to discuss loan resolution alternatives.
Litton trains its staff to obtain the borrower's cooperation and gather pertinent financial data in order to quickly
determine the borrower's ability to remain in the property. This increases the number of successful loan resolutions.
For the period under review, Litton's Right Party Contact Rate was 19%. Its Promises to Pay Rate of 59%, with
a Kept Promises Rate of 83%, was in line with those of other servicers. Litton's Abandoned Calls Rate of 1.9%
4 • Moody’s Investors Service
105
during the period, which Moody's views as very good compared to those of other subprime servicers, which
typically have an average abandon rate of 3-5%.
Loss Mitigation
Litton's loss mitigation results are strong. Twenty-three (23%) of the subprime loans that began a 12-month
static pool analysis as 90+ days delinquent or in bankruptcy (excluding REO and loans acquired in a nonperforming status) were cured and 29% became cash flowing, respectively. Twenty-one (21%) of the second lien
loans that began a 12-month static pool analysis as 90+ days delinquent (excluding REO) were cured and 28%
became cash flowing.
Figure 4
Cure Rates of Loans that were 90+ Days Delinquent or in Bankruptcy
Subprime Loans
Second Lien
Total Cure1
23%
21%
Cash Flowing2
29%
28%
In Limbo3
28%
26%
Loss Mitigation4
5%
1%
Loss with No Loss
Mitigation5
15%
23%
1 "Total Cure" includes "current" and "paid in full".
2 "Cash Flowing" includes "minor delinquency", "bankruptcy - current on the payment plan", "chapter 7 bankruptcy - contractually current", "modification" and "re-performing forbearance".
3 "In Limbo" includes "90+ day delinquency", "foreclosure", "bankruptcy - not current on the payment plan", and "chapter 7 bankruptcy - not contractually current".
4 "Loss with Loss Mitigation" includes different types of early settlement / loss mitigation techniques, such as "deed-in-lieu", "Third Party Sale", "Short
Sale/ Note Sale", and "put back/ repurchase".
5 "Loss with No Loss Mitigation" includes "REO sold from foreclosure", "in REO from foreclosure" and "charge-offs".
Litton's compensation system rewards employees for reducing defaults and minimizing losses. Litton's proprietary servicing software, RADAR, facilitates faster and better-informed loan management decisions by providing
simultaneous access to loan information and loss scenario outcomes, including net present values for the various alternatives. Litton's strategy is to offer deals that correspond to the perceived level of risk for a loan, i.e. as
loans get progressively riskier, the deals offered get progressively better from the borrower's viewpoint. The
RADAR software also facilitates Litton's dual track approach of simultaneously pursuing loss mitigation and
foreclosure.
Foreclosure and REO Timeline Management
Moody's considers Litton's foreclosure and REO timeline management to be strong. On average, Litton referred
loans to foreclosure at the 92nd day of delinquency after adjusting for any bankruptcy delays that may have
been experienced prior to foreclosure referral. Foreclosure was completed, on average, 67 days beyond the
Freddie Mac Timeline Assuming No Delays. Lastly, REO was liquidated, on average, in 171 days. See Figure 5.
Figure 5
Average Foreclosure - REO Timeline Information
Foreclosure Referral
Average Days from Next Payment to Foreclosure Referral
Percentage of Foreclosure Referrals Affected by Bankruptcy
Impact of Pre-Foreclosure Bankruptcy Delays (in Days)
149
19%
75
Foreclosure Referral to Sheriff Sale
Average Days from Foreclosure Referral to Sheriff Sale
Freddie Mac Timeline Assuming No Delays
Percentage of Foreclosures With Uncontrollable Delays
230
163
85%
Real Estate Owned ("REO")
Average Days a Property is REO (Excluding Redemption)
Percentage of REO with Eviction
Average Days REO in eviction
171
39%
66
106
In August of 2003, Litton changed its foreclosure referral policy to refer loans at the 90th day of delinquency
instead of on the 75th day. The new policy allows borrowers an additional 15 days to make payments and
explore loss mitigation alternatives. According to Litton, this policy change has resulted in higher cure rates and
fewer loans actually being referred to foreclosure.
Foreclosure processing takes place over Litton's foreclosure website. Foreclosure activities handled in this manner include automated referrals, automated queuing of foreclosure steps, and detailed tracking of delays. Litton's attorney website improves foreclosure processing by facilitating two-way communication between
foreclosure attorneys and Litton and making documents and information readily accessible to Litton. In addition, the website facilitates Litton's monitoring of the foreclosure process. When delays in the foreclosure process are encountered, RADAR automatically recalculates the foreclosure's net present value so that loss
mitigation alternatives can be re-evaluated.
Litton views its foreclosure attorneys as "strategic partners." They are part of the loss mitigation effort and try to
obtain loss mitigation resolutions during the foreclosure process. In addition, they are not given incentives to
complete foreclosures faster than the Fannie Mae "best case" timelines. The foreclosure attorneys have also
been given pre-approval for certain types of repayment plans.
REO is typically listed at 105% to 108% of estimated value, with monthly price reductions up to 5%. The eviction rate on REO properties is 38.6%.
In the second quarter of 2003, Litton initiated a field inspection program designed to identify properties that
could yield larger returns if minimal repairs were performed. As a result of this program, Litton's average repair
costs have increased. In addition to identifying situations in which properties should be repaired, the field
inspection program is designed to identify properties that do not warrant foreclosure due to property conditions
and local markets. The program is also intended to monitor the performance and accuracy of Litton's inspectors and brokers.
SERVICER STABILITY
Moody's views Litton as above average in terms of its servicing stability.
Financial Stability
Moody's views financial stability as an important factor supporting our servicer quality ratings for Litton. Litton
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of C-BASS, which ultimately is owned by MGIC Investment Corporation (46%),
Radian Group, Inc. (46%), and C-BASS management (8%). The ultimate parents of C-BASS, MGIC Investment
Corporation (NYSE: MTG) and Radian Group (NYSE: RDN), are both leading mortgage insurers listed in the
New York Stock Exchange, rated A1 and A2, respectively, for their senior unsecured debt.
Litton serves an integral role in C-BASS' overall business strategy. C-BASS is a profitable company on a consolidated basis. As a wholly-owned subsidiary of C-BASS, Litton is also a profitable entity on a standalone
basis. The financial strength of the two ultimate parent companies, MGIC and Radian, also acts as a strong
support for Litton's financial stability. As of September 30, 2004, MGIC had consolidated equity of $4.1 billion
and Radian had consolidated equity of $3.2 billion. Net profit for the nine months ended September 30, 2004
was $418.7 million for MGIC and $362.7 million for Radian.
Staffing and Training
Litton maintains a well-trained and experienced staff with sufficient resources to manage its workload at current
staffing levels. Within the firm, significant effort is devoted to aligning the company's goals with those of the
staff. Senior management is well seasoned, with an average industry experience of 17 years, of which seven
years are with Litton. Functional managers have an average of 16 years of industry experience including four
years with the company. Overall staff turnover was 14% for the year ended March 31, 2004.
The company devotes significant resources to training in order to develop and retain employees. To advance
this objective, the company has developed an internal certification program as part of its training curriculum.
Achieving higher levels of certification is an important component of each employee's review and compensation. Litton provides training to both its new hires and ongoing training to its existing staff. Litton has three full6 • Moody’s Investors Service
107
time trainers on staff, two of them devoted exclusively to default training. Litton encourages cross-training
among the different departments.
Legal, Compliance and Oversight
Moody's considers Litton strong in legal, compliance, and quality oversight. The company has a litigation risk
management review committee. In the monthly committee meeting, senior management reviews pending litigations, borrower complaints, and industry trends that may affect the operational activities of Litton's business
units. The Quality Initiative Process, which uses teams of cross-functional employees to analyze designated
processes for the purpose of improving operations, also demonstrates Litton's efforts in quality improvement.
In 2002, Litton hired a new director for internal audit and quality control and implemented a more structured
approach to these processes. Litton's audit and quality control initiatives include quarterly and annual audits
across critical areas of the business. Oversight for the internal audit and compliance functions rests with CBASS's risk manager, chief financial officer and general counsel. These individuals report to the Internal Control
and Compliance Committee monthly. The committee consists of senior management of both C-BASS and Litton.
Litton has a compliance officer to deal exclusively with compliance, legal and regulatory issues. An employee at
C-BASS also has the responsibility of reviewing internet sites for any complaints posted against either C-BASS
or Litton. When identified, Litton attempts to contact the borrower to address the issue.
Technology and Disaster Recovery
C-BASS and Litton have made a strong commitment to technology. Litton's proprietary system, RADAR,
wraps around LSAMS, Litton's servicing platform, and coordinates real time information flow from external vendors such as information on updated property values, title information, and foreclosure and bankruptcy status,
with information obtained from the general ledger like early due diligence and REO data.
RADAR tracks loan status and helps to analyze potential settlements based on current property values, foreclosure status, and current and potential expenses. RADAR uses a detailed financial model to discount the potential cash flows from a loan and helps analyze the probability of success or failure for repayment plans and
modifications based on prior experience. In our view, RADAR enables efficient task management via e-mail,
detailed timeline tracking, and electronic transmission of information -- both internally and externally. An auxiliary
system communicates information to RADAR from the company's lawyers via an internet portal.
Moody's believes that RADAR's detailed task management capabilities have allowed Litton to make better
decisions by having all of this information in one place. RADAR Viewer is an advanced web-based reporting
tool that provides investors with the ability to view delinquency data on all Litton-serviced deals. Data is available in aggregate, at the loan level, and at the bond level and includes detailed information on payment velocities, prepayment rates, projected losses, delinquency trends, and credit support information. Data is updated
monthly and ties back to the trustee remittance reports for third-party data verification. Monthly remittance
reports as well as other deal documents (such as the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) are also available on
RADAR Viewer.
Litton has contracted Sungard Recovery Services as its disaster recovery vendor. Sungard maintains a configuration of Litton's production hardware systems. A copy of Litton's system backup is stored offsite at Vital
Records. These arrangements would allow Litton to rebuild its system in case of a disaster.
108
Structured Finance
Servicer Evaluation
Residential Mortgage
Special Servicer
Litton Loan Servicing L.P.
Subprime Servicer
Opinion
Servicer
Residential Subordinate
Lien Mortgage Servicer
Consumer Finance Servicer
– Manufactured Housing
USA
Analyst:
Steven Frie
New York
(1) 212-438-2458
Financial Analysts:
Robert Partridge
New York
212-438-7231
Jason Jones
New York
(1) 212-438-7174
March 2006
RANKINGS
Residential Mortgage Special Servicer: STRONG
Residential Mortgage Subprime Servicer: STRONG
Residential Mortgage Servicer: STRONG
Residential Subordinate Lien Mortgage Servicer: STRONG
Consumer Finance Servicer-Manufactured Housing: AVERAGE
The rankings on Litton Loan Servicing L.P. (Litton), a subsidiary of C-BASS LLC (C-BASS), are
affirmed at STRONG as a Residential Mortgage Special Servicer, Residential Mortgage Subprime
Servicer, Residential Mortgage Servicer, and Residential Subordinate Lien Mortgage Servicer. At the
same time, the ranking of AVERAGE is affirmed for Consumer Finance Servicing. The outlook is stable.
The rankings reflect the company’s seasoned management and staff, superior technology platform, comprehensive policies and procedures, and established track record of resolving distressed
assets for a wide variety of investors. In 2005, management successfully integrated a large servicing
entity (PCFS), which was approximately the 19th largest servicer of subprime accounts at the time of
acquisition per data compiled by Inside B&C Lending. The company continually reviews ways to
improve its automation to increase efficiencies and productivity. Results can be seen most recently in
its payment processing and escrow administration departments. The training program remains well
rounded, and there was additional emphasis on ensuring staff from the purchased company were
properly educated in Litton’s guidelines. Given the company’s emphasis on purchasing distressed
assets, and concurrently owning the residuals or “B” piece, default methodologies in regard to collections and loss mitigation are proactive and comprehensive in nature.
The company’s overall statistics, as reflected in company responses to Standard & Poor’s proprietary the SEAM© questionnaire, compare favorably against relevant industry peers. Internal auditing
mechanisms, consisting of dual levels of control, ensure that all critical areas of loan servicing are
reviewed on a regularly scheduled basis. Additionally, separate legal and compliance personnel, who
both directly and indirectly, assist the servicing departments with fulfilling the company’s regulatory
obligations, also complement the auditing processes. This represents a good use of resources given
the various regulatory initiatives undertaken or introduced by the industry over the past few years.
The ranking of AVERAGE is affirmed for Consumer Finance Servicing of manufactured housing
(MH) assets. Due to similarities between these assets and residential mortgages, Litton relies on its
existing personnel to handle many of the servicing functions. Automation was enhanced to include
certain dedicated screens to address MH assets, rather than the previous practice of solely relying on
adding extra data fields to the existing mortgage system. Though not a growing portfolio due to a
lack of opportunity in the marketplace, management remains committed to the business and will
continue to augment controls109
and personnel as the portfolio eventually increases in the future.
OUTLOOK
STABLE
Litton plans to continue to grow its servicing portfolio through acquisitions of credit-sensitive
residential mortgages. Management’s emphasis on strengthening automation and the company’s control environment should serve it well as the company continues to grow its asset base. In consideration of its current achievements, Litton should remain a proficient residential servicer of different
assets types in the mortgage marketplace.
Profile
2
Founded in 1988 by its current founding
director, Larry Litton, Sr., the company initially serviced prime mortgage loans, eventually migrating to handling distressed assets
for the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC).
Applying the significant amount of expertise
gained through these RTC contracts, management decided to focus its future business
efforts on resolving seriously delinquent
mortgages. In 1996, Litton was contributed
to a newly formed investment company, CBASS, as part of an initial investment made
by Enhance Financial Services, its owner at
the time. Enhance, which later was purchased by Radian, co-invested in C-BASS
with MGIC Investment Corp. in July 1996
to form C-BASS LLC. C-BASS is 8% owned
by senior management, with the remaining
ownership interest divided equally between
MGIC Investment Corp. and Radian Group
Inc. C-BASS is a large purchaser of creditsensitive assets, which consist primarily of
subprime mortgages. The business model
emphasizes investing and retaining an equity
interest in RMBS through the first loss or ’B’
piece, while also maximizing cash flow for
itself and its investors through proactive loss
mitigation strategies. Litton, which services
the whole loan collateral that C-BASS purchases and securitizes has, together with CBASS, built a sophisticated default management platform to manage the credit risk
inherent in these investments. As an outgrowth of C-BASS investing in subprime collateral, Litton began servicing subprime
accounts in 1998. These mortgages remain
the company’s main business focus.
Management does not actively seek FHA,
VA, FNMA, or FHLMC portfolios, and
would only consider pursuing such opportunities on an opportunistic basis. The compa-
110
www.servicerevaluations.standardandpoors.com
ny, however, still acquires ‘B’ pieces from
prime portfolios when they are available.
The company continues to retain a small
portfolio of distressed MH assets, as management believes this is a natural extension
of its core residential servicing expertise.
Management expanded its business ventures so that it now includes interim servicing and small balance commercial loans of
under $3 million unpaid principal balance
(UPB). Interim servicing involves servicing
the asset for 45-75 days with an option to
acquire it. The current portfolio consists of
approximately $12 billion from such purchases and the company has a relationship
with another notable mortgage entity to provide future volume. Litton has a relationship
with a California-based firm that yielded the
acquisition of 72 mostly multifamily loans in
2005. Portfolio forecasts indicate an increase
by another 20-30 such mortgages in 2006.
Although only in the exploration stages,
management may pursue opportunities in
Europe to service performing and nonperforming assets. This would involve the purchase of another servicing entity as Litton
could not service these mortgages in the U.S.
due to regulatory and/or system issues.
Additionally, though not an originator, the
company established a business relationship
in August 2005 with two Dallas-based firms
for portfolio retention efforts. Litton provides these firms with a list of borrowers
who contacted the company about payoff
information, who, in turn, contact the customer in an attempt to refinance the loan. If
successful, Litton has the first right of purchase. In the second phase of the initiative,
Litton will directly contact the borrower
based on current credit information to
actively solicit the account for a refinance.
Management and
Organization
Litton greatly increased its portfolio
through the acquisition of the former PCFS
Financial Services Inc., a mid-size Atlantabased servicer of subprime mortgages, in
December 2004. This increased the portfolio
by approximately $8 billion UPB in subprime mortgages, 90% of which was thirdparty serviced assets. Management eventually purchased 75%-80% of the residuals,
which aligns with its overall business plan.
When acquiring assets, management pursues one of three options: whole loan purchases, buying a portion of the residuals, or
owning a percentage of the ‘B’ piece. Whole
loan purchases consisting mainly of
sub(non)performing assets, are not as significant as they were in the past.. Of the $20$23 billion forecast for 2006 acquisitions,
only $5-$7 billion represent whole loan
transactions. Residual and ‘B’ piece deals
encompass another $13 billion, with the
remainder divided amongst a mixture interim of other means. The company has primary business relationships with investment
bankers of individual mortgage firms to
secure mortgages through the above referenced options.
As of Sept. 30, 2005, Litton was the 16th
largest servicer of subprime loans according
to data compiled by Inside B&C Lending.
Litton ended 2005 with a $43.05 billion
portfolio representing 313,938 loans.
Subprime mortgages encompass the vast
majority of the portfolio, representing over
80% by number of accounts and 94% by
UPB. Approximately 85% of assets are serviced for C-BASS with the remainder representing various strategic relationships in
which clients sold the ‘B’ piece to C-BASS
depending on the contract agreement. There
are no plans to become active in third-party
servicing or selling third-party business related services to other entities.
The company is subject to various lawsuits, but management believes none will
result in any material financial impact to the
company.
RANKING STRONG
Litton’s fine training, overseen by the
training director, properly acquaints its personnel with their responsibilities through its
Litton University program. Conducted under
the auspices of five trainers who use the
company’s three training rooms, the curricula includes function-specific, systems, and
soft skills classes, with required testing in
many of the offerings. Many of the courses
are mandatory. Following the PCFS acquisition, management hired a trainer in Atlanta
to also assist with the program and continuing education. As expected, customer service
and collection training is particularly intensive given the high degree of customer contact in the positions and the regulated nature
of the business as it pertains to RESPA and
FDCPA requirements. Attributes of the
training program include:
■ New hires receive an eight-hour orientation that introduces them to the company
and provides a general overview of mortgage banking;
■ Customer service representatives complete
The ranking for Management and Organization
is affirmed at STRONG.
Management and staff recruitment,
development and training
Litton displays excellent management
depth. The company has not experienced
any difficulties recruiting qualified staff,
given its favorable geographic location.
■ Senior managers average a good 12 years
industry experience and six years with the
company;
■ Middle management averages almost nine
years expertise and over three years
tenure with Litton; and
■ The turnover rate for the management is
less than 1%, while staff averages a low
17%.
Though the turnover rate increased slightly from prior years, this was mainly due to
staffing changes resulting from the PCFS
acquisition.
■ March 2006
Standard & Poor’s Servicer Evaluation111
3
■
■
■
45 hours of classroom training that
address different loan servicing functions,
and an additional 40 hours on-the-job
(OTJ) mentoring;
Collectors undergo approximately 93 hours
of classroom training, which includes three
hours of FDCPA instruction, and a similar
40 hours of OTJ mentoring;
Collectors must receive a 100% score on
the FDCPA exam, and there is annual
refresher training and re-certification in
this regulation;
Personnel who do not pass the FDCPA
exam receive retraining, but must achieve
the desired score by the second attempt;
■
■
■
■
■
■
A centralized library of pertinent mortgage reference materials for self-study by
the staff;
Career-pathing mechanisms allow staff to
progressively advance within the organization by successfully completing various
courses;
Required compliance classes in areas such
as RESPA, FCRA, and FDCPA as applicable to job function;
Business correspondence training for
affected staff with required certification;
Staff annually receive training in four to
five mortgage related classes; and
C-BASS personnel travel to the sites to
train or be trained in pertinent topics.
Chart 1
Training
Collections
Customer Service
100
93
80
60
45
40
40
40
20
0
Classroom
Operational structure
Management revised its organizational
structure over the past 18 months to better
distinguish between distinct functions, while
improving information process flows
between the groups. There are five main
areas as follows: Accounting addresses
investor reporting and cash processing;
Escrow handles tax/insurance and other
escrow items; Loan administration is responsible for new loan boarding and interim
servicing; Default administration oversees
collections, loss mitigation, bankruptcy, and
customer service; and REO is responsible for
valuation analysis, foreclosure, and owned
properties. Litton aligned the customer service function with default administration
4
112
www.servicerevaluations.standardandpoors.com
OTJ
because it believes centralizing all borrower
contact within one unit allows for better
analysis of call center metrics and strategizing of customer contact solutions. Each of
the respective senior vice presidents, including the CFO in accounting, report to the
chief operating officer (COO), who in turn,
reports to the president of the company. The
president ultimately reports to the executive
vice president of C-BASS who oversees the
servicing division.
Technology
Litton has a highly adaptive and flexible
systems infrastructure, with superior
automation in place. Systems architecture
and business recovery features include:
Prior Judicial Determinations
Litton is aware that their actions are wrongful because of prior judicial
determinations and settlements. This serves as an indication that they acted knowingly
willfully and wantonly. In the 2005 Fitch report, Litton states that they are aware of
several lawsuits pending against them, but none that will result in any financial hardship
to them.
Wright v. Litton Loans Servicing LP, 2006 WL 891030 (E.D.Pa. )-Plaintiff brought an
action against Litton for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 , the Fa ir Debt Collec tion Practices Act, 41 Pa. Stat. §§ 101 605, and the Pennsylvania Unfair T rade Practices and Consum er Protection Law, 73 Pa.
Stat. § 201 et seq. JUDGMENT was ENTERE D in favor of the plaintiff, Andrea W right,
and against the defendant, Litton Loan Servicing, LP in the sum of $31,367.54. The
damages to which plaintiff is entitled
are: $1,000 under FDCPA, $2,000 for the 20
violations of the Pennsylvania Debt Co llections statute, $1,000 under RESPA, $2,367.54
under the P ennsylvania Act 6 of 1974, for a total of statutory dam ages in the am ount of
$6,367.54, plus $25,000 for e motional distress and related non-pecuniary losses, for a
total damage award of $31,367.54. In addition, plai ntiff is entitled to recover attorney's
fees, in an amount to be determined.
Reed v. Litton Loan Servicing LP., 2004 W L 1386314 (Va. Cir. Ct.) –Plaintiff brought
an action against Litton for alleging they viol ated the Virginia Consum er Protection Act
(VCPA) and comm itted f raud by charging f ees which were not autho rized und er their
mortgage loan. The complaint alleges that Litton “wrongfully and deceitfully charged the
Reeds f or f orbearance paym ents, f orce-placed insuranc e, illeg al late charg es, f ee
assessments, corporate fees and corporate a dvances” thereby “engaging in d eceitful and
fraudulent conduct. Addition ally, plaintiffs have alleged that “Litton req uired the Reeds
to pay each of such charges under the threat of foreclosu re, even though Litton h ad no
basis under the loan documents for imposing such fees.” The assertion made with a claim
that Litton m ade “material misrepresentations” made “intentionally” w hich Litton knew
were false and reliance adequately pleads causes of action for fraud under the VCPA and
at common law. Plaintiffs claim that the actions of Litton were “willful and malicious or
in conscious disregard for the rights of othe r.” This sta tement, in conjunction with the
prior allegations regarding fraud was suf ficient for a request f or punitive damage, given
that plaintiffs have alleged an intentional tort.
Byron v. Litton, 2007 WL 1201507 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass)-Anita B yron commenced a Chapter
13 case on Septem ber 16, 2004. She sought refuge in the bankruptcy court to forestall
foreclosure of a m ortgage on her residenc e held by Litton Loan Servicing, LP. She
contends that Litton made numerous missteps in its handling of her mortgage account, all
to her disad vantage, reflecting bad faith a nd co mprising breaches of federal and state
consumer protection statutes. In furtheranc e of her grievances
against Litton, she
commenced an adversary proceedin g by filing a com plaint on March 1, 2005, alleging,
among other th ings, L itton's unlawful accelerat ion of th e m ortgage and its related
foreclosure effort. Litton answered the com plaint, denying the allega tions and portraying
113
itself as a mortgagee engaged in the proper exer cise of its contractual and state law rights
against and in resp ect of a defaulting mortgagor and her property. After commencing the
adversary p roceeding, Byron pro mptly soug ht dis covery of Litton . She m ade her
mandatory disclosures under Rule 26(a)
on June 30, 2005 and
repeatedly sought
reciprocal disclosures from Litton, to no ava il. Thereafter, she m ade her first docum ent
production request on July 28, 2005, again to no avail, and, on March 17, 2006, her
second document production request and her firs t request for answers to interrogatories
and for admissions (“Discovery Requests”). On April 25, 2006, nine months after Byron's
initial request, Litton r eplied to the Discove ry Requests but did not m ake the m andatory
disclosures under Rule 26(a). Li tton has conceded that its April 25, 2006 reply was late
and incomplete. The Judge rendered this decision: at issue, then, is not whether sanctions
should be imposed upon Litton but rather what sanctions. Litton would absolve itself of
any exposure to sanctions, and excuses its discovery failures, on three grounds:
first, it
intended to save lega l costs f or Byron as well as itse
lf; second, it spen t tim e in
(unsuccessful) settlement talks; and third, Byron suffered no harm . I am unpersuaded by
Litton's argument. Rather than curtail costs, Litton's compliance failures increas ed them,
necessitating Byron' s num erous inform al effo rts to obtain the requisite com pliance and
the more formal action of the Motio ns. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: Litton
shall pay $1,500 to Byron by May 15, 2007 fai ling which an additional sanction of $100
per day will be im posed for each day after May 31, 2007 such paym ent is not m ade, and
Byron shall report to the Court in writing regarding the payment status by May 22, 2007.
Cyphers v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.L.P, 503 F.Supp.2d 547- Mortgage borrowers
brought action alleging that loan servicing com pany and debt collection agency violated
Fair Debt C ollection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state law. In this case, plaintiffs have
alleged and dem onstrated that Litton sent to them two stipulation agreem ents in January
and June 2005, respectively, which containe d legal captions and language which would
have led a reasonable person to believe that a foreclosure action ha d been in itiated in
state court. Plaintiffs have also alleged and demonstrated that a foreclosure action was not
initiated until Novem ber 2005. Moreover, plain tiffs have alleged th at L itton m ade this
representation knowingly and inte ntionally and that they relied on it in agreeing to
monthly paym ent incre ases which, in turn, re sulted in a dditional late paym ents and
foreclosure. Thus, plaintiffs have met the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).
Kuhl v.Litton LoanServicing, 2005WL2387393
There are several other cases, but I chose only to list a few.
114
Mortgage Servicing Fraud Lawsuits
Curry v. Fairbanks- The FTC charged Fairbanks with engaging in a variety of unfair,
deceptive, and illegal practices in the servicing of subprime mortgage loans. Fairbanks
failed to pos consumer’s payments in a timely manner and consumer’s illegal late fees
and other unauthorized fees. Fairbanks agreed to settle for $40 million without admitting
any wrong doing. 1
Sealy Davis vs. Ocwen- A jury in Galveston, Texas, has awarded $11.5 million to a
customer of Ocwen Financial Corp. and its former Ocwen Federal Bank subsidiary, after
determining they committed fraud in servicing her home equity loan. The jury found the
Ocwen companies made fraudulent, deceptive and misleading representations to Davis
after she missed a loan payment while hospitalized in 2003.
Guzman v. Ocwen- A jury awarded over $3 million for a wrongful foreclosure after
finding that Ocwen acted with “malice” in their criminal conduct in the servicing of
plaintiff’s loan.
Starks v. EMC-In what may be the largest local award in a non-class action consumer
protection case, a subsidiary of Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. has been ordered to pay $6
million for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The arbitrator found the
company’s conduct “reprehensible and outrageous and in total disregard of (the Starks')
legal rights.”
FTC v EMC and Bear Sterns- EMC Mortgage and Bear Sterns agreed to repay almost
$28 million to victims who were victims of their inappropriate charges. The charges
included fraudulent property inspection fees, unauthorized late fees, loan modificationfees and other “unlawful abusive practices”
Nosek v. Ameriquest-Chapter 13 debtor brought adversary proceeding to recover, inter
alia, for mortgage-lender's alleged violation of provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) in connection with its servicing of debtor's account following
confirmation of plan that provided for cure of debtor's pre petition default and
maintenance of regular monthly mortgage payments outside plan. The Bankruptcy Court,
Joel B. Rosenthal, J., 2006 WL 1867096, entered judgment in favor of debtor on RESPA
and breach-of-implied-duty claims. Lender's violation of Chapter13 debtor's statutory
“cure and maintenance” rights was such as to warrant award of emotional distress
damages in amount of $250,000 and punitive damages of $500,000.
The above are just a few examples that mortgage servicing fraud exists.
1
This is the case that exposed mortgage servicing fraud. Larry Litton Jr. was aware of the settlement, but
claims it was an exception. However, Litton Loans engage in the same illegal practices alleged in the
complaint.
115
Industry Experts and Websites
Dillon, Mike- founder of www.getdshirtz.com.There are literally thousands of people like Mike
facing and fighting illegal foreclosure attempts due to mortgage servicing fraud. Go to his site
for more information about his personal story involving a ten year battle concerning his home.
Doucet, Troy- a former mortgage firm owner, paralegal, and law student who assists attorneys
throughout the United States in their efforts to combat foreclosure. He regularly audits loans for
TILA and HOEPA violations, as well as other foreclosure defenses. He is the author of 23 Legal
Defenses to Foreclosure, How to Beat the Bank. www.foreclosure-fight.com
Eggerts, Kurt-is a Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education. His scholarship
has focused on several different areas, among them predatory lending, consumer credit,
gambling regulation, and elder abuse. He has testified to Congress on predatory lending issues
and is a member of the Federal Reserve Board’s Consumer Advisory Council, where he chairs
the subcommittee on Consumer Credit.
Gardner III, O Max- Bankruptcy Law and Consumer Protection Attorney. Max is recognized
as the leading consumer lawyer in America in the area of Predatory Mortgage Servicing in
consumer bankruptcy law. www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com
Guttentag, Jack-Professor of Finance Emeritus, formerly Jacob Safra Professor of International
Banking, at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. www.mtgprofessor.com
Huffer, Karin, MS/MFT, author of Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome, has
achieved over twenty years of research and experience in diagnosing and treating Legal Abuse
Syndrome. She has put the groundbreaking new book out based upon her research that our
judicial system can and does cause traumatic stress in those who seek civilized, fair due process
of law and redress of grievances.
Litigants feel like they are wrong or crazy when their best efforts do not succeed in court. We
are advocates, consultants and expert witnesses serving those who have suffered from ethical or
legal abuses and who need rational assistance in facing what will feel like a system and life out
of control. www.legalabusesyndrome.org
Marks, Bruce- CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America ("NACA") is a
non-profit, community advocacy and homeownership organization. NACA’s primary goal is to
build strong, healthy neighborhoods in urban and rural areas nationwide through affordable
homeownership. www.naca.com
McGrath, Maureen National Advocacy Against Mortgage Servicing Fraud.
Morgeson, Gretchen-is assistant business and financial editor and a columnist at the New York
Times. She has been the most consistent source for articles relating to mortgage servicing fraud.
SeeDubious Fees Hit Borrowers in Foreclosures:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/06mortgage.html?_r=1&scp=21&sq=mortgage%
20servicing%20fraud&st=cse
116
Porter, Katherine-Associate Professor at The University of Iowa conducts empirical research
on consumer and commercial laws. Her current research examines mortgage claims in consumer
bankruptcies.
Rao, John -is an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, Inc. Mr. Rao focuses on
consumer credit and bankruptcy issues. He is a contributing author and editor of NCLC's
Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice; co-author of NCLC’s Foreclosures and Guide to
Surviving Debt; and contributing author to NCLC’s Student Loan Law, Stop Predatory Lending,
and NCLC Reports: Bankruptcy and Foreclosures Edition.
www.nclc.org (The Book Foreclosures: Defenses, Workouts, and Mortgage Servicing)
Richardson, Denise- is a noted Consumer Advocate who has been the voice of the consumer–
for more than 15 years. Denise works tirelessly to unite consumers with their advocates and raise
awareness and transparency to identity theft, scams and predatory practices. She belongs to a
number of nationally recognized consumer advocacy organizations and is one of the few nonattorney members accepted in the National Association of Consumer Advocates. She is a Board
member of American Consumer Credit Education Support Services, a non profit consumer
advocacy organization dedicated to educating consumers on financial and privacy matters.
Richardson is also an Author who turned her life experiences into her first book, Give Me Back
My Credit, a Memoir that humanizes and exposes the harmful effects of inaccurate credit
reporting, lender errors, illegal debt collection practices and identity theft.
www.givemebackmycredit.com
Wright, Jack-the founder of www.msfraud.org Robert John Wright (aka Jack Wright) who tells
his story. Hear how he lost his home even though the mortgage company (EMC Mortgage-Bear
Stearns) confirmed at trial that Jack was never in default. EMC Mortgage also confessed at trial
that they were not the Holder of the loan and admitted they "saw Bank of America's mistakes;
but rather than correct those errors, they just decided to steal his home and equity"! Victims
tell their side of the mortgage crisis story - the side you don't hear.
The above individuals have research and written articles relating to mortgage servicing fraud.
They have the best information I have yet found.
117
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A...........................................................................................page 119
2004 Reinstatement Quote
APPENDIX B...........................................................................................page 122
Mortgage Note
APPENDIX C...........................................................................................page 125
Lenders Payment History
APPENDIX D...........................................................................................page 131
Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate
APPENDIX E.............................................................................................page 133
2005 Reinstatement Quote
APPENDIX F.............................................................................................page 134
Forbearance Agreement
APPENDIX G............................................................................................page 135
2005 Foreclosure Complaint
APPENDIX H............................................................................................page 139
Qualified Written Request(QWR)
APPENDIX I..............................................................................................page 142
Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
APPENDIX J.............................................................................................page 148
August and September payment debited from borrower’s account
APPENDIX K............................................................................................page 149
Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal
APPENDIX L............................................................................................page 151
2006 Foreclosure Complaint
APPENDIX M...........................................................................................page 155
Answer to complaint and counterclaim /Brief to Bank's motion to dismiss
APPENDIX N............................................................................................page 200
Non-Impound for Escrow
APPENDIX O............................................................................................page 201
Andy Williams Mortgage Servicing Fraud Act
APPENDIX P.............................................................................................page 202
Testimony of Larry Litton Jr.
118
Litton Loan Sewicing LP
Payment Address:
P.O.Box 4528
Houston, Texas 77210
Mailing Address:
4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston, Texas 77081-2226
Telephone: (713) 960 - 9676
Fax: (7 13) 966 - 8844
REINSTATEMENT QUOTE
FOR LOAN # 11523445
This reinstatement quote is not valid if the good through dateis in the past.
Date Generated
-
wQ
This reinstatement quote details are as below
$16,584.68
Inspections
$8.50
$9 00
Attorney FeesJAllowable
BPO Fee
Filins
- CostslCourt Summons
Filing CostslFiling Fee Complaint
Misc CostsITax Redemption
Prev. Servicer Exoense
kcording ~
o
s
08.50
$36.00
-, 4
cdl ( ')hm
be$(
C U ~
$IOO.O~I~*$90.00)
J
$150.00
$95.00
$585.00
--Ix
t
s
(
~
Recording Costs(Loan Assignment
Attorney Costs Not Yet Billed
-
C L ~
$1 ,I
00.00
I
Due Date
feCd;(3b
g
1
Current Late Charge
Deferred Late Charge
Accrued NSF Fees
(NSF
Fees
Escrow Advance Balance (Non escrow loans only)
Forbearance Suspense Balance
Figures Good Through
I
119
' $18.00L
$18.00
$1.095.00
.
4,'
f',
-
5/,1/2003]
v]
120
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W . P.C.
( 2 0 NORTH LA SALLE STREET
SUITE 2520
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 2
A R E A C O D E 312
K E N N E T H H. F I S H E R
B A R R Y M. F I S H E R
ELIZABETH K A P L A N MEYERS
R O B E R T W. G R E E N E
R E N E E MELTZER KALMAN
M I C H A E L S. F I S H E R
A N D R E W E. H O U H A
MARC D ENGEL
J O S E P H I N E J. M l C E L l
O I M ~ T R I O S P. T R l V l Z A S
C Y N T H I A A. S U T H E R I N
J A M E S R. R I E G E L
B R E N T S. B E H A N N A
RANDAL 5 BERG
F. A L L A N S T O R N I N G
J O S E P H M. H E R B A S
H E L E N K. KO
,
372-4784
'
FAX # (312)
372-4398
LAFAYETTE F I S H E R (1911-1986)
@ o l d Second
Cashiers Check
361164
Old Second National Bank
37 Swlh RNH Slrsel
Aurora, I1 M5U6
REMITTER
ORDEROF
..
1007
EXACTLY **19,921 AND 40/100 DOLLARS
TO THE
... . .
Branch:
ANDY WILLIAMS**********
PAY
--
Date: 5/28/04
THE PURCHASE OF AN INDEMNITY BOND WLL BE REOUIRED BEFORE ANY
CASHIER'S CHECK OF THIS 8ANK WILL BE REPLACED DR REFUNDED I N
THE EVENT IT IS LOST, MISPLACED OR STOLEN.
.
- . - . ...
LITTON LOAN SERVICING*******
#I1523445
.
.
-.
..
.-
. .
..
..
.
.- .
-
- .. -- . .
121
.
..,. , .
51t+.'.'"T::!7k!
IiFC
A
.
COISAED 5ACKG40UWD BORDER COKIAINS MlCROPRll
ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE
(LIBOR Index
-
Rate Caps)
THIS NOTE CONTAINS PROVISIONS ALLOWING FOR CHANGES IN m INTEREST RATE AND m MONTHLY
PAYMENT. THIS NOTE LIMITS THE AMOUNT MY INTEREST RATE CAN CHANGE AT ANY ONE TIME AND
THE MAXIMUM RATE I MUST PAY.
ILLINOIS
[State]
AURORA
[Cityl
3201 HOPEWELL COURT , AURORA, IL 60504
[Property Address]
1.
BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY
In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S.$
171,200.00
(this amount is called "principal"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The
Lender is
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., A California Corporation
2.
INTEREST
Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal
has been paid. I will pay interest at a yearly rate of 7.300
%.
The interest rate
I will pay will change in accordance with Section 4 of this Note.
The interest rate required by this Section 2 and Sections 4 of this Note is the
rate I will pay both before and after any default described in section 7(B) of this
Note.
3.
PAYMENTS
(A) Time and Place of Payments
I will pay principal and interest by making payments every month.
I will make my monthly payments on the 1st day of each month beginning on
July 1 , 2002
. I will make these payments every month until I have paid all
of the principal and interest and any other charges described below that I may owe
under this Note. My monthly payments will be applied to interest before principal.
, I still owe amounts under this Note, I will pay those
If, on
June 01, 2032
amounts in full on that date, which is called the "Maturity Date".
I will make my monthly payments at P . O . Box 502480 San Diego, CA 92150-2480
, or at a different place if required by the Note Holder.
(B) Amount of My Initial Monthly Payments
Each of my initial monthly payments will be in the amount of U.S.$
This amount may change.
1,173.70
(C) Monthly Payment Changes
Changes in my monthly payment will reflect changes in the unpaid principal of my
loan and in the interest rate that I must pay. The Note Holder will determine my new
interest rate and the changed amount of my monthly payment in accordance with Section 4
of this Note.
4.
INTEREST RATE AND MONTHLY PAYMENT CHANGES
(A) Change Dates
The interest rate I will pay may change on the lSt day of
June
,
2005
and on that day every sixth month thereafter. Each date cn which my
interest rate could change is called a "Change Date".
(B) The Index
Beginning with the first Change Date, my interest rate wlll be based on an Index
The ll~n~exll
i s t h e a \ r p r a ~ ~p>f ; n t ~ i - ' ~ > n L 8- - f f r i r o r 7 - - + a - 6 - - , - 4 - .^
-Li-
122
The Note Holder will then determine the amount of the monthly payment that would
be sufficient to repay the unpaid principal that I am expected to owe at the Change
Date in full on the maturity date at my new interest rate in substantially equal
payments. The result of this calculation will be the new amount of my monthly
payment.
(D) Limits on Interest Rate Changes
The interest rate I am required to pay at the first Change Date will not be
greater than
8.800
% or less than
7.300
%.
Thereafter,
my interest rate will never be increased or decreased on any single Change Date by
more than
One And One-half
percentage point (
1.500 % )
from the rate of interest I have been paying for the preceding six months.
% or
My interest rate will never be greater than
14.300
%
less than
7.300
(E) Effective Date of Changes
My new interest rate will become effective on each Change Date. I will pay the
amount of my new monthly payment beginning on the first monthly payment date after the
Change Date until the amount of my monthly payment changes again.
(F) Notice of Changes
The Note Holder will deliver or mail to me a notice of any changes in my
interest rate and the amount of my monthly payment before the effective date of any
change. The notice will include information required by law to be given me and also
the title and telephone number of a person who will answer any question I may have
regarding the notice.
5.
BORROWER'S RIGHT TO PREPAY
Prepayment Charge Rider to the Note attached hereto.
I have the right to make payments of principal at any time before they are due.
A payment of principal only is known as a "prepayment". When I make a prepayment, I
will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so.
I may make a full prepayment or partial prepayments. The Note Holder will use
all of my prepayments to reduce the amount of principal that I owe under this Note. If
I make a partial prepayment, there will be no change in the due dates of my monthly
payments unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes. My partial
prepayment may reduce the amount of my monthly payments after the first Change Date
following my partial prepayment. However, any reduction due to my partial prepayment
may be offset by an interest rate increase.
6.
LOAN CHARGES
If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is
finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be
collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (i) any such
loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the
permitted limit; and (ii) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted
limits will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by
reducing the principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me. If a
refund reduces principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial payment.
7.
BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED
(A) Late Charges for Overdue Payments
If the Note Holder has not received the full amount of any monthly payment by the
endof
Fifteen
calendar days after the date it is due, I will pay a late charge
to the Note Holder. The amount of the charge will be
5.000 % of my
overdue payment of principal and interest. I will pay this late charge promptly but
only once on each late payment.
(B) Default
If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due, I
will be in default.
(C) Notice of Default
-
7
-
,
. ?
- .
.
..
123
8.
GIVING OF NOTICES
Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given
to me under this Note will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class
mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if I give the Note
Holder a notice of my different address.
Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given
by mailing it by first class mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section
3iA) above or at a different address if I am given a notice of that different address.
9.
OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE
If more than one persons signs his Note, each person is fully and personally
obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to-pay
the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note
i s also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations,
including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also
obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce
its right under this Note against each person individually or against all of us
together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts
owed under this Note.
10.
WAIVERS
I and any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of
presentment and notice of dishonor. "Presentment" means the right to require the Note
Holder to demand payment of amounts due. "Notice of dishonor" means the right to
require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been
paid.
11.
UNIFORM SECURED NOTE
This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions.
In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage,
Deed of Trust or Security Deed (the "Security Instrument"), dated the same date as
this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do
not keep the promises that I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes
how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of
all amounts I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:
Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower. If all or any
part of the Property or any interest in it is sold or transferred (or if a beneficial
interest in Borrower is sold or transferred and Borrower is not a natural person)
without Lender's prior written consent, Lender may, at its option, require immediate
payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option
shall not be exercised by Lender if exercise is prohibited by federal law as of the
date of this Security Instrument.
If Lender exercises the option to require immediate payment in full, Lender
shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not
less than 30 days from the date the notice is delivered or mailed within which
borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument. If Borrower fails to
pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Lender may invoke any remedies
permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.
Seal (s) Of The Undersigned
%*
(seal)
-- --
Borrower
(Seal)
Borrower
ANDY WILLIAMS, SR
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
533
-
DUPAGE COUNTY WHEATON, ILLINOIS
?
The Bank of New York, asl~rustee
PLAINTIFF
2005~~bo~445
FILED
-
28 2005
12 :44
vs.
Andy Williams, Sr.; Shinette Williams; Guaranty Home
Equity Corporation d/b/a GB Home Equity; Fox Metro
Water Reclamation District; The Cambridge Chase
Homeowners Association; Unknown Owners and
Nonrecord Claimants
DEFENDANTS
eb
No.
CLERKOFTH6
tam m x c 1 R L CIRCUIT
w PI#E COUNTY XLLIMOIS
L
J
COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE, by and through its
attorneys, CODILlS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., complaining of the defendants herein and, pursuant to
735 ILCS 511 5-1 101, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff files this Complaint to Foreclose the mortgage, trust deed or other conveyance in the
nature of a mortgage (hereinafter called "Mortgage") hereinafter described, and joins the persons
named in the caption as "Defendants", as parties hereto.
2. Attached as "EXH'BIT A" is a true copy of the Mortgage. Attached as "EXHIBIT B" is a true
copy of the Note. Attached as "EXHIBZT C" is a true copy of the Assignment.
3. Information concerning said Mortgage:
(A) Nature of the instrument: Mortgage.
(B) Date of the Mortgage: 5/10/02
(C) Name of the mortgagor(s):
Andy Williams, Sr.
Shinette Williams
(D) Name of the mortgagee:
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
(E) Date and Place of Recording or Registering:
6/3/02
Office of the Recorder of Deeds of DuPage County Illinois
(F) ldentification of Recording: Document No. R2002-143765
(G) Interest subject to the mortgage: Fee Simple.
(H) Amount of original indebtedness:
-.
--
-
---
.
...
-
-
Page 1 of I
-
135
-
-.
-
_ ..
i
( I ) Original Indebtedness: $1 71,200.00
(I) Both the legal description of the mortgaged real estate and the common address or other
information sufficient to identify it with reasonable certainty:
LOT 35 IN CAMBRIDGE CHASE UNIT 4, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF
SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 9, EAST OF THE THIRD PRMICPAL
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 1,1997 AS
DOCUMENT NUMBER R97-44413, IN DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
COMMONLY KNOWN AS:
3201 Hopewell Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 07-08-302-029
(J) Statements as to defaults: Mortgagors have not paid the monthly installments of
principal, taxes, interest and insurance for 1/01/05, through the present; the principal balance
due on the Note and Mortgage is $166,862.37, plus interest, costs, advances and fees. Interest
accrues pursuant to the note.
(K) Name of present owner(s) of said premises:
Andy Williams, Sr.
Shinette Williams
(L) Names of other persons who are joined as defendants and whose interest in or lien on the
mortgaged real estate is sought to be terminated and alleged to be subordinate and inferior to
the mortgage of the Plaintiff:
Guaranty Home Equity Corporation d/b/a GB Home Equity, by virtue of a Mortgage
executed by Andy Williams, Sr. and Shinette Williams, dated May 10,2002, and
Recordedfregistered on June 3,2002 in the office of the Recordermegistrar of Deeds of
DuPage County, Illinois, as Document No. R2002-143766, to secure a note in the principal
sum of $42,800.00;
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District, by virtue of a Claim for Lien against Andy Williams,
Sr. and Shinette Williams in the amount of $221.38 and recorded on September 3,2003 in the
Office of the RecorderRegistrar of Deeds of DuPage County, Illinois, as Document No.
R2003-345683, for sewer services. Plaintiff alleges that the interest of this defendant is
inferior and subordinate to its mortgage.
Sr. and Shinette Williams in the amount of $157.18 and recorded on March 30, 2004 in the
Office of the RecorderRegistrar of Deeds of DuPage County, Illinois, as Document No.
Sr. and Shinette Williams in the amount of $170.38 and recorded on October 6,2004 in the
Office of the RecorderIRegistrar of Deeds of DuPage County, Illinois, as Document No.
Page 2 of 2
~
--
.--.--.p..--p----p--p
136
....
~
The Cambridge Chase Homeowners Association, by virtue of the fact that, upon information
and belief, it is the Homeowners Association for the subject property and may have some
interest in the subject real estate for unpaid assessments or other charges.
(M) Names of persons who executed the Note, Assumption Agreement(s), or Personal
Guarantee:
Andy Williams, Sr.
Please note that no personal deficiency will be sought against any party who has received a
Chapter 7 discharge.
(N) Capacity in which Plaintiff brings this foreclosure: Plaintiff is the legal holder of the
indebtedness or the servicing agent for the legal holder of the indebtedness. Furthermore, i f
applicable, an assignment of mortgage was recorded as follows:
Assignment recorded as document number: R2003-453498
(0) Facts in support of a redemption period shorter than the longer of 7 months from the date
the mortgagor or, if more than one, all the mortgagors have been served with summons or by
publication or have otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, or 3 months from the
entry of the judgment of foreclosure, whichever is later, if sought:
The redemption period shall be determined pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15-1603.
(P) Statement that the right of redemption has been waived by all owners of redemption:
There has been no executed waiver of redemption by all owners of redemption, however
Plaintiff alleges that it is not precluded from accepting such a waiver of redemption by the
filing of this complaint.
(Q) Facts in support of request for attorney's fees and of costs and expenses, if applicable:
The subject mortgage provides for payment of attorney fees, court costs and expenses in the
event of a default under the mortgage.
(R) Facts in support of a request for appointment of mortgagee in possession or for
appointment of a receiver, and identity of such receiver, if sought: Unless otherwise alleged,
Plaintiff will pray for said relief aAer the filing of the instant foreclosure action by separate
petition if such relief is sought.
(S) Offer to the mortgagor in accordance with Section 15-1402 to accept title to the real
estate in satisfaction of all indebtedness and obligations secured by the mortgage without
judicial sale, if sought: No allegation of an offer is made however, Plaintiff alleges that it is
not precluded from making or accepting such offer by the filing of the instant foreclosure
action.
(T) Name or names of defendants whose rights to possess the mortgaged real estate, after the
confirmation of a foreclosure sale, are sought to be terminated, and if not elsewhere stated,
the facts in support thereof:
Page 3 of 3
137
Andy Williams, Sr. and Shinette Williams
4. Plaintiff avers that in addition to persons designated by name herein and the Unknown
Defendants herein before referred to, there are other persons, andlor non-record claimants who are
interested in this action and who have or claim some right, title, interest or lien in, to or upon the
real estate, or some part thereof, in this Complaint described, including but not limited to the
following:
That the name of each of such persons is unknown to Plaintiff and on diligent inquiry cannot be
ascertained, and all such persons are therefore made party defendants to this action by the name and
description of UNKNOWN OWNERS and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS:
(i) A judgment of foreclosure and sale.
(ii) An order granting a shortened redemption period, if sought.
(iii) A personal judgment for deficiency, if applicable and sought, and only against parties who have
not received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.
(iv) An order granting possession, if sought.
(v) An order placing the mortgagee in possession or appointing a receiver, if sought.
(vi) A judgment for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, if sought.
(vii) For the appointment of a Selling Officer, if deemed appropriate by this court.
(vii) Such other and further relief as this court deems just.
ILIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Codilis & ~ssociates,P.C.
1 5W030 North Frontage Road, Suite 100
Burr Ridge, 1L 60527
(630) 794-5300
14-05-3293
Cook #21762 DuPage #15 170
ARDC # 00468002
Client # 1 1523445
W innebago # 53 1
Page 4 o f 4
138
...
320 1 Hopewell Dr
Aurora, I1 60504
April 18, 2005
In regards to: loan#11523445
I
Minnie Rodriguez
Houston, Texas 7708 1
Dear Minnie Rodriguez;
On May 28"', 2004, I paid $39,921.04 to reinstate my loan. The reinstatatement amount
was $19,902.02, and I paid $19.02 over. The reinstatement was 14 payments @$I, 184.62
and my payment is $1 173.70. I don't understand the difference. I will now break down
my payments. On 9/30/2004 two payments were made in the amount of $2678.13 which
was $333.73 more than the total of my actual payment excluding the late charge. On
11/1/2004 the October payment was posted. November 15~"payment posted in
November, December 30"' payment was posted in December, and January lgtha payment
was posted for January. I was only due for the February and March payment when I
received these extra fees and the foreclosure notice. 1 have been paying more than the
amount of my regular mortgage payment of $1 173.70 and have yet been able to get a
clear reason why. I have no other choice but to pay what is owed based on your records
because you are in control of the situation. I only ask that this can be corrected because J
clearly show that I have made the payments and my bank statements show that the
payments have been made. Please help me to straighten this situation out.
139
320i Hopewell Dr
Aurora, I1 60504
April 18. 2005
In regards to: loan#l1523445
Minnie Rodriguez
Houston, Texas 7708 1
Dear Minnie Rodriguez:
There was an agreement made on 31241205 to enter into a forebearance agreement. I was
only due for the Febn~aryand March payment. Yours and my records show that I was
only due for the February payment. I entered into the agreement in hopes that when I sent
you the records my forebearance would become void and I would reh~rnmalting my
monthly payments. I don't und.:rstand why I still have to pay attorney fees when this
clearly shows to be an error somewhere. I an1 enclosing a copy of my January payment
again to show that 1was not four months behind on my mortgage.Also I am enclosing
proof of insurance that we had faxed several times and niy insurance agent said he senr a
copy out also. My direct number should you have any questions is 630-088-2569
Respectfully yours,
Andy Williams Jr.
140
P.O. Box 6172
Aurora, Illinois.60598
630.236.6354
630.585.1718 Fax
R. L. Robinson & Associates, PC.
Attorneys at Law
October 4, 2005
SENT BY FACSIMILE ONLY TO (630) 794-5287
Ms. Rachael Stokas
Codilis 8 Associates, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
15W030 North Frontage Road, suite 100
Burr Ridge, Illinois 60527
Re:
Your file # 14-05-3293
Dear Ms. Stokas:
As you already know I represent Mr. 8 Mrs. Andy Williams in the above captioned matter.
Attached is a copy of an amended motion that I filed today. As you can see from the exhibits, the
Williams family was on a forbearance agreement and had not made the first payment at the time that
the complaint was filed because it was not due at the time. The forbearance agreement indicated
that the first payment was to be made on March 30, 2005 and the complaint was filed on or about
March 28, 2005. The agreement was dated March 24, 2005. The payment $3,100.00 was made on
March 30, 2005 and we have requested a copy of the payment from Western Union for your review.
We hope to have the copy before the court date on Friday. The next payment due on April 30, 2005
was also made.
I have also attached for your review, Mr. & Mrs. Williams' bank statement showing payments
to Litton. In addition, Litton has charged the Williams for homeowner's insurance. I have attached
proof that the home was insured in 2004 and 2005. In reviewing the forbearance agreement, it
indicates that the regular monthly payment is $1,188.90. The note indicates that the regular monthly
payment is $1,171.70. How did the regular monthly payment change?
Once you have had an opportunity to review this material, please contact me so we can
discuss this matter further. It appears that the lender has made some errors in its accounting. I have
received the payoff and reinstatement amounts. The issue that my client is having with all of this is
that after entering into a payment agreement and making those payments, this complaint was filed.
It appears that Litton was not acting in good faith. We are aware that the payments did stop after this
complaint was filed and this was because the lender was not acting in good faith and had been given
credit fcr payments actual!p nade. ?.?yc!ients cs.1 make all of the back payments. Our ccncem is
whether they will get the proper credit, as they have not been getting credit for payments and
insurance in the-past. The documents that Litton has tender to you do not match some of the entries
on their website for their customers. Mr. Williams' bank statement indicates that payments were
made. This may be a matter where you and I may need to meet one on one to review all documents
in their entirety and bring this matter to some sort of resolution. I can be contacted at (630) 859-0344
at your earliest convenience. My fax number is (630) 859-0355. Thank you in advance for your
consideration and assistance in this matter. May God bless you.
141
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
The Bank of New York, as Trustee
PLANTIFF
Vs.
Andy Williams, Sr.; et.al
No. 2005 CH 445
DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLANTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Now comes Defendant’s, Andy Williams Sr., and Shinette Williams, pro
se in response to Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment, states as
follows:
1. The precise issue in this case is whether the motion on file, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c);
Kleinwort Benson North America, Inc. v. Quantum Financial Services, Inc.,
285 Ill. App. 3d 201, 220 Ill. Dec. 457, 673 N.E.2d 369, 375(1st Dist. 1996)
(citations omitted).However, as set forth hereafter, there are several genuine
issues to several material facts still remaining.
2. In determining whether genuine issues of material facts exists, the court
should construe the pleadings, affidavits, deposition, admissions, and
exhibits strictly against the DEFENDANT and liberally in favor of
PLANTIFF, as summary judgment is “a drastic remedy to be granted only
when such remedy is clear and free from doubt.” 673 N.E.2d, at 374-75
(citatations omitted). Moreover, “if reasonable persons could draw different
conclusions or inferences from undisputed evidence, summary judgment
must be denied. Id. at 375(citations omitted).
Genuine Issue of Material Facts
3. Plaintiff’s filed its complaint to Foreclose Mortgage on 03/28/2005,
despite the fact that a forbearance agreement (Exhibit B 1 & 2) was entered
in good faith and payments were to begin on or about March 30,
2005.Defendants made two payments and has not been given credit for said
142
payments. (Exhibit B 3) for the amount of $3,100 and (Exhibit B 4) for the
amount of $1,400.
4. Forbearance agreement was entered in good faith per a conversation
between Plaintiff’s foreclosure representative Minnie Rodriguez, and
Defendant. Defendant was told to send a letter(Exhibit C)and proof of
payments.(exhibit C 2-C 6) to Plaintiff’s to show payment’s had been made.
Defendant’s were only due for the February payment when the Plaintiff filed
its complaint to foreclose. Plaintiff’s responded, (exhibit C 1) but did not
address the dispute about the payments.
5. Plaintiff’s response (Exhibit C 1) spoke of a deficit in escrow that was the
reason for the for the difference in payment, but did not state what the deficit
was for. There was an escrow advance for 16,618.73 for taxes that the
Plaintiff redeemed, but there records show the redemption amount to be
14,705. (Exhibit D 1) It also states there was lenders placed insurance, yet
they were sent proof. (Exhibit D 2) for 12/3/2003-12/3/2004 and (Exhibit D
3) for 12/3/2004-12/3/2205.On September 15, 2005, lender sent a letter
stating the insurance was cancelled and no premium was earned.(Exhibit D
4) This would clearly show the amount due to be incorrect.
6. In order to establish a prima facie case of foreclosure, defendant must
prove his affirmative defense. On 3/24/2005 a forbearance agreement was
presented to defendant’s.(Exhibit B 1)The amount to reinstate was
$5,090.35.There was a reinstatement quote generated on 3/23/2005(Exhibit
B 5) for the amount of $6,279.25 showing defendant’s to be four payment’s
behind.(Exhibit C2-C6), shows this can not be true. There is another letter
from the Plaintiff dated 2/16/2005 showing $1,982.77(Exhibit B 6) as the
amount necessary to reinstate loan. Another letter dating 9/1/2005, from the
Plaintiff states that Defendant’s were only due for 8/2004, 2/2005, and
3/2005.(Exhibit B 7)Defendant shows proof that the August payment was
made on September 30th in the amount of $2,678.13(Exhibit C2) and cleared
on 10/7/2005.(Exhibit C 2A)This was $323.70 overage than the amount of
two regular payments of 1173.70(Exhibit D5)Even with the late fee being
5% of my overdue payment of principal and interest,(Exhibit D6) which
amounts to $117.40, there is still an overage of $112.33.
7. In response to the alleged foreclosure, the question is whether the
Plaintiff’s claim is correct. The addition of the force- placed insurance
premimium to the loan balance has created the appearance of a default when
143
none in fact existed. The existence of credits or setoffs may negate the
existence of a default. For example in Chicago Title & Trust Co. v.
Exchange National Bank of Chicago, 19 Ill. App3d 565, 312 N.E.2d11 (2d
Dist. 1974).In the seller’s foreclosure action, the appellate court held that the
purchasers could assert the credit as a defense to the foreclosure suit. The
court stated:
There is no default which would permit the mortgagor to accelerate the
maturity of the debt when there is no setoff available which is equal to or
exceeds the amount of the indebt ness due at the time of default…The rule is
based on reasoning that it would be inequitable to permit one by his own act
to cause a partial failure of the consideration for the mortgage without
requiring him to credit the amount of such failure upon the indebt ness for
the purchase price of the property.(citations omitted.)Id.
Further, the court found that the purchasers could assert the credit as a
defense rather than file a counterclaim for setoff because the defense, if
valid, showed that the purchasers were not in default and prevented
acceleration of the entire mortgage indebt ness. See also Bank Computer
Network Corp. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Company of
Chicago, 110 Ill. App.3d 492, 442 N.E.2d 586, 66 Ill. Dec 160 (1st Dist.
1982), in which the court stated that there is no default when the borrower is
entitled to a setoff that is equal to or exceeds the amount of delinquency.
Defendant’s payment history (Exhibit C2-C6) shows that at the time the
foreclosure was initiated, defendants were not in default. In fact, based on
the note (Exhibit D5) defendants have been approximately overpaying
$25.20 for twenty one payments based on an alleged escrow deficit that has
never been proven how and why it exists. This is part of the defendant’s
defendant’s defense to the foreclosure.
One should not assume that the mortgage company is right in claiming a
default when there are reported decisions in which it turned out that the
lender’s right hand did not know what the left hand was doing and that there
was really no basis for a claimed default. Production of Plaintiff’s original
records will reveal unauthorized charges and other improprieties that may
give rise to a claim against the mortgage company. The right to foreclose
does not exist since there was no actual default in payment. The defendant
has proven that by a preponderance of evidence.
8. At the very least, several genuine issues of material fact still remain. See
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OF TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT attached hereto and made a part hereof.
144
WHEREFORE, for all the reasons stated herin, PLANTIFF’S motion for
the entry of an order of Summary Judgment and for the entry of a Judgment
for Foreclosure and Sale to be denied in it’s entirety, that the Plaintiff
reimburse Defendant’s for all costs and legal fees; reinstate the mortgage by
curing all defaults then existing, other than payment of such portion of the
principal which would not have been due had no acceleration occurred,
and/or any further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
By:________________________
Defendant
By:_________________________
Defendant
Andy & Shinette Williams
Defendant
3201 Hopewell Dr.
Aurora, Il 60504
(630)236-1620
145
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
The Bank of New York, as Trustee
PLANTIFF
Vs.
Andy Williams, Sr.; et.al
No. 2005 CH 445
DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT
The Defendant(s), ANDY WILLIAMS SR. and SHINETTE WILLIAMS,
being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
1. That the Defendant(s), Andy & Shinette Williams, are the current
mortgagor(s) of the the property commonly known as 3201 Hopewell
Dr., Aurora, IL. 60504 and have been for since May 10, 2002.
2. The Defendant(s) has/have personal knowledge of the facts stated
herin.
3. On June 24,2005 an amended complaint to foreclose mortgage was
filed.(Exhibit A2)
4. Complaint states that Mortgagors have not paid the monthly
installments of principal, taxes, and insurance for 1/1/05, through the
present. (Exhibit A3).
5. Defendant(s) have paid 1/1/2005(Exhibit C6 & C6A)
6. Defendant(s) sent $3,100 to Plaintiff’s on 3/30/2005 and that would
cover 2/2005 & 3/2005. (Exhibit B3).This was done per a forbearance
agreement. (Exhibit B1)It was $635.20 overage after the late fee was
applied.
7. Defendant(s) sent $1,410.05 to Plaintiff’s on 4/29/2005 which was
$177.67 overage.(Exhibit B4)
8. Defendant(s) had insurance (Exhibit D3) and on 9/15/2005, Plaintiff’s
sent a letter to Defendant(s) stating insurance was cancelled and no
premium was charged.(Exhibit D4).However, this discrepancy is what
started the acceleration in the first place.
9. Plaintiff’s sent a certified letter to Defendant’s dated 2/16/2005 noting
the default and Plaintiff’s intent to accelerate.(Exhibit B6)The amount
146
to bring loan current was $1982.77.On 3/23/2005, a reinstatement
quote was generated stating the amount to reinstate loan was
$6,279.25.(Exhibit B5)There is a $4,296.48 difference for one month
when the monthly payment is $1173.70.(Exhibit D5).Amount is
calculated by subtratacting the amount of $1982.77(Exhibit B6) from
$6,279.25(Exhibit B5).Wow!
10. Defendant’s entered into the forbearance agreement (Exhibit B1) in
good faith believing that once the Plaintiff’s received the proof of
payments, the agreement would become void as stated by Plaintiff’s
representative Minnie Rodriguez.
11. Defendant(s) have presented evidence that supports a finding that the
Plaintiff’s failed to act in good faith. There are substantial genuine
issues of material fact.
12. The Defendant(s) were not otherwise in default or behind in monthly
payments at the time the Plaintiff’s exercised its option to accelerate
the maturity of the promissory note. When defendant(s) were unable
to pay the amount deemed due, Plantiff’s instituted a foreclosure
action, and never were given credit for said payments as indicated in
(Exhibit B3 & B4).
13. There were phone conversations between defendant(s) and Plaintiff’s
to try and resolve this situation since August 2005.During these phone
conversations, Defendant(s) never got a clear story and was always
forced to comply with whatever Plaintiff’s said the amount owed was.
Defendant(s) tried to resolve the issue on several occasions, and never
got results.
14. Defendant(s) were not in default at the time Plaintiff’s exercised its
option to accelerate. The amounts are contradicted by Plaintiff’s own
admission. See (Exhibits B1, B5,B6 &B7)
15. That if Defendant(s) were duly sworn and called upon to testify,
Defendant(s) would testify to the truth and substance of the above stated facts.
147
148
149
150
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 18TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DUPAGE COUNTY - WHEATON, ILLINOIS
The Bank of New York, as Trustee under the Pooling and
Servicing- Agreement
Trust Series CWABS 02-BC3
PLAINTIFF
1-
20065400191 1
Vs.
Status Da
Andy Williams, Sr. &a Andy Williams; SKinette
Williams; Guaranty Home Equity Corporation
Home Equity; Fox Metro Water Reclamation District;
Cambridge Chase Homeowners Association; Unknown
Owners and Nonrecord Claimants
DEFENDANTS
O C ~17
2006
-
15:27
~n
CLERK OF THE
1
8 JUDICIAL
~ ~
CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT TRUST SERIES CWABS 02-BC3, by and through
its attorneys, CODILIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., complaining of the defendants herein and, pursuant
to 735 ILCS 5/1.5-1101, states as follows:
1. plaintiff files &s Complaint to Foreclose themortgage, trust deed or other conveyance in the
nature of a mort a e ereinafter called "Mortgage")hereinafter described, and joins the persons
2.g @
named in the capbon a s "Defendants", as parties hereto.
2. Attached as "EXHIBIT A" is a true copy of the Mortgage. Attached as "EXHIBIT B" is a true
copy of the Note. Attached as "EXHIBITC" is a true copy of the Assignment.
3. Information concerning said Mortgage:
(A) Nature of the instrument: Mortgage.
(J3) Date of the Mortgage: 5/10/2002
(C) Name of the mortgagor(s):
Andy Williams, Sr. alWa Andy Williams
Shinette Williams
(D) Name of the mortgagee:
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
(E) Date and Place of Recording or Registering:
6/3/2002
Office of the Recorder of Deeds of DuPage County Illinois
(F) Identification of Recording: Document No. R2002- 143765
(G) Interest subject to the mortgage: Fee Simple.
151
(H) Amount of original indebtedness:
(1) Original Indebtedness: $171,200.00
(I) Both the legal description of the mortgaged real estate and the common address or other
information sufficient to identify it with reasonable certainty:
LOT 35 IN CANBRIDGE CHASE UNIT 4, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF
SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 38 NORTH, RANGE 9, EAST OF THE TH~RD'PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 1,1997 AS
DOCUMENT NUMBER R97-444 13, IN DUPAGE COLINTY, ILLINOIS.
COMMONLY KNOWN AS:
3201 Hopewell Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 07-08-302-029
(J) Statements as to defaults: Mortgagors have not paid the monthly installments of
principal, taxes, interest and insurance for 03/01/2005, through the present; the principal
balance due on the Note and Mortgage is $166,544.16, plus interest, costs, advances and fees.
Interest accrues pursuant to the note.
(K) Name of present owner(s) of said premises:
Andy Williams, Sr. arkla Andy Willianp
Shinette Williams
(L) Names of other persons who are joined as defendants and whose interest in or lien on the
mortgaged real estate is sought to be terminated and alleged to be subordinate and inferior to
the mortgage of the Plaintiff:
Guaranty Home Equity Corporation d/b/a GB Home Equity, by virtue of a Mortgage
executed by Andy Williams Sr. and Shinette Williams, dated May 10,2002, and
Recordediregistered on June 3, 2002 in the office of the RecorderRegistrar of Deeds of
DuPage County, Illinois, as Document No. R2002-143766, to secure a note in the principal
sum of $42,800.00;
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District, by virtue of a Memorandum of Judgment against
Andy Williams, rendered in Case No. 04 SC K 3729, in the Circuit Court of Kane County,
Illinois, and filed in the office of the RecorderRegistrar of Deeds of DuPage County, Illinois
on January 19,2005 as Document No. R2005-013324 in the sum of $614.98. The interest of
this Defendant is subordinate to that of Plaintiff.
Cambridge Chase Homeowners Association, by virtue of the fact that, upon information and
belief, it is the Homeowners Association for the subject property and may have some interest
in the subject real estate for unpaid assessments or other charges.
Page 2 of 2
152
(M) Names of persons who executed the Note, Assumption Agreement(s), or Personal
Guarantee:
Andy Williams, Sr. a/k/a Andy Williams
Please note that no personal deficiency will be sought against any party who has received a
Chapter 7 discharge.
CN) Capacity in which Plaintiff brings this foreclosure: Plaintiff is the legal holder of the
indebtedness or the servicing agent for the legal holder of the indebtedness. Furthermore, if
applicable, an assignment of mortgage was recorded as follows:
Assignment recorded as document number: R2003-453498
(0)Facts in support of a redemption period shorter than the longer o f 7 months fiom the date
the mortgagor or, if more.than one, all the mortgagors have been served with summons or by
publication or have otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, or 3 months fiom the
entry of the judgment of foreclosure, whichever is later, if sought:
The redemption period shall be determined pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/15-1603.
(P) Statement that the right of redemption has been waived by all owners of redemption:
There has been no executed waiver of redemption by all owners of redemption, however
Plaintiff alleges that it is not precluded fi-om accepting such a waiver of redemption by the
M
filing of this complaint.
-
(Q) Facts in support of request for attorney's fees and of costs and e x p e n s e ~applicable:
f
The subject mortgage provides for payment of attorney fees, court costs and expenses in the
event of a default under the mortgage.
(R) Facts in support of a request for appointment of mortgagee in possession or for
appointment of a receiver, and identity of such receiver, if sought: Unless otherwise alleged,
Plaintiff will pray for said relief after the filing of the instant foreclosure action by separate
petition if such relief is sought.
(S) Offer to the mortgagor in accordance with Section 15-1402 to accept title to the real
estate in satisfaction of all indebtedness and obligations secured by the mortgage without
judicial sale, if sought: No allegation of an offer is made however, Plaintiff alleges that it is
not precluded fi-om making or accepting such offer by the filing of the instant foreclosure
action.
(T) Name or names of defendants whose rights to possess the mortgaged real estate, after the
confirmation of a foreclosure sale, are sought to be terminated, and if not elsewhere stated,
the facts in support thereof:
Andy Williams Sr. a/k/a Andy Williams; Shinette Williams
4. Plaintiff avers that in addition to persons designated by name herein and the Unknown
Defendants herein before referred to, there are other persons, andfor non-record claimants who are
interested in this action and who have or claim some right, title, interest or lien in, to or upon the
real estate, or some part thereof, in this Complaint described, including but not limited to the
following:
Page 3 of 3
153
Unknown Owners and NonRecord Claimants, if any.
That the name of each of such persons is unknown to Plaintiff and on diligent inquiry cannot be
ascertained, and all such persons are therefore made party defendants to this action by the name and
description of UNKNOWN OWNERS and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS:
(i) A judgment of foreclosure and sale.
(ii) An order granting a shortened redemption period, if sought.
(iii) A personal judgment for deficiency, if applicable and sought, and only against parties who have
not received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.
(iv) An order granting possession, if sought.
(v) An order placing the mortgagee in possession or appointing a receiver, if sought.
(vi) A judgment for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, if sought.
(vii) For the appointment of a Selling Officer, if deemed appropriate by this court.
(vii) Such other and further relief as this court deems just.
The Bank of New York, as Trustee under the Pooling and S e ~ c i n Agreement
g
Trust Series
CWABS 02-BC3
BY:
CODILIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Its Attorneys
Codilis & Associates, P.C.
15W03O North Frontage Road, Suite 100
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
(630) 794-5300
14-06-9858
DuPage #15 170
ARDC #00468002
Client # 11523445
Winnebago # 53 1
Page 4 of 4
154
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY- WHEATON, ILLINOIS
The Bank of New York, as Trustee under
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement
Plaintiff
Vs.
Andy Williams.; et al
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No: 2006 CH001911
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE MORTGAGE
AND DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM
To Codilis & Associated, P.C.:
NOW COMES the Defendants/counter-plaintiffs, Andy Williams; et al, Pro Se,
and in response to the complaint to foreclose mortgage.
1. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs admit Paragraph 1, 2 and 3, sections A-I of the complaint
to foreclose mortgage.
2. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs deny section J of paragraph 3. Defendants/counterplaintiffs have made payments.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs admit Section K of paragraph 3.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs neither admit nor deny section L of paragraph 3 as they
lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief and request strict proof thereof.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs admit section M of paragraph 3.
3. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs neither admit nor deny sections N-P of paragraph 3 as
the sufficient knowledge to form a belief and demand strict proof thereof.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs deny section Q of paragraph 3.
1
155
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs neither admit nor deny sections R-T of paragraph 3 as
they lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief and demand strict proof thereof.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs neither admit nor deny paragraph 4 as they lack
sufficient knowledge to form a belief and demand strict proof thereof.
4. Affirmative defenses:
A. Defendants are not due for the March 1st, 2005 payment and have made payments
as agreed until Plaintiffs/counter-defendants/ actions prevented them from doing
so.
B. The amount Plaintiff’s allege that defendants owe is false in that it includes
unauthorized escrow fees, property inspection fees and forbearance fees all in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act 815 ILCS
505/1 et seq., and the Fair Dept Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C.
§1692, et seq.
C. The August and November payments were misapplied resulting in a breach of
contract.
D. Defendants have been charged unauthorized force placed insurance premiums and
finance charges to defendants escrow account when insurance was in place.
E. Defendants have not been refunded for the escrow charges that were added to
their monthly payment resulting from the unauthorized force placed insurance
premiums. As a result of the unauthorized charges and imposed fees to
defendant’s loan, the loan balance Plaintiff’s are seeking to collect is inaccurate.
F. Plaintiffs have attempted to collect late charges after acceleration.
2
156
G. Defendants have not received proper disclosures according to 15 U.S.C.§ 1601, et
seq., therefore violating 12 C.F.R section 226.18 and 226.20 (c)
COUNTERCLAIM
I.
PARTIES
1. Defendant’s, Andy and Shinette Williams (hereinafter “Defendants/counterplaintiffs”) reside in a home which they own at 3201 Hopewell Drive in Aurora, Dupage
County, Illinois 60502.
2. Plaintiff, The Bank of New York, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE POOLING AND
SERVICING AGREEMENT TRUST CWABS 02-BC3, ITS SUCCESORS AND OR
ASSIGNS, (hereinafter “The Bank of New York”, Plaintiffs/ counter defendants)
are “debt collectors” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (4, 6).
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. On May 10, 2002, defendants purchased their home with a residential mortgage loan
from Accredited Home Lenders. A copy of mortgage and note is attached as (Exhibit A
and B).
3. On October 3, 2003, the note and mortgage was granted, assigned and transferred to
The Bank of New York. A copy of the assignment is attached as (Exhibit C).
4. Defendants/counter plaintiffs were in default at the time of the assignment.
5. Defendants/counter plaintiffs reinstated the loan on May 28, 2004. Attached as
(Exhibit Land L1).
3
157
6. The amount required to reinstate was $19,902.02 and defendants/counter plaintiffs
paid $19921.40 which was $19.38 over the amount stated on the reinstatement quote.
(Exhibits L and L1).
7. The reinstatement quote was false in that it required 14 monthly payments @
$1184.62, while the note states the payment to be $1173.70. (Exhibit B)
8. A billing statement dated 6/14/2004 was mailed to defendants/counter plaintiff’s
residence alleging certain fees were due and owing. (Exhibit M).
9. The statement was fraudulent in that it contained an unauthorized $10.92 escrow fee,
late charges not due or owed, an alleged other fee for $11.00, and a $19.38 suspense
balance.
10. The next billing statement dated July 15, 2004 stated a unauthorized $499.14 escrow
fee, $528.20 late fees that were not owed or due, an alleged other fee for $0.62, and there
was a bogus $19.38 corporate advance fee assessed to recoup the overpayment when the
loan was reinstated. (Attached Exhibit M1)
11. Similar billing statements were sent in the mail dated 8/13/2004, 9/15/2004,
10/15/2004, 11/12/2004, 12/15/2004, 1/14/2005, 2/11/2005, and 3/15/2005 all containing
similar unauthorized fees and charges. Attached as (Exhibits M1-M9)
12. On September 29, 2004, defendants made a $2,668.14 payment for the August and
September payment. (Attached Exhibit J1A)
13. The payment was not applied to the August payment and the overage was put in an
unauthorized suspense account.
4
158
14. On November 14, 2004, defendants/counter plaintiffs made a payment in the amount
of $1188.90 for the November payment that was not applied properly and $571.10 was
put into a suspense account.
15. On 1/20/04, 9/3/04, and 4/11/05 there was unauthorized force-placed unauthorized
insurance premiums assessed on Defendants/counter plaintiffs account, resulting in an
increase in the monthly payment to recover for the force placed insurance, despite having
proof that insurance was in effect for a 12 month policy period effective 12/3/200312/3/2004 and 12/3/2004 -12/3/2205.
16. The force placed insurance premium were refunded, however the amount paid in the
increased monthly payment and interest collected on the unauthorized force-placing
insurance was not nor has it been to date.
17. As a result of these imposed charges and unauthorized fees defendants/ counter
plaintiffs loan balance was misrepresented and on March 28th, 2005 a complaint to
foreclose was filed. Case No. 2005 CH 445
18. This complaint was voluntarily withdrawn on a motion by the Bank of New York
and was dismissed without further costs on August 11, 2006. (Exhibit V1)
19. The Bank of New York through its attorneys moved for the dismissal to avoid
responding to defendants/counter plaintiff’s response to their motion for summary
judgment.
20. A letter dated August 16th, 2006 was sent by Plaintiffs/counter- defendant’s attorney
alleging arrearage to be $48,258.28. (Exhibit W)
5
159
21. Defendants/counter plaintiffs sent a letter to the Plaintiffs/counter defendant’s
attorney explaining the claims they felt they had available and how the matter has caused
stress in their marriage and personal life. (Exhibit X)
22. Plaintiffs/counter defendants attorney sent a letter dated 10/13/2006 and informed
defendants/counter plaintiffs they intended to file a new complaint to foreclose in which
was filed on 10/17/2006 CH 001911.
23. As of the date of filing this response, defendants/counter plaintiff’s payments have
not been properly applied, nor have they been refunded for the unauthorized force-placed
insurance that was added to defendant’s monthly payments or the excessive interest they
have been charged as a result of these unauthorized bogus charges.
24. The Bank of New York and others on or about sometime before October 3, 2003,
knowingly and willfully pooled together to form a trust to defraud the defendants/counter
plaintiffs and to obtain money and their property by the use of false and fraudulent
pretenses and representations with the intention of foreclosing on defendants/counterplaintiffs/counter-defendants home and directly enriching themselves.
25. Upon information and belief, this trust agreement was formed to conceal the
identities of the fraudulent acts committed by a party under the trust so The Bank of New
York could assert as a defense that they were not liable for the fraudulent and unfair
deceptive practices described in the preceding paragraphs.
26. Once the defendants/counter-plaintiffs implied any deceptive acts were committed
during the servicing of their note and mortgage, The Bank of New York alleged as a
defense that they were not the ones who committed the fraudulent deceptive acts
described in the preceding paragraphs, nor could they be held responsible.
6
160
27. However, once these acts committed by a party under the trust agreement caused an
alleged breach, The Bank of New York filed a complaint to foreclose.
28. Upon information and belief under the trust agreement, the mortgage servicer
forwards all monies they collected from the defendants/counter-plaintiffs payments prior
to the alleged default to the trustee which is the Bank of New York.
29. This income of The Bank of New York, including some of it derived through the
unlawful practices at issue in this case, was up streamed to the trustee pursuant to the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement and reported on financial statements. The capital thus
raised was used to fund the operations of the trust, including The Bank of New York.
Count I: Violations of the FDCPA
30. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding
allegations of law and fact.
31. Plaintiffs violated the FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692 e and f by its conduct, including but
not limited to:
(a) By attempting to collect late charges after the acceleration not authorized by the
contract or law;
(b) The entire payoff and reinstatement amount contains unauthorized escrow and
inspection fees therefore misrepresenting the loan balance;
(c) The filing of the mortgage foreclosure action without having proved that
defendants/counter-plaintiffs was in default and any analysis of the loan payment history
would have shown that they had complied with the mortgage and note.
32. That as a direct and proximate cause of the false, misleading, and deceptive
practices, Defendants/counter-plaintiffs have suffered severe and extreme emotional
7
161
distress, have been unable to refinance because of the negative reports to the credit
bureaus, and incurred attorney fees for which Defendants/counter-plaintiffs seek actual
damages in the amount of $1,750,000.00, in addition to additional damages in the amount
of $1000.00.
WHEREFORE, Defendants/counter-plaintiffs respectfully requests that judgment be
entered in favor of Defendants/counter-plaintiffs and against Plaintiffs/counterdefendants as follows:
A. Actual damages in the amount of $1,750,000;
B. Additional damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k in the amount of $1,000;
C. Payment of attorney fees and other costs of this action; and
D. For such other and further relief as the Court determines appropriate.
Count II. Violations of TILA
34. The Bank of New York violated 12 C.F.R. section 226.18 and 226.20(c) by and
through its agent Under the Pooling and Servicing Trust Agreement by:
(a) failing to accurately disclose the loan balance when the rate adjusted in July 2005,
January 2006, and July 2006;
(b) failed to provide new disclosures from the addition of the unauthorized insurance
premiums;
(c) failed to provide new disclosures from the addition of the unauthorized other fees
that were added to defendants/counter-plaintiffs loan balance.
8
162
35. As a result of the imposition of unauthorized fees and violations set forth in
paragraph 34, defendants/ counter-plaintiffs mortgage payments have been improperly
adjusted between the interest and principal therefore causing the loan balance to be
higher than it would have been but for the improper charges.
36. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs has either paid such fees and excessive interest or had
their property encumbered by such fees and interest.
37.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs are entitled to relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (a) (1)
(A) for actual damages in the amount of $500,000 in addition to statutory damages in the
amount of $2,000.
WHEREFORE, Defendants/counter-plaintiffs respectfully requests that
judgment be entered in favor of Defendants/counter-plaintiffs and against
Plaintiffs/counter-defendants as follows:
A. Statutory damages in the amount of $2,000;
B. Actual damages in an amount equal to (i)all increased interest assessed without prior
notice and (ii) Full credit for all payments made that were assessed and unauthorized
escrow fees that were not refunded.
C. Payment of Defendants/counter-plaintiffs’ attorney fees and other costs of this action;
and
D. For such other and further relief as the Court determines appropriate.
Count III. Conspiracy
9
163
39. Plaintiffs/counter-defendants conspired with others to pool their resources together to
form a The Pooling and Servicing Agreement Trust Series CWABS 02-BC3.
40. Upon information and belief they agreed that under this trust they could conceal the
identity and unlawful acts of one of the parties that charging bogus and unauthorized
escrow and property inspection fees.
41. As a result of these unlawful and fraudulent acts defendants/counter-plaintiffs have
had their property encumbered by such fees.
42. The above conduct on the part of the parties Under the Pooling Servicing and Trust
Agreement formed themselves into a conspiracy for the particular unlawful purposes of
concealing the identity of one of the parties.
43. Pursuant to the above conduct on part of the officers and directors of The Bank of
New York and the other parties under the trust agreement constituted overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
44. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy entered into by the parties Under
the Pooling and Servicing Trust Agreement, The Bank of New York has continued to try
and collect theses unauthorized escrow fees, and defendants/counter-plaintiffs have
suffered damages by (i) their property encumbered by such fees, (ii)emotional stress for
fear of losing their home and not properly being able to distinguish the party that
committed the unlawful acts under the trust agreement, (iii) the exact amount which can
not be determined at this time, but which is believed to be in excess of $1,000,000.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that judgment be entered in favor
of Defendants and against Plaintiffs as follows:
A. Actual damages in the amount of $1,000,000;
10
164
B. Payment of defendant’s attorney fees and other costs of this action; and
C. For such other and further relief as the Court determines appropriate
Count IV. Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO)
46. Each of the following is an “enterprise” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4):
a. The Bank Of New York
b. Litton Loan Servicing LP. Under the Pooling and Servicing Trust Agreement
47. The activities of the enterprises affect interstate commerce. The Bank of New York
is in New York, Litton is in Texas, and defendants/counter-plaintiffs reside in Illinois.
48. Litton devised and implanted a scheme to defraud defendants by imposing
unauthorized force placed insurance fees/ escrow fees/ and or foreclosure property
inspection fees causing the loan payments defendants made to be misapplied therefore
causing an appearance of a default when none existed.
49. As a result the monthly mortgage payments were improperly allocated between
interest charges and principal reduction that was represented on the statements that were
sent in the mail to the defendants/ counter plaintiffs.
50. The unauthorized and bogus corporate advance fees, escrow fees, and inspection fees
were added to statements sent to defendants/counter-plaintiffs in the mail and/or fax
between 9/1/2003 and 10/17/2006. (specific dates in paragraphs 7-11).
51. This scheme constitutes a scheme or artifice to defraud within the meaning of the
federal mail and wire fraud statues, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
52. The mails and wires were used in furtherance of the scheme, in that:
11
165
a. The reinstatement quotes itemized these fees.
b. The defendants/counter-plaintiffs have either paid such fees, and/or had their
property encumbered by such fees which are incorporated into the total indebtedness
secured by the property by continuing to pay on the mortgage via the U.S. Mail and/or
wire.
53. This conduct also constitutes the act of fraud, in that The Bank of New York
knowingly filed a complaint to foreclose that included charges and fees that were not
authorized under the terms of the mortgage contract.
54. This pattern will continue into the future if not halted through this action.
55. The Bank of New York thereby violated 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c)
56. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs was injured in their business because and property by
reason of this violation, in that them either:
a. had their property encumbered by such fees and unauthorized charges;
b. paid the charges.
c. lost profits and future earnings
d. home has been wrongfully foreclosed on
e. paid and been assessed excessive interest
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that judgment be entered in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiffs as follows:
A. Treble damages in the amount of $11,550,000;
B. Statutory damages 18 U.S.C.1341, Section 1343 in the amount of $1,000,000;
C. An injunctive relief by the Court, as plaintiffs poses a threat of continued racketeering
activity and may bring harm and injury to the public.
12
166
D. Payment of defendant’s attorney fees and other costs of this action; and
E. For such other and further relief as the Court determines appropriate
Count V. Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
58. The Bank of New York engaged in fraudulent and unfair practices in violation of 815
ILCS 505/1 et seq. by:
a) Filing a mortgage foreclosure action against defendants/counter-plaintiffs without
having proof that defendants/counter-plaintiffs were in default;
b) Missaplying monthly payments;
c) charging unauthorized and bogus escrow and property inspection fees;
d) misrepresenting the loan balance and the amount due in the complaint
59. The Bank of New York showed a reckless disregard for the safety in that they were
aware of the allegations complained of when defendants/counter-plaintiffs filed their
amended response to Plaintiffs/counter-defendants motion for summary judgment.
60. As a proximate and direct result of plaintiff’s actions, defendants have suffered actual
damages in the amount of $68,431.00 for payments made after the forbearance agreement
equity lost in home, and the over charging of payments. Defendants have been severely
damaged emotionally, mentally and financially. They have been worried for years that they
would lose their home and as a result have lost their business and defendants have
separated.
Defendants and against Plaintiffs as follows:
13
167
A. Actual damages in the amount of $68,431;
B. Lost Profits and future earnings
C. Punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000.0
D. An injunctive relief by the Court, as plaintiffs are likely to continue to injure
defendants and harm the public interest.
E. Payment of defendant’s attorney fees and other costs of this action; and
F. For such other and further relief as the Court determines appropriate
Count VI. Breach of Contract
62. The Bank of New York violated the provisions of the note and mortgage by:
a) misapplying the monthly payments;
b) imposing bogus property inspection fees;
c) charging unauthorized escrow fees;
d) wrongfully accelerating the mortgage;
e) failing to refund the escrow portion that was added to the monthly payments for
the unauthorized force-placed insurance after it was refunded
63. As a result Defendants/counter plaintiffs have been damaged by such violations,
property been encumbered, foreclosed on, have been overcharged interest, and lost profits
and their business.
64. These acts wee done in a willful and wanton manner because Plaintiffs/counterdefendants had been notified by defendants/ counter plaintiffs of the unlawful acts and
they continued to charge and impose their fees.
14
168
A. Actual damages in the amount of $68,000.00;
B. Punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000;
C. Lost Profits and future earnings;
D. Payment of defendant’s attorney fees and other costs of this action; and
Count VII. Loss of Consortium Husband
65. Defendants reallege and incorporate reference all preceding allegations of law and
fact.
66. Defendant Andy Williams, complains of plaintiff and alleges:
67. Defendant is the above defendant in the above entitled cause and is now and has at all
times been lawfully wedded to the injured defendant, and is now separated.
68. Defendant, because of the injuries sustained by his wife and as direct and proximate
result of the plaintiffs, has suffered the loss of services of his wife, which was of great
value to him and has been deprived of her support, affection, society, companionship, and
consortium, and defendant has been hindered and prevented from transacting and
attending to his usual business affairs and has been greatly injured, inconvenienced, and
harassed as the proximate result of the wrongful acts and unlawful conduct of plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in favor of
defendants and against Plaintiffs as follows:
A. Damages 1,000.000.
15
169
Count VIII. Loss of Consortium Wife
fact.
70. Defendant Shinette Williams, complains of plaintiff and alleges:
71. Defendant is the above defendant in the above entitled cause and is now and has at all
times been lawfully wedded to the injured defendant, and is now separated.
72. Defendant, because of the injuries sustained by her husband and as direct and
proximate result of the plaintiffs, has suffered the loss of services of her husband, which
was of great value to her and has been deprived of her support, affection, society,
companionship, and consortium, and defendant has been hindered and prevented from
transacting and attending to her usual business affairs and has been greatly injured,
inconvenienced, and harassed as the proximate result of the wrongful acts and unlawful
conduct of plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in favor of
defendants and against Plaintiffs as follows:
A. Damages in the amount of 1,000,000;
Count IX. Defamation
16
170
74. The Bank of New York filed a complaint with the Clerk of the 18th Judicial Circuit
Court alleging defendants/counter-plaintiffs were due for the March 1st payment and
owed $166,514.16 and this was not true.
75. The Bank of New York knew that the allegations were false.
76. This information was placed in public records and caused defendants/counter
plaintiffs mortgage company to lose business.
77. The Bank of New York acted with the intent of injuring defendants/counter-plaintiffs.
A. Actual Damages;
B. Punitive Damages;
C. Lost profits
D. Costs of this action; and
Count X. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
fact.
79. On March 28, 2005, The Bank of New York filed a complaint to foreclose on
defendants/counter-plaintiffs mortgage that was wrongfully accelerated.
80. The Bank of New York is the lien holder on defendants/counter-plaintiffs mortgage
and has the power to assert a foreclosure at any time they may feel insecure.
17
171
81. Plaintiffs/counter-defendants knew or should have known that there conduct would
inflict severe emotional distress or know that there is a high probability that the conduct
would by wrongfully accelerating the mortgage.
82. At the time and place aforesaid, The Bank of New York knew or should have known
of the stress that it caused because defendants/counter plaintiffs made several attempts on
behalf themselves and through their attorney to communicate through an agent acting on
behalf of The Bank of New York, and sent letters explaining the hardship that had been
placed on defendants/counter-plaintiffs mental, emotional and financial situation.
83. At the time and place aforesaid, The Bank of New York committed one or more of
the following acts:
a) their conduct was extreme and outrageous for accelerating the mortgage and
trying to collect payments and fees not legally due and owing;
b) their conduct was intentional in that defendants/counter-plaintiffs sent proof that
proved they were not legally due and owing for alleged payments and the Bank of New
York still continued their collection efforts, and then they voluntarily dismissed and refiled the complaint alleging the same allegations;
c) Defendants/counter-plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress in that they (i)
went to counseling, (ii) defendant lost his thriving mortgage business, (iii)are in constant
fear of losing the home,(iv) and the defendants /counter-plaintiffs have separated as a
result of The Bank of New York’s conduct; (v) their credit was ruined, and
d) Defendant/counter-plaintiffs emotional distress was severe
84. As a proximate result of one or more of these intentional acts, Defendants/counterplaintiffs has suffered severe and extreme emotional distress.
18
172
of Defendants and against Plaintiffs for a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this
court.
Demand for a Jury Trial
85. Defendants hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so tri-able.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Defendants request that this court for Counts I through IX:
A. Actual and special damages according to proof;
B. Statutory damages and penalties;
C. Injunctive relief against Plaintiffs to ensure uniform standards of servicing conduct
towards defendants and to prevent future conduct;
D. Prejudgment interest at maximum rate;
E. Punitive, exemplary and enhanced damages according to proof;
F. Declaratory judgments to correct the wrongs inflicted on them;
G. Litigation Expenses and Costs of the proceedings herein;
H. Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
I. All such other relief as the court deems just.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Andy Williams and Shinette Williams
ask this Honorable Court to deny the relief requested by Plaintiff.
By: __________________________________________
Defendant
By: __________________________________________
Defendant
173
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY- WHEATON, ILLINOIS
The Bank of New York,
Plaintiff
vs.
No: 2006 CH001911
Andy Williams & Shinette Williams; et al
vs.
Defendants
Andy Williams & Shinette Williams
Defendants/Counter-plaintiffs
vs.
The Bank of New York, as Trustee under
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement
Plaintiff/Counter-defendants
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIM AND DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Now comes the Defendants/counter-plaintiffs, Andy & Shinette Williams, pro se,
and hereby file this Response to Plaintiff’s combined motion to dismiss (“Motion to
Dismiss”) counterclaim and motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
I.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff, The Bank of New York, as trustee under the Pooling and servicing
Agreement Trust Series CWABS 02 BC3 (“the Bank of New York”) is the current
mortgage and note holder of the home the Williams reside in which is the subject property
of this complaint. Plaintiff, by and through their attorneys, Codilis and Associates have
filed a motion to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (“Section 2-615”); 735 ILCS 5/2-619
(“Section 2-619”) and a motion for summary judgment.
174
In ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint are taken as true and the allegations are interpreted in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 174 Ill. 2d 482, 490, 675 N.E.
2d 584,588 (Ill. 1996). Furthermore, all inferences from those well-pled facts are drawn in
favor of the non-moving party. Lee v. Nationwide Cassel. L.P., 174 Ill. 2d 540, 545, 675
N.E. 2d 599, 601 (Ill. 1992). A dismissal based on a failure to state a claim must only be
sustained “if it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the allegations
which would entitle any party to relief.” Lee, 174 Ill. 2d at 545. Moreover, even if this
court finds that defendants have failed in any respect to plead a claim with sufficient
particularity, the proper result is to dismiss with leave to replead. Harvey v. McKay, 109
Ill. App. 3d 582, 586, 440 N.E. 2d 1022 (1st Dist. 1982) (purpose of a 2-615 motion “is to
point out the defects so that the complainant will have the opportunity to cure them before
trial”).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought under a Section 2-619, all well-pleaded
facts are, again, deemed as true; the only issue is the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
Downey v. Wood Dale Park Dist., 286 Ill. App. 3d 194, 200, 675 N.E. 2d 973, 978 (2d
Dist. 1997). A motion pursuant to this section, which seeks to bar a cause of action
because of an affirmative matter, must involve “more than evidence offered to refute a well
pleaded fact in the complaint”; rather, it must “negate the cause of action completely.”
Russo v. Boland, 103 Ill. App. 3d 905, 908, 431 N.E. 2d 1294, 1297 (1st Dist. 1982) A
section 2-619 motion will not defeat a cause of action if the affirmative matter does not
negate the cause action completely.
175
Summary judgment is properly granted if “the pleadings, depositions, and
admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issues
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2005). The trial court must construe these documents strictly
against the movant and may only grant summary judgment if the documents show that the
movant’s right to relief is clear and free from doubt. Morris v. Margulis, 197 Ill. 2d 28, 35,
257 Ill. Dec. 656, 754 N.E. 2d 314 (2001). A material fact is one that would “affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and a dispute about a genuine issue of
material fact occurs if the evidence is such that “a reasonable [fact finder] could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).If a
dispute as to a material fact exists or if reasonable minds may differ with respect to the
inferences drawn from the evidence, summary judgment can not stand. Schrager v. North
Community Bank, 328 Ill. App. 3d 696, 703, 262 Ill. Dec. 916, 767 N.E. 2d 376 (2002).
Summary judgment obviates the need for trial where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II.
Facts
This action is the second mortgage foreclosure the Plaintiffs have filed against the
defendants/counter-plaintiffs on the same note and mortgage involving the same issues.
Plaintiff previously filed a complaint to foreclosure on Defendants home on March 28,
2005, and amended it on June 24, 2005. Plaintiff filed their first motion for summary
judgment on the prior complaint Case No. 2005 CH 445. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs
filed their answer and affidavit in response to the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Exhibit U & U1. Plaintiff responded, and subsequently filed motions to voluntarily
176
withdraw their motions for summary judgment and filed a motion to dismiss their
complaint to foreclosure mortgage on Case No 2005 CH 445. Exhibits V2, V3 and V4. On
August 11, 2006 the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage
was dismissed. Exhibit V1. These motions were filed because the foreclosure Plaintiff
knew they could not prove their case and knew there would not be able to support their
claim based on the affidavit defendants filed in support of their response to Plaintiff’s
original motion for summary judgment.
On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff, by and through their attorneys sent defendants a
fraudulent letter attempting to collect monies and fees that defendants did not owe.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs sent a letter to Plaintiff attempting to settle the matter
and informed Plaintiff of their intent to file a counterclaim and some the claims and relief
they would be seeking.
Plaintiff responded and informed defendants/counter-plaintiffs that Plaintiff was
going to proceed with a new suit to foreclose. On October 17, 2006, the new complaint
was filed as Case No. 2006 CH 1911. The complaint stated the exact allegations as the
amended complaint in Case No. 2005 CH 445.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argue that the foreclosure proceeding was not
necessary in the first place, and it is due to Plaintiffs corporate irresponsibility, evidentiary
issues, and fabricated default that the complaint is still pending. Plaintiff clearly had the
opportunity to defend their position in the previous foreclosure complaint Case No. 2005
CH 445, but instead chose to voluntarily dismiss their complaint only to re-file two months
later. The Bank of New York breached the contract by wrongfully accelerating the note
177
and mortgage. Bartlett Bank & Trust Company v. McJunkins., 147 ILL. App. 3d 52, 497
N.E. 2d 398 (1st Dist. 1986).
III.
Argument
A.
Count I is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
Plaintiff argues that they are a “creditor” and therefore has no liability under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, the FDCPA treats assignees as
debt collectors if the debt sought to be collected was in default when acquired by the
assignee, and as creditors if it was not. Schlosser v. Fairbanks, 323 F. 3d 534 (7th Cir
2003)
Plaintiffs received a corporation assignment of mortgage on October 3rd 2003.
Exhibit C. Defendants/ counter- plaintiffs were due for May 1, 2003, payment. Exhibit
L1. Plaintiff received defendants/counter-plaintiffs loan when it was in default therefore
they are liable under the Act. To distinguish between these two possibilities, the Act uses
the status of the debt at the time of assignment:
(6) The term “debt collector” means any person who… regularly
collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or
due asserted to be owed or due another… The term does not
include—
(F) any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due
asserted to be owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the
extent such activity … (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at
the time it was obtained by such person. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a.
In other words, the Act treats assignees as debt collectors if the debt sought to be collected
was in default when acquired by the assignee, and as creditors if it was not.
The Act further prohibits against trying to collect an amount not “authorized by the
agreement creating the debt,” and against making a “false representation of the
178
….amount…… of any debt. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (Supreme Ct. 1995). The
amount sought in the complaint contains unauthorized and fraudulent fees that have been
adequately defined and described in (¶ 8-10), and the documents to counterclaim as Exhibits
M-M9. Scott v. Fairbanks, 284 F. Supp. 2d 880 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The FDCPA expressly
defines as an unfair practice “[t]he collection of any amount (including interest, fee, charge,
or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized
by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (1).Gonzales v.
Codilis & Associates, P.C., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5463. The unauthorized and fraudulent
charges in the amount sought to collect in the complaint is improper therefore the loan
balance is misrepresented causing a violation of the FDCPA.
The filing of a mortgage foreclosure without documentation sufficient to establish
default or the plaintiff’s compliance with the note and mortgage is a deceptive and unfair
practice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleges that they have been charged for unauthorized
force-placed insurance, despite knowing that the property was already insured. (Comp. ¶ 15)
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs further alleges that their mortgage payment was increased to
cover these charges and they have been refunded the premium, but not the amount that has
been paid due to the increase in the monthly payment. (Compl. ¶ 15, 16). This is an unfair
and deceptive practice citing Vician v. Wells Fargo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26141. For the
reasons set forth above, Plaintiff is a debt collector and have violated the Act therefore Count
I is not subject to dismissal.
B.
Count II is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-619
179
Plaintiff has attached an affidavit and argue that defendants/counter-plaintiffs have
failed to plead a claim under TILA. However, Plaintiff has failed to properly assert their
defense. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs allege as a result of the unauthorized charges, the
notice of interest rate and payment adjustments that were sent to defendants/counterplaintiffs failed to accurately state the correct loan balance. Chatman v. Fairbanks, 2002
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10945. In Chatman, Plaintiffs alleged defendant violated TILA when
they failed to give Plaintiffs correct disclosures, and instead provided an incorrect
adjustment notice that stated a higher loan balance due to the alleged improper
unauthorized fees. The court found that Plaintiff had adequately stated a TILA claim.
Further, as stated regarding Count II; factual issues remain as to the unauthorized fees and
the correct loan balance.
Plaintiffs violated section 226.18 and 226.20 (c) of regulation Z by failing to make
the required disclosures when it increased defendants/counter-plaintiffs mortgage payment
to recover the cost of force placed insurance, and when the rate adjusted. Vician v. Wells
Fargo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26141. In Vician’s complaint, Plaintiffs allege the defendant
violated section 226.20 (c) of Regulation Z when it failed to accurately disclose the loan
balance when making its variable rate adjustment disclosures. The court found that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 226.20 (c) because they failed to allege that a
variable-rate adjustment on their mortgage was ever made, but they did state a claim under
226.18 and stated that Plaintiff did not have to specify the correct legal theory to survive a
motion to dismiss. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs have alleged that Plaintiff failed to send
new disclosures when the rate adjusted and therefore have stated a claim also under section
226 (c).A new disclosure may also be required if the creditor causes events which create
180
inaccuracies in prior disclosures. Travis v. Boulevard Bank, 880 F. Supp. 1226 (7th Cir.
2003). In Travis, the Plaintiff brought a TILA action against a defendant that had allegedly
placed unauthorized insurance on the plaintiff’s loan account. The defendant filed a motion
to dismiss arguing that it did not violate Regulation Z. The court determined that a creditor
who force-placed unauthorized insurance on a debtor’s account was required to make a
new disclosure pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 226.18 and, therefore denied the defendant’s
motion to dismiss. As set forth in the Travis case, Plaintiffs never sent new disclosures
when they force-placed insurance on defendants/counter-plaintiffs loan. For the reasons set
forth above, Count II (TILA) is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-619 and therefore
they motion to dismiss Count II should be denied.
C.
Count III is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
Plaintiffs argue that defendant/counter-plaintiffs fail to plead that Plaintiff was
involved in a conspiracy. The necessary element in a conspiracy is: (1) an agreement
between two or more persons; (¶ 39); (2) to participate in an unlawful act or act in an
unlawful manner; (¶ 40); (3) an injury caused by an unlawful act overt act performed by
one of the parties; (¶ 41); (4) The overt act was done pursuant to and in furtherance of the
common scheme; (¶ 42). The elements required to claim a cause of action for conspiracy
have been met by defendants/counter-plaintiffs.
Once the conspiracy is formed, all of its members are liable for injuries caused by any
unlawful acts performed pursuant to and in furtherance if the conspiracy. Adock v.
Brakegate, Ltd., 164 Ill. 2d 54, 645 N.E. 2d 888, 206 Ill. Dec. 636. (Supreme Court 1994)
A conspirator need not participate actively in or benefit from the wrongful action in order
to be liable. A plaintiff is not required to allege facts with precision when the necessary
181
information to do so is within the knowledge and control of the defendants and unknown to
the Plaintiffs. A Plaintiff is not required to plead with specifically the very fact that can
only be proved by circumstantial evidence. Adock, supra, 645 N.E. 2d at 895.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleges more than a mere agreement;
they allege that Plaintiffs have attempted to conceal the identity of one of the parties in to
further the alleged scheme. Scott v. Aldi, Inc., 301 Ill App. 3d 459, 703 N.E. 2d 562, (Dist.
1998). In Scott Plaintiff alleged that Aldi, through its agents or employees, allegedly
entered into an agreement, arrangement, combination or conspiracy with other parties to
operate an unlawful taxi business. Aldi’s employees allegedly allowed and permitted the
unlawful taxi business to operate upon its premises and encouraged, allowed and permitted
the taxi business to solicit Aldi customers. Plaintiff further alleged that Aldi knew or
should have known that the owners or drivers were engaged in an unlawful taxi business.
The trial court dismissed the conspiracy count on the ground that the alleged conspiracy
“was to do something which is prohibited by law but which does not constitute a tort.” The
Plaintiff appealed and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case stating that
because conspiracies are often purposefully shrouded in mystery, claims of conspiracy do
not permit the plaintiff to allege, with complete particularity, all of the details of the
conspiracy or the exact roles of the defendants in the conspiracy. Adcock, 164 Ill.2d at 66,
206 Ill. Dec. 636, 645 N.E. 2d at 895. Similar to the Aldi case, defendants/counterplaintiffs have alleged more than a mere agreement to engage in unlawful acts; they have
alleged a conspiracy to engage in tortious acts to conceal the identities under the pooling
and servicing agreement so that the fraudulent fees and charges that one of the entities
acting and or on behalf of the plaintiff could continue in furtherance of the scheme.
182
Defendants have stated a cause of action for common law conspiracy and therefore the
Plaintiffs motion to dismiss should be denied.
D.
Count IV is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615.
RICO Section 1962(a)
Plaintiffs argue that defendants have failed to plead a claim under RICO § 1962 (a),
(b), (c) and (d). To successfully plead a claim under section 1962 (a) the four elements
must be plead: (1) there was an enterprise (2) that the enterprise engaged in or had some
effect “on interstate commerce”; (3) that the defendant derived income, directly or
indirectly, from a “pattern of racketeering activity”; and (4) that some part of that income
was used in acquiring an interest in or operating the enterprise. Aitken v. Fleet Mortgage
Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff violated 18 U.S.C. §1962
(a) of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) by filing a
complaint that contained fraudulent fees and used the mail to communicate the
misrepresented charges to the defendants/counter-Plaintiffs citing Alleson v. Hoyne Sav.
Bank, 651 NE. 2d 573 (Ill. App 1 Dist 1995), where plaintiff asserting mail fraud claim had
to allege that defendant used the mail to further its scheme.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argue that the requirements of §1962 (a) have
been met because The Bank of New York have engaged in a pattern of mail fraud directly
as stated in the complaint ¶ 50-53, and indirectly from an entity acting for and on behalf of
the Plaintiffs (¶48); as a result The Bank of New York has received money, (Compl. ¶ 28)
have used that money in their operations; (Compl. ¶ 29); and as a result Defendants have
been injured in their property by having their property encumbered by these fees; (Compl. ¶
183
56). Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that the complaint only needs to set forth “a brief
sketch of how the fraudulent scheme operated, when and where it occurred, and the
participants. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., v. Mutual Trading Corp., 759 F. Supp. 869(N.D.
Ill. 1990) This, the defendants/counter-plaintiffs have done; they “adequately detail, in
broad strokes, the nature and essential factual elements of the alleged fraud, the Plaintiff is
not left guessing as to the outlines of the fraud, it’s purposes, or the critical facts.” Uniroyal
Goodrich Tire Co., v. Mutual Trading Corp., 759 F. Supp. 869(N.D. Ill. 1990) citing Adair
v. Hunt Int’l Resources Corp., 526 F. Supp. 736(N.D.Ill.1981)
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs cite Aitken v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS, where Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated section 1962 (a) by overstating
escrow payment requirements and used the mail to communicate those charges. The court
dismissed the claim for failing to allege an injury sustained as a result of the investment of
funds obtained from the racketeering activity. Unlike Plaintiff in Aitken,
defendants/counter-plaintiffs has alleged the injury caused by the racketeering activity in ¶
56. For this reason, Plaintiffs motion to dismiss must be denied.
RICO SECTION 1962 (b)
Section 1962 (b) provides that it is unlawful for any person through a pattern
of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain,
directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise that is engaged in or
affects interstate of foreign commerce.
A “person” includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or
beneficial interest in property, and that “person,” may be an enterprise. Uniroyal Goodrich
Tire Co., v. Mutual Trading Corp., 759 F. Supp. 869(N.D. Ill. 1990). The Bank of New
184
York is the note and mortgage holder of the defendants/counter-plaintiffs loan meeting the
requirement of “person” under the Act.
A “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering
within ten years. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs allege that plaintiff engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity through the filing a complaint with fraudulent fees and charges
(unlawful debt) on March 28, 2005, June 24, 2005, and October 17, 2006, and using the
mails to send to defendants/counter-plaintiffs constitute a pattern of racketeering activity.
Liquid Air Corp. v. Rogers, 834 F. 2d 1297 (7th Cir. 1987) A pattern of racketeering
activity can be established where one victim of a single scheme to defraud suffers the
repeated infliction of economic injury. Liquid Air Corp. v. Rogers, 834 F. 2d 1297 (7th Cir.
1987).
Section 1962 (b) provides that a defendant must be a person who acquired or
maintained [an interest in] [control of] the enterprise. Cleary The Bank of New York
controls the enterprise (the pooling of loans together) or at least maintained an interest in it.
They have filed the complaint to foreclose therefore protecting their interest, while
indirectly admitted their interest in the enterprise.
An “enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association or
legal entity. An enterprise may also be a group of individuals associated in fact for a
common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct, Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Big Apple
Indus. Buildings, Inc., 879 F. 2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1989) The enterprise “is the mortgage
pool”. A mortgage pool is a group of investors who hold mortgages in a secondary market,
investors who wish to simplify administration of the mortgages by putting them together
185
and allowing a servicer to maintain them. Heller v. First Town Mortgage Corp., 1998 WL
614197 (S.D.N.Y.)(Compl. ¶ 24).
An enterprise “affects interstate or foreign commerce” if the enterprise either
engages in or pursues activities affecting [or having the potential effect on] commerce
between the states. The Bank of New York is in New York, the servicer who was acting
for and on behalf of the Plaintiff does business and operates in Texas, and the
defendants/counter- plaintiffs reside in Illinois. This meets the requirement of “affects
interstate or foreign commerce” of section 1962 (b).
RICO SECTION 1962 (c)
This section makes it unlawful for a person employed by or associated with any
enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises affairs
through a pattern of racketeering activity. Aitken v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS,
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that the predicate acts of racketeering required
under RICO are satisfied by Plaintiffs violation of the federal mail statue, 18 U.S.C. 1341.
Plaintiff asserts that the complaint is not specific with the respect to the time, place,
and content of the false representations, the methods by which they were communicated,
and the identities of the parties to those misrepresentations. This argument is without
merit. The complaint in ¶ 8-11 clearly informs the Plaintiffs of the content as well as the
attached Exhibits M-M9) Scott v. Fairbanks., 284 F Supp. 2d 880 (S. D. Ohio 2003)
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that in their complaint ¶ 52,-53, informs the Plaintiff
of the false representations that were added to the complaint and sent through the mail,
186
Complaint ¶ 53, 55 informs and alleges that the Plaintiff included these charges and fees in
their complaint to foreclose.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs cites Alleson v. Hoyne Sav. Bank, 651 NE. 2d 573 (Ill.
App 1 Dist 1995) mortgagors adequately pled a RICO action against mortgagee for
misamoritizing mortgage payments and had adequately pled mail fraud based on mailing of
account statements that improperly adjusted interest and principal balances.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs allege because of the unauthorized fees and charges that have
been added to their loan balance, the interest between the interest and principal balance gas
been improperly adjusted.
RICO SECTION 1962 (d)
Reading the complaint in toto, and drawing the obvious and reasonable inferences
from the reading, it is plain that defendants/counter-plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
Plaintiff has an agreement through the enterprise to commit two or more predicate acts.
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., v. Mutual Trading Corp., 759 F. Supp. 869(N.D. Ill. 1990)
citing FMC Corp v. Boesky, 727 F. Supp. 1182(N.D.Ill.1989).
E.
Count V is not subject to dismissal under section 2-615
Plaintiff argues that defendants/counter-plaintiffs do not even come close to pleading the
required elements for such claim. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that charging
unauthorized and bogus fees amount to deceptive practice. Bradley v. Fairbanks Capital
Corporation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7465. The defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleges facts
sufficient to show a deceptive act. They have alleged Plaintiff misrepresented the loan
balance they sought to collect in the complaint, and that Plaintiffs intended for the
defendants/counter-plaintiffs to rely on this information. Plaintiffs cite Zekman v. Direct
187
Marketers Inc., 183 Ill. 2d 359, 695 N.E.2d 853 (1998) to argue that it is not unlawful to
knowingly receive the benefits of another fraud. However, Plaintiffs are wrong for two
reasons: (1) they had actual information which should have put them on inquiry and, (2)
had ample opportunity to discover the truth once defendants filed their motion and affidavit
on March 30, 2006 Exhibits U and U1. National Republic Bank of Chicago v. National
Homes Corporation, 63 Ill. App. 3d 920, 381 N.E. 2d 15, 21 Ill. Dec. 80. When one is
afforded the opportunity of knowing the truth of the representation he is chargeable with
knowledge; and if he does not avail himself of the means of knowledge open to him he
cannot be heard to say he was deceived by the misrepresentations. Schmidt v. Landfield., 20
Ill. 2d 89, 169 N.E. 2d 229 (Supreme Court 1960). Plaintiff was aware of the fraudulent
allegations by the motion the defendants/counter-Plaintiffs filed in March of 2006. Plaintiff
chose to voluntarily dismiss the original complaint to foreclose after reviewing
defendants/counter-plaintiffs response that made allegations to the fraud. Instead of
defending their position in their original complaint, they chose to voluntarily dismiss their
complaint. Because the motion filed by the defendants/counter-Plaintiffs put the Plaintiffs
on notice, and they failed to investigate or inquire, but instead chose to file a new
complaint on October 17, 2006, they now can be held liable for the fraud. They had seven
months notice to verify if the allegations defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleged was true or
not, but they chose not to. Schmidt v. Landfield, 20 Ill. 2d 89, 169 N.E. 2d 229 (Supreme
Court 1960).
Plaintiff argues that defendants/counter-plaintiffs have failed to plead with certainty
the required specificity of the acts of the Plaintiff which amount to a deceptive practice.
Defendant/counter-plaintiffs cite Chatman v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist.
188
LEXIS 10945, in which the court found that Plaintiffs allegation for the improper billing
resulted in a misrepresentation in the Plaintiffs mortgage account statements were sufficient
to assert fraud and had properly stated a cause of action. Similar to the Chatman ruling,
defendants/counter-plaintiffs allege that they were charged unauthorized and bogus fees,
and as a result the amount Plaintiff seeks to collect in the complaint is misrepresented. The
complaint adequately informs Plaintiff of the alleged fraud.
The courts found in the Vician v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage., 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26141 that it was an unfair and deceptive practice to charge Plaintiff for
unauthorized force placed-insurance, despite knowing the property was already insured.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleges that it was a deceptive practice to charge them for
unauthorized force-placed insurance in their complaint ¶ 15 and ¶ 58 (c).
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs cites Bradley v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation., 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7465, in which the court found that Plaintiff had met the heightened pleading
standards required to under the ICFA. Plaintiff identified the specific complaint and
provided extensive background facts to illuminate their allegation. The court concluded
that defendant Fairbanks had ample notice of plaintiff’s claim against them and
accordingly denied defendant Fairbanks motion to dismiss. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs
have alleged in ¶ 58 of the complaint that Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action that included
bogus and fraudulent fees and charges which is a unfair and deceptive practice. The
damage is the equity that has been lost in defendants/counter-plaintiffs home and the
overcharging of the monthly payment, See Home Savings and Loan Association of Joliet v.
Schneider., 108 Ill. 2d 277, 483 N.E. 2d 1225 (Supreme Court 1985), in which the court
found that Plaintiffs clearly had suffered damages from the overcharging of the monthly
189
payment. Defendants/counter-Plaintiffs suffered damages for payments made that have not
been properly credited to their account and for applying payments to the unlawful
forbearance suspense fees that defendants/counter-plaintiffs have paid. For the reasons set
forth above, Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Count V should be denied.
F.
Count VI is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
Plaintiffs first argument is defendants/counter-plaintiffs failed to attach a copy of
the mortgage and note which is not accurate. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that
Plaintiff breached the contract by misapplying payments. Page 4 of the mortgage, Section 2
states:
all payments accepted and applied by the lender shall be applied
in the following order of priority: (a) interest due under the note;
(b) principal due under the note; (c) amounts due under Section 3.
Such payments shall be applied to each periodic payment in which
the order they become due. Any remaining amounts shall be applied
first to late charges, second to any other amounts due under this
Security Instrument, and then to reduce the principal balance of the
Note.
If the Lender receives a payment from borrower for a delinquent
Periodic Payment which includes sufficient amount to pay any late
charges due, the payment may be applied to the delinquent payment
and late charge. If more than one Periodic Payment is outstanding,
Lender may apply any payment received from Borrower to the repayment of the Periodic Payments if, and to the extent that each payment
can be paid in full. To the extent that any excess exists after payment
is applied to the full payment of one or more Periodic Payments, such
excess may be applied to any late charges due.
On September 29, 2004 defendants made a payment for the August and September
2004 payment. (Exhibit J1A and ¶ 12 of the complaint.) The payment was applied to the
September payment, but not credited to the August payment which resulted in a breach of
contract. The November 14th payment was not properly credited. (Complaint ¶ 14)
190
Plaintiffs argue that defendants failed to plead the required elements for a breach of
contract. This argument ignores the factual allegations of defendants/counter-plaintiffs
complaint. Specifically they allege a mortgage was executed on May 10, 2002 (Complaint
¶ 1). The breach is also alleged under Affirmative defenses letter A; the performance;
Letter C; the breach, and ¶ 63 allege the damage as a result of the breach.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs contend they were charged for unauthorized insurance which
resulted in an increase in payment, and that they have not been credited or refunded for
increase in payment that had been paid once the proof of insurance was provided. A breach
occurred when the unauthorized force-placed insurance was placed on defendants/counterplaintiffs loan. Vician v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26141.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs alleges that Plaintiff breached the contract by
wrongfully accelerating the mortgage citing Bartlett Bank & Trust Company v. McJunkins.,
147 ILL. App. 3d 52, 497 N.E. 2d 398 (1st Dist. 1986). In the McJunkins case, the makers
of the note filed a counterclaim for damages for a breach of contract following a
foreclosure action by the bank. The McJunkins were not in default or behind in their
monthly payments at the time the Bank accelerated the mortgage. The McJunkins filed a
counterclaim and the Bank voluntarily dismissed its foreclosure suit. The jury
subsequently found in favor of the McJunkins on the counterclaim and awarded damages.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs cites this case because just like in the McJunkins case,
Plaintiff previously voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action against the
defendants/counter-plaintiffs. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs argues that they were not due
for the payments or the amount sought when Plaintiff accelerated the mortgage and note
which resulted in a breach of the contract.
191
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs
cites K.M.C. Co., Inc., v. Trust Company, 757 F. 2d
752 (1985). The borrower brought suit against lender for a breach of financing agreement.
Evidence, including evidence, that loan was fully secured when lender without prior notice,
discontinued borrower’s financing. The jury found Irving liable for breach of contract and
fixed damages at $7,500,000 plus pre-judgment interest. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs
loan was accelerated when any review or analysis by a reasonable lender or competent
foreclosure analyst would have refused to accelerate the mortgage under similar
circumstances. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs sent their bank statements to an entity who
was acting for and on behalf of the Plaintiff their bank statements to show their payment
history had been paid as agreed. This agent who was acting on behalf of the plaintiff did
not review the statements, and Plaintiff proceeding with a foreclosure suit. Because
defendants/counter-plaintiffs were not due when Plaintiff accelerated the mortgage, and
force placed unauthorized insurance when defendants/counter-plaintiffs already had
insurance coverage results in a breach of contract. For the reasons set forth above,
Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Count VI should be denied.
G.
Count VII is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
An action for loss of consortium has long been recognized in Illinois as a common law
cause of action. Both husband and wife can recover for a loss of consortium. Dini v.
Naiditch., 20 Ill.. 2d 406, 170 N.E. 2d 881 (1960). When a person is injured by another’s
wrongful conduct, the injured’s spouse may recover from the tortfeaser for the loss of
consortium the deprived spouse suffered as a result of injury to his or her spouse. Malfeo v.
Larson, 208 Ill. App. 3d 418, 567 N.E. 2d 364, 153 Ill. Dec. 406 (1st Dist. 1990). Loss of
consortium embraces not only loss of support and services, but also includes loss of love,
192
companionship, affection, and society, all welded into a conceptual unity. Brown v.
Metzger., 118 Ill. App. 3d 855, 455 N.E. 2d 834, 74 Ill. Dec. 405 (2d Dist. 1983), aff’d 104
Ill. 2d 30 (1984).
The elements for a loss of consortium are: (1) defendant tortfeaser owed a duty to
the injured spouse; (2) defendant tortfeaser breached that duty; (3) as a proximate cause of
defendant tortfeaser’s breach of that duty, the spouse was injured; (4) the other spouse was
married to the impaired spouse on the day of the occurrence; (5) As a proximate result of
injuries to the impaired spouse, the deprived spouse sustained damages.
Plaintiffs argue that defendant/counter-plaintiff has failed to plead any personal
injury claim. However, a loss of consortium must be joined with the principal action, and
the two actions must be tried together. The principal action is the breach of contract. The
complaint in ¶ 68 alleges that as a result of the plaintiff, defendant had been hindered from
attending to his usual business affairs. Seeing that all inferences must be drawn in favor of
the non-moving party, the pleadings should satisfy that requirement.
The concept of transferred is interpreted as a meaning that “a defendant’s breach of
his duty to care for the impaired spouse supports both the impaired spouse’s suit for his
injury and the deprived spouse’s suit for loss of consortium. Brown v. Metzger., 118 Ill.
App. 3d 855, 455 N.E. 2d 834, 74 Ill. Dec. 405 (2d Dist. 1983). For the reasons set forth
above, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Count VII should be denied.
H.
Count VIII is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
Defendant/counter-plaintiff, Shinette Williams argues the same reason that Count VII
should not be dismissed; Count VIII should not be dismissed.
I.
Count IX is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
193
Plaintiff argues (that there is a absolute privilege with regard to statements made in
a judicial proceeding). However, to overcome the privilege, Plaintiff has to plead and
prove the statements were made with actual malice. Krasinski v. United Parcel Service,
Inc., 530 N.E. 2d 468 (Ill. 1988). “Actual malice” in this context requires the plaintiff to
plead and prove that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless
disregard of whether it was true or false. New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964) Defendants/counter-plaintiffs has met the heightened requirement to overcome the
privilege. (¶75). Plaintiff filed a complaint with reckless disregard of whether it was true or
not that defendants/counter-plaintiffs was due for the March 1st payment or $166,514.16.
Plaintiff was aware that this information could have been false as defendants/counterplaintiffs had put them on notice when they filed an affidavit prior to publishing this
information. As a result, defendants/counter-plaintiffs business suffered. For the reasons
set forth above count IX should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for defamation.
J.
Count X is not subject to dismissal under Section 2-615
The following elements are essential to sustain a cause of action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendants; (2)
Intent by the Defendants to cause, or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing
emotional distress; (3) Severe or extreme emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs; (4)
An actual and proximate causation of emotional distress by the defendants outrageous
conduct. McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 533 N.E. 2d 655 (1988)
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs has alleged the Plaintiffs have the power to assert a
foreclosure at any time. The extreme and outrageous character of conduct can arise from
the abuse of a position of power. Doe v. Calumet City 641 N.E. 2d 498 (Ill 1994) Here a
194
police officer abused his position of power. The same standard can be applied to The Bank
of New York who is a big corporation and has the funds to hire legal counsel, when
defendants/counter-plaintiffs do not have access to legal counsel therefore Plaintiff using
their abuse of power.
Contrary to Plaintiffs position the facts stated in ¶ 81-83 of defendants/counterplaintiffs complaint are sufficient on their face to support all the elements set forth in
Farnor v. Irmco Corporation., 29 Ill. Dec. 894 (1st Dist. 1979). Accelerating one’s
mortgage prematurely, attempting to collect payments and fees not legally due and owed,
as well as filing, dismissing, and then refilling the same complaint over a 20 month period
is certain to cause emotional distress. This type of conduct is outrageous and extreme and
goes beyond all bounds of human decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized
community. This is not a case of “ slight hurts which are the price of a complex society.”
Knierim v. Isso, 174 N.E. 2d 157 (Ill. S. Ct. 1961). This is not a case of mere insults,
indignities, threats, fight or worry, this is a case involving 30 months of going back and
forth to court for a foreclosure that should not have been initiated in the first place, which is
not a mere brief incident. See Farnor, 29 Ill. Dec. at 899. This is a case where the distress
was of such intensity and duration that no reasonable person should be expected to endure
it. Farnor, 29 Ill. Dec. at 899. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs refers to a case where a Bank
employee sued an employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging bank
supervisor’s harassed employee. The circuit court granted banks motion to dismiss, and the
appellate court reversed it. See Johnson v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago., 577 N.E. 2d
328, (Ill. App. l. Dist. 1990) holding that supervisors engaged in a pattern of abusive
195
conduct for two years even after employee notified superiors of his susceptibility to
emotional distress and stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs informed Plaintiffs attorneys by sending a certified
letter around September, 2006. Exhibit X. The letter explained the hardships and the
emotional and marital stress this case have caused defendants/counter-plaintiffs. Plaintiff,
through their attorneys blatantly disregarded the plea in the letter, failed to investigate the
allegations for the 4th time, and preceded with a new complaint to foreclosure. For all of
the above reasons, the complaint makes sufficient allegations to support a claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Count X
should be denied.
IV.
The Bank of New York is not entitled to Summary Judgment pursuant to 735
ILCS 5/2 -1005
Summary judgment is properly granted if “the pleadings, depositions, and
admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issues
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2005). The trial court must construe these documents strictly
against the movant and may only grant summary judgment if the documents show that the
movant’s right to relief is clear and free from doubt. Morris v. Margulis, 197 Ill. 2d 28, 35,
257 Ill. Dec. 656, 754 N.E. 2d 314 (2001).
Plaintiff argues that, because defendants/counter-plaintiffs has not filed any counter
– affidavits, Plaintiffs affidavit is deemed to be admitted. Defendants/counter- plaintiffs
disagree citing. Pease v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, 208 Ill.
App. 3d 863, 153 Ill. Dec. 656, 567 N.E. 2d 614 (1991) that, where a movant in a summary
196
judgment proceeding supplies uncontradicted facts that would entitle the movant to a
judgment as a matter of law, The nonmovant cannot rely on his complaint or answer alone
to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court also explained that, “even though a
party opposing a motion for summary judgment fails to file counter – affidavits, the movant
is not entitled to summary judgment unless his motion and supporting affidavits establish
his right as a matter of law.” Pease, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 874, 153 Ill. Dec. 656, 567 N.E. 2d
614.
Plaintiffs have failed to dispute the fact that defendants/counter-plaintiffs does not
allege that they didn’t receive disclosures; they allege the loan balance was not accurate
based on the imposition of unauthorized fees to defendants/counter-plaintiffs loan.
Furthermore, defendants/counter-plaintiffs have alleged that their mortgage payments have
been improperly adjusted between the interest and principle causing the loan balance to be
higher than it would have been but for the improper charges. (complaint ¶35)
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs are not relying on the complaint alone to raise a
genuine issue of material fact, they are relying on the statements between the parties and
document generated by Plaintiff. This produces a question that creates a genuine issue of
material fact if the loan balance is correct or not. Rumford v. Countrywide Funding Corp.,
678 N.E. 2d 369 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1997) For this reason alone it raises fact questions
precluding summary judgment on TILA claims, and the motion for Summary Judgment
should be denied.
A.
Genuine Issue of Material Facts
1. Defendants have been overcharged on their monthly payment. The note
requires the monthly payment to be $1173.70, Exhibit B section 3 (b)
197
amount of my initial monthly payments: Each of my initial monthly
payments will be in the amount of U.S. $1173.70. However, Exhibits E, F,
and L1 all require a different amount reflected for the monthly payment.
Defendants paid the amount sought in Exhibit L1 and have not been
credited for the overage.
2. Defendants made a payment on September 29, 2004, in the amount of
$2668.14 for the September and August 2004 payment. Exhibits J1A. This
payment was never credited to the August 2004 Payment.
3. Defendants have not been properly credited for their payments from August
2004, through April 2005.
4. On February 16, 2005, a notice of default and intent to accelerate letter was
sent to defendant’s home alleging the amount to bring the loan current is
$1982.77. Exhibit D. On March 23, 2005 a reinstatement quote was
generated alleging the amount to bring the loan current was $ 6.279.25,
Exhibit E, while another letter dated March 24, 2005 alleged the amount
currently due to be $5090.35. Exhibit F. There clearly is a genuine issue as
to what the amount really was.
5. At the very least, several genuine issues of material fact still remain. SEE
AFFIDAVIT
J. Conclusion
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs has met the heightened requirement of pleadings and
has properly stated a cause of action for each of their claims. The dates are set forth in
the complaint, the necessary exhibits were attached, and each allegation was explained in
a simple precise factual allegation.
Additionally, Plaintiff is not entitled to summary because there is several genuine
issue of facts that still remain.
In today’s world of high volume subprime and predatory lending, mortgage
servicing fraud, and any other number of types of real estate fraud that anyone can read
about in the daily newspaper, Plaintiffs know that it is critical to be certain that a
foreclosure proceeding is accurate. It is inconceivable that in today’s marketplace a
198
prudent lender or creditor would not have in place simple procedures for meeting the very
basic requirement to assure that the entities acting on or behalf of the note holders are
following policy and prematurely initiating foreclosures. Plaintiffs have been made
aware of their wrongful conduct as well as the agents acting on their behalf. It would
only seem logical that they are all working together. As alleged in the complaint.
Defendants/counter-plaintiffs has adequately pled each cause of action base on
Illinois law and has pled the necessary facts and elements.
WHEREFORE, defendants/counter-plaintiffs respectfully moves this court to
strike Plaintiffs affidavit; deny their motion to dismiss and their motion for summary
judgment. For all the above reasons, their motions should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
______ ____________________
Andy Williams
___________________________
Shinette Williams
Andy & Shinette Williams
3201 Hopewell Dr.
Aurora, IL 60502
(630) 236-1620
199
ACCREDITED"
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
15030 Avenue of Science #I00
San Diego CA 92128
(866) 292-2504
B o r r o w e r (s)
ANDY W I L L I A M S , S R
:
Property Address:
3 2 0 1 HOPEWELL COURT
AURORA, I L 6 0 5 0 4
NON IMPOTJND NOTICE
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE LENDER FOR THIS MORTGAGE WILL NOT IMPOUND FOR
REAL ESTATE TAXES AND HOMEOWNERS I N S L W C E COVERAGE ON THE ABOVE
REFERENCED ACCOUNT.
THE MONTHLY PAYMENT I WILL BE MAKING ONLY COVERS PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
ON THE LOAN.
I AM FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR REAL ESTATE TAXES AND HOMEOWNERS
INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUMS WHEN THEY BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE.
\
,
t,
1.~01~- SP
~--~Q-OX
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
Date
Borrower
ANDY W I L L I A M S ,
SR
WILLIAMS
200
"The Mortgage Servicing Fraud Act"
I would like to propose a bill that mandates statutory penalties against servicers
when there is fraud found in a foreclosure. The type of fraud I am referring to is the
misapplication of payments, force placing insurance when the borrower’s home is already
insured, and the charging of illegal, unauthorized, and bogus fees.
Mortgage and financial institutions are using false statements and forged
documents to obtain property. In some states, such as Texas, making false statements to
obtain property is a first degree felony under the Texas Penal Code if the property value
is over a certain limit.
The servicer would be held accountable for manufacturing the default creating the
unlawful foreclosure and pay treble damages to the homeowner equal to three times the
amount of payments made, plus discharge the mortgage. The servicer would pay all the
homeowners expenses used to pursue the action. Attorney fees would also be required to
be paid by the servicer. The Note Holder would also be liable for damages unless they
can show a system in place to ensure they were no illegal activities done that induced the
foreclosure, and they are not attempting to collect bogus fees and marked up charges.
The final result is the borrower would have their house free and clear, and they would be
entitled to three times the amount of the total payments made. (There should be criminal
charges filed where there is a pattern.)
The purpose of this Act is to help homeowners who have been put in a wrongful
foreclosure and are unable to represent themselves, or are unaware of the remedies that
are available to them. The only reason why servicers would object to it is because they
have some thing to defend or hide. What they are hiding is the fact that the foreclosing
entity does not have legal standing or authority under UCC Chapter 3. Only the Holder
in actual physical possession has legal standing.
201
Statement
Of
Larry B. Litton, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP
Domestic Policy Subcommittee
Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Friday, November 14, 2008
10:00 a.m.
“Is Treasury Using Bailout Funds to Increase
Prevention as Congress Intended?”
Thank you Chairman Kucinich and Ranking Member Issa for the opportunity to
address the Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Larry B. Litton, Jr. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Litton Loan
Servicing, which manages a portfolio of 450,000 mortgage loans totaling $75BB of
predominantly subprime mortgages.
I was asked to provide insight into how loan modifications are performing in
today’s environment and ways servicers can help homeowners stay in their homes during
these difficult times. I hope my statements provide the committee with a better
understanding of what’s happening on the front lines as we work toward reducing
mortgage defaults and preserving homeownership whenever possible.
Role of Servicers.
Servicers are a key participant in efforts to help individual homeowners as the
intermediary between investors in mortgage loans and the homeowners. The servicer
202
performs a number of administrative tasks, such as collecting monthly payments,
escrowing and paying property taxes and homeowners insurance, and sending out yearend tax information to the borrower and to the IRS. In addition, the servicer forwards
borrower payments to the lender who made the original loan or to the investors who
bought the loan from the originator. Servicers also have a contractual duty to maximize
the recovery of principal and interest for investors.
In these trying economic times, a servicer’s focus should shift primarily to
determining how to cure defaulting mortgages and to how to modify these loans to make
them perform again. Modifications are a component of what our industry calls loss
mitigation, and we believe modifications are the best way to prevent or cure defaults and
help customers continue to pay their mortgages and stay in their homes.
Litton has been a strong and consistent proponent of responsible loan
modifications since my father founded the company in 1988. As a servicer, we believe
that our contractual obligation to maximize the recovery of principal and interest for the
investors whose loans we service is compatible with offering a host of options that afford
struggling homeowners a second chance to keep their homes. We make this part of our
everyday business practices.
Observations on Today’s Environment.
In the past year, we have observed four notable trends that are presenting
increased challenges to servicers, and more importantly, homeowners:

An increase in default rates

An increase in re-default rates

A decrease in customers accepting loan modifications
203

An increase in the foreclosures of vacant properties
As this crisis has unfolded, default rates increased to more than 40% today, up
from 35% over the past 12 months. Also, we have seen a slow but steady rise in redefault rates associated with modifications accepted by homeowners. Twelve months
ago our re-default rate averaged about 30%. Today the rate is in excess of 40%.
We also have observed an incremental decrease in the frequency of homeowners
accepting loan modifications. Twelve months ago, more than 40% of our customers
accepted pre-approved modifications. Today this number is around 20%.
In regard to vacant properties, today we know that at least 25% of the loans we
service that go into foreclosure are vacant, which is a 100% increase over where we were
12 months ago. Many times these homeowners did not respond to loan modification
offers and have simply walked away from their homes.
It is clear that our customers are facing tremendous economic head winds driven
by higher instances of job loss, wage compression, high debt loads, and other issues. It is
also clear that the mortgage servicing industry needs to continue to do more and adjust to
these conditions. With house values, loan performance, and the overall economy on the
decline, this is the time we need to be more aggressive with the terms of our loan
modifications and find ways to get homeowners’ payments down further. We believe
this is good for both homeowners and investors.
Litton’s Response on Loan Modifications.
Over the past 12 months, we are proud to report that we have modified more than
41,000 loans. This represents 12% of our portfolio and 38% of loans that were 60 days
or more past due. When we modify loans, we consider the following approaches: writing
204
down principal, waiving all or part of arrearage, decreasing interest rate and/or extending
the loan term. Despite the work we have done to modify these loans, we have not seen an
appreciable decline in new foreclosure starts over this same period. In fact, delinquency
rates as well as foreclosure rates are up not just in our portfolio but nationally as well.
Historically, Litton’s average modification involved a payment reduction of $200
per month, which resulted in an average housing debt-to-income ratio of 39%.
In response to the current environment, we recently implemented a modification
debt-to-income standard of 31%, which is consistent with FHA guidelines for new loans.
Our expectation is that after a period of making payments on the loan modification many
of our customers will be able to refinance into a fixed rate FHA loan. Our belief is that
using this standard will allow us to do more loan modifications with greater payment
relief to the homeowner, thus providing a more sustainable solution. Our investors will
still benefit, as we are confident we can demonstrate a significant savings over the
foreclosure outcome.
Investor and Homeowner Outreach.
Investor education is an important part of our efforts. As I mentioned, we are
confident in our ability to demonstrate to our investors that loan modifications generally
produce a significantly lower total loss than foreclosures. Before we complete a
modification, we project the loss that would be realized should we foreclose and compare
that value to the value of cash flow generated via a modified loan. When we can
demonstrate that the loss would be lower in the modification example, we proceed with
the modification.
205
Homeowner education and outreach is another essential component to achieving
more loan modifications. We have found that working with local housing and consumer
agencies has been an important part of our ability to reach homeowners who are
otherwise unwilling or afraid to respond to our outreach efforts.
We have a relationship with a particular housing counseling agency that we think
illustrates an effective model for the servicer-counseling agency relationship. The East
Side Organizing Project of Cleveland, Ohio, known as ESOP, has assisted us in reaching
homeowners throughout Ohio, and thus far, to complete modifications for more than half
of the customers they have referred to us; a very high success rate. Further, many other
customers referred to us by ESOP have received other types of workouts that were more
appropriate for their situation. We believe ESOP’s success stems from its commitment to
providing homeowners with quality and realistic counseling and by encouraging them to
actively participate in the modification process.
Recommendations.
It is clear that the negative trends related to new mortgage defaults, re-defaults on
modified loans, customers accepting modifications, vacant properties, foreclosure starts,
and declining home prices all present significant challenges. We urge the servicing
industry and policy makers to work together to continue to develop partnerships between
the public, private, and non-profit sectors to inform homeowners of their options and the
often little understood consequences of walking away from their homes. It is certainly in
everyone’s interests to keep homeowners in their homes whenever possible.
Finally, as and industry, servicers should look to do all they can to create
responsible, affordable loan modifications that are possible within the guidelines of their
206
contractual obligations to investors and use all available resources to connect with
homeowners during this important time. Servicers need to use more reasonable debt-toincome standards when creating modifications to provide more payment relief for
homeowners. Although modifications to existing mortgage terms certainly are not a
panacea that will cure all that ails the current housing market, we believe that thoughtful
restructuring of existing arrangements to provide homeowners with payment relief is a
positive step toward combating its decline.
Thank you again for allowing me to share Litton’s views, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
207
Conclusion
Forty eight percent of the nation’s homeowners who have a sub-prime, adjustable
rate mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure. 1 Sub-prime and adjustable
rate mortgages make up 85% of Litton’s portfolio which consists of 450,000 loans. What
if 48% of Litton’s portfolio was in foreclosure and thirty eight percent contained
mortgage servicing fraud? These numbers are not based on facts, but it is definitely
something to think about.
Mortgage Servicing Fraud has not been widely talked about in the media or
recognized in the courts. However, it does exist and it is a very lucrative business. There
are several servicers besides Litton who are reaping profits from servicing abuse. Litton
is just one of many.
Consumer Cause of Action, Inc.
info@ccanow.com
www.ccanow.com
1
March 5, 2009 Associated Press Article-12 pct. Are behind in mortgage or in foreclosure.
208