By Saul Saenz
March 30, 2014,




This is one of the zombie house residents in Ormond Beach are trying to fight.

Florida leads the nation in zombie foreclosures.

There’s a group of Ormond Beach homeowners battling a zombie home problem — homes that are standing dead and sucking the life out of entire neighborhoods.

The group is targeting homes that are abandoned and decaying, with so much overgrowth they are hard to look at.

“It is an eyesore and it is exactly a zombie home because we don’t even know at this point who owns the homes,” said Rita Press, president of Citizens for Ormond Beach.

“I think it’s gonna lower the property values if they see a rundown house,” said neighbor Joe Puccino.

The group has identified at least 300 foreclosed homes throughout the city, and numerous abandoned homes with no paper trail that homeowners simply walked away from. One house Press told us about is in the city’s exclusive, historic riverfront district.

The group contacts homeowners in foreclosure to help them through the process before a homes turns into a zombie home. They also want the city to prevent houses from turning into lifeless shells.

But the ultimate goal, Press said, is to get all those homes on the market so that new homeowners can breathe life back into a lifeless Zombie home.


Five of Florida’s housing markets are in the top 10 zombie foreclosures, according to RealtyTrac.

The foreclosure tracking group said there are more than 140,000 homes in Florida that are in zombie mode, or are bank-owned. And zombie homes in Florida are in foreclosure for about 1,095 days.


Please share this with your SoCal friends and family.  H/T to Neil Garfield, Thanks!

“Despite the fact that everyone knows, despite the fact that they signed consent decrees promising not to steal homes, they go right on doing it.

Where is law enforcement, the Attorneys General, the regulators? They all know but they only prosecute the least significant offenders.

Foreclosures spiked 57% in California last month. How many of those were illegal? Most, if not all.

An audit of San Francisco County revealed one or more irregularities in 99% of the subject loans. In 84% of the loans, there appear to be one or more clear violations of law.

Fortune examined the foreclosures filed in two New York counties (Westchester and the Bronx) between 2006 and 2010. There were 130 cases where the Bank of New York was foreclosing on behalf of a Countrywide mortgage-backed security. In 104 of those cases, the loan was originally made by Countrywide; the other 26 were made by other banks and sold to Countrywide for securitization.

None of the 104 Countrywide loans were endorsed by Countrywide – they included only the original borrower’s signature. Two-thirds of the loans made by other banks also lacked bank endorsements. The other third were endorsed either directly on the note or on an allonge, or a rider, accompanying the note.”

-George Mantor


No More Dirty Deeds

Mantor for Assessor/Recorder/Clerk of San Diego County

If you have an interest in real estate, global finance, or fraudclosure then you may already be familiar with my work. I have written possibly hundreds of articles during my 35 year career in real estate.

Over the last few years, I have assisted families all across the country in developing strategies to avoid foreclosure and remain in their homes. I never accepted a single penny for this work.

During that same period, numerous banksta entities have agreed to pay billions in fines and restitution to victims, and promised to cease forging and recording fraudulent documents.

No one can still argue that there hasn’t been a giant rip-off of millions of homeowners, many of whom never missed a payment until they were targeted to fulfill the default quota to collect on the insurance and stiff the investors. Sometimes they seize the home, sometimes not; it doesn’t really matter to them.

Despite the fact that everyone knows, despite the fact that they signed consent decrees promising not to steal homes, they go right on doing it.

Where is law enforcement, the Attorneys General, the regulators? They all know but they only prosecute the least significant offenders.

Foreclosures spiked 57% in California last month. How many of those were illegal? Most, if not all.

An audit of San Francisco County revealed one or more irregularities in 99% of the subject loans. In 84% of the loans, there appear to be one or more clear violations of law.

Fortune examined the foreclosures filed in two New York counties (Westchester and the Bronx) between 2006 and 2010. There were 130 cases where the Bank of New York was foreclosing on behalf of a Countrywide mortgage-backed security. In 104 of those cases, the loan was originally made by Countrywide; the other 26 were made by other banks and sold to Countrywide for securitization.

None of the 104 Countrywide loans were endorsed by Countrywide – they included only the original borrower’s signature. Two-thirds of the loans made by other banks also lacked bank endorsements. The other third were endorsed either directly on the note or on an allonge, or a rider, accompanying the note.

The lack of Countrywide endorsements, combined with the bank’s representation to the court that these documents are accurate copies of the original notes, calls into question the securitization of these loans, as well as Bank of New York’s right, as trustee, to foreclose on them.

These are not paperwork errors; they are evidence of a crime in progress and they are themselves criminal acts prohibited by law.

Across the country, other County Recorders have stood up to the bankstas and put a stop to filing forgeries. John O’Brien, Jeff Thigpen, and Curtis Hertel stopped accepting forged documents on behalf of the residents of their respective counties. It can be done.

San Diego County is no different. The same banks, mortgage servicers, and foreclosure mills operate here and are doing the exact same things even to this day despite numerous settlements and consent decrees. The County Recorder’s office is a crime scene, and it is a crime in progress that must be stopped.

The incumbent, Earnest Dronenburg, Jr., has allowed the system to become infected with MERS, a bank owned and operated alternative title registry system that has never been authorized by anyone. Think Wikipedia.

As a result, the county has lost millions of dollars in recording fees as banks hid transfers from the public by recording them only in their private registry.

We now know that this allowed banks to sell the same mortgage rights over and over again, and then foreclose on the mortgage that they had already sold numerous times.

Citizens have lost their right to due process as 96% of all foreclosures go uncontested because of forged documents.

It is apparent that the County Recorder’s office is a key piece in restoring justice and maintaining individual property rights.

Every time a mortgage assignment is entered into the MERS system without payment to the local County Recorder for the recordation of same, the county loses revenue and the ability to accurately track the information.

Even worse, it puts every property owner in the position of having their property seized without any due process whatsoever by someone claiming to be from MERS.

Dronenburg has allowed for fraudulent actors, and their supporters, to access the land recording system by permitting robo-signed mortgage assignments to permeate land title records.

The integrity of land title records and the rights of the consuming public now hang in the balance.

It’s time to occupy the Recorders office. We need to identify and develop our own candidates to challenge bank owned incumbents.

Support My Campaign

I want to do it here in San Diego, but I need help. I’m highly qualified. I have been assessing property values and using title records daily since 1978, and I sure know a forged assignment or a cloud on title when I see it.

America may be free but running for office against the establishment sure isn’t. The two biggest obstacles are the filing fee of $1991.39 and the Candidate’s Statement of Qualifications which appears on the ballot. Two hundred words at a whopping $6,550.

However, this is probably the single best platform for this election because it gets mailed to every registered voter in the County.

This is not a high-profile office so most people will decide while marking their ballots; that is where I have the advantage over the incumbent.

When I assume office we will immediately stop recording obviously forged documents and require those seeking to foreclose to provide a complete chain of title.

My decision to run is conditioned upon being able to raise enough money to cover the cost of the ballot statement. I need checks no later than March 1st. The maximum an individual can contribute is $700.

If you have always wondered what you could do to fight back against the corruption, now is your chance. In addition to money quickly I still need a treasurer and a campaign manager.

This will have an impact all over the country, please help now.
Make checks payable to: Mantor for Assessor/Recorder/Clerk.
Mail to: 1611A South Melrose Drive, #134 Vista, CA 92083.
George Mantor for Assessor/Recorder/Clerk San Diego County

H/T to George Gingo and James Orth.. two of Florida’s BEST real estate/foreclosure attorneys… hands down!

Well here it is. I finally get my day in court. Been fighting a TBTF recipient of public largess for years. They have no admissible evidence or lawful chain of title or chain of custody of the note and mortgage but yet still moonwalk away from trial with a judgment for foreclosure in their favor.


Don’t worry, there will be an appeal filed soon. Will keep you all posted on that!

Obviously, the good Judge did assist them many times and allowed them leniency on several key issues. One being an amendment of their pleadings, two being that their pleadings did not support their evidence, three being that there was no lawful knowledge of anything at all from the Plaintiff’s witness other than she viewed a couple of computer screens and most importantly, they didn’t have to prove that they obtained a lawful interest in the note and mortgage from a bona-fide title holder and oh yeah, almost forgot.. they told me I had to stop making payments in order to get help. After they instructed me to stop paying them in order to receive assistance, several months later they ceased communicating with me all together.

I was told that they needed written “authorization” from my prior spouse in order to speak with me. Something they had been in receipt of or else I would not have had evidence (emails from the “executive” resolution department) that they once were communicating with me. The whole thing was rigged to fail. The Plaintiff likely made an @ss-load of money as they were leveraged 90 x 1 on derivatives to assets ratio’s (see here for more info) and I am quite sure that my home is worth at least 90 times more to them as it is to me.

Minutes before the trial began Plaintiff’s counsel made an offer to sell the property at market value and avoid the trial. I got pissed, told them that is what I was trying to accomplish 5 years ago when my neighbor’s home sold for 50k less than mine.

So you see, the TBTF recipients of public largess would rather throw someone out on the street and sell the home on the courthouse steps for pennies on the dollar in order to cash in their side bets RATHER than accept a healthy cash offer when it was presented to them many years prior when their NET at closing would have been substantially higher.

Will anyone at Chase or JPM ever step up to the plate and tell us why they are destroying our communities and families by lying, cheating and stealing people’s homes… even when they have money and resources and are ready to pay and settle up on their obligations?

February 17, 2014 | Neil Garfield


It is easy to think of the mortgage meltdown as a period of time in which the banks went wild. Unfortunately that period of time never ended. They are still doing it. The level of sophistication it takes to do the kinds of things that banks have been doing for the last 20 years is probably beyond the knowledge and experience of any of the regulators. In addition, it is beyond the knowledge and experience of most consumers, lawyers and judges; in fact as to non-regulators, bank behavior makes no sense. After having seen the results of what are euphemistically called subprime mortgages, Wells Fargo is plunging back in and obviously expecting to make a profit. Apparently the quasi governmental entities that issue guarantees on certain mortgages will allow these subprime mortgages. Wells Fargo says it now understands the parameters under which the guarantors (Fannie and Freddie) will approve those mortgages without a risk that Wells Fargo will be required to buy them back.

That is kind of a mouthful. We have thousands of transactions that are being conducted that directly affect the ownership and balance of various types of loans including mortgage loans. The picture presented in court is that the ownership and status of each loan is stable enough for representations to be made. But the truth is that the professional witnesses hired by the bank’s foreclosure actions only present a slice of the life of a loan. They neither know nor do they inquire about the rest of the information. For example, they come to court with a a report showing the borrower’s record of payments to the servicer but they do not show servicer’s record of payments to the creditor. By definition they are saying that they only know part of the financial record and that consists of a made for trial report on the borrower’s activities. It does not show what happened to the payments made by the borrower and does not show payments made by others —  like loss sharing with the FDIC, servicer advances, insurance, and other actual payments that were made.

These payments are not allocated to any specific loan account because that would reduce the amount claimed as due from the borrower to the creditor — as it should. And the intermediaries and conduits who are making claims against the borrower have no intention of paying the actual creditors (the investors) any more than they absolutely have to. So you have these intermediaries claiming to be real parties in interest or claiming to represent the real parties in interest when in fact they are representing themselves.

They cheat the investor by not disclosing payments received from insurance and FDIC loss sharing. They cheat the borrower by not disclosing those payments that reduce the count receivable and therefore the account payable. They cheat the borrower again when they fail to show “servicer advances” which are payments received by the alleged trust beneficiaries regardless of whether or not the borrower submits monthly payments.  (That is, there can’t be a default in payments to the “trust” because the pass through beneficiaries are getting paid. Thus if there is any liability of the borrower it would be to intermediaries who made those servicer payments by way of a new liability created with each such payment and which is NOT secured by any mortgage because the borrower never entered into any deal with the servicer or investment bank — the real source of servicer advances).

Then they cheat the investor again by forcing a case into a foreclosure sale when the borrower was perfectly prepared, willing and able to enter into a settlement agreement that would have paid the rest are far more than the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and final liquidation. Their object is to maximize the loss of the investor and maximize the loss of the borrower to the detriment of both and solely for the benefit of the intermediary or conduit that is pulling the strings and handling the money.  And they are still doing it.

Click here for full article.

FEB 5, 2014

A whistleblower with a track record of wresting large settlements from banks is suing 22 companies for allegedly filing fraudulent mortgage documents with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


get out of jail free card

Lynn E. Szymoniak, famous for her 2011 “60 Minutes” interview on the robo-signing scandal, filed a lawsuit late Monday against the companies, including Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The Palm Beach, Fla., plaintiff’s lawyer alleges the 22 banks, mortgage servicers, trustees, custodians and default management companies created fraudulent mortgage assignments and submitted tens of thousands of false claims to HUD.

The lawsuit is a stark reminder that banks still face massive litigation and potential settlements for wrongdoing from the mortgage boom and financial crisis. On Wednesday, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged that it violated the False Claims Act and agreed to pay $614 million to settle claims that it improperly approved Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Affairs loans that did not meet underwriting standards.

HUD oversees the FHA, which reimburses servicers for losses and fees when government-guaranteed loans go into foreclosure.

Banks can be held liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act if they are found to have “falsely certified” that mortgages met all FHA requirements. The act also gives whistleblowers the right to file suit on behalf of the government.

“It’s been very difficult to uncover how fraudulent documents were created and spread through the system,” says Reuben Guttman, Szymoniak’s attorney at the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer. “Lynn Szymoniak did the original analysis, looked at documents and put the pieces together in a way that nobody else did.”

The new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina. Several of the defendants, including Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo, said they are reviewing the lawsuit and could not immediately comment.

In 2012, Szymoniak helped the government recover $95 million from the top five mortgage servicers, as part of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement. She personally received $18 million for providing information on the filing of false claims on FHA loans.

The suit also seeks to recover damages and penalties on behalf of the federal government, 16 states, the District of Columbia and the cities of Chicago and New York for the financial harm incurred in the purchase of private-label mortgage-backed securities that allegedly used fraudulent documents in foreclosure filings since 2008.

As investors in mortgage bonds, the government and others paid fees and expenses for services such as reviewing all mortgage documents put into trusts that were supposed to be performed by trustees. The federal government bought mortgage-backed securities with missing or forged documents through several avenues, including the Federal Reserve’s direct purchases and Maiden Lane vehicles, and the Treasury Department’s purchases through public-private partnership investment funds, the suit states.

The complaint does not specify damages but Szymoniak says she expects them to total around $10 billion.

The fraudulent mortgage documents were created because the original loans documents either were never delivered to the securitization trusts, or they were lost or destroyed, the lawsuit states. Many of the documents were created years after the trusts’ closing dates and showed the trusts acquired the loans only after they were in default.

Servicers “devised and operated a scheme to replace the missing documents,” the lawsuit states, and to conceal the fact that the trusts and servicers never actually held the mortgage notes and assignments, which are needed to initiate a foreclosure.

Szymoniak was also instrumental in uncovering fraud and forged documents at DocX, a now-defunct subsidiary of Lender Processing Services. She worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigations and U.S. Attorney’s office in Jacksonville, Fla., that ultimately led to the conviction of an LPS executive, the closure of DocX, firm, and various settlements by LPS, which is now owned by Black Knight Financial Services.



At the end of 2013, a number of housing-related tax provisions expired. Collectively, these housing and other tax rules are part of a set of policies known as “tax extenders,” which have traditionally been extended every year or so.

While there is growing support for extending most, if not all, of these provisions, a potential debate on comprehensive tax reform may delay any Congressional effort to extend these rules. If such a delay carries through until late 2014, perhaps in a lame duck session after the election, then it is possible that a future extension may not be retroactive for 2014. In the past, Congress has enacted retroactive extensions, but such actions cannot be relied on for the future.

Thus, homeowners, builders, remodelers, and other real estate professionals are well advised to consider that it is possible that these provisions may not be part of 2014 tax law.

Another complicating factor for the tax policy agenda in 2014 is the news that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus will be resigning to become the U.S. ambassador to China. While it is expected that Senator Ron Wyden will become the next chairman of the committee, what impact this transition will have on tax extenders is uncertain.

The following housing or real estate related tax provisions expired at the end of 2013:

Housing Rules

  • Mortgage debt forgiveness tax relief: rule that prevents tax liability arising from many short sales or mitigation workouts involving forgiven, deferred or canceled mortgage debt.
  • Deduction for mortgage insurance: reduces the after-tax cost of buying a home when paying PMI or insurance for an FHA- or VA-insured mortgage; $110,000 AGI phase-out.
  • The section 25C energy-efficient tax credit for existing homes:remodeling market incentive with a lifetime cap of $500.

Business Rules

  • The section 45L new energy-efficient home tax credit: allows a $2,000 tax credit for the construction of for-sale and for-lease energy-efficient homes in buildings with fewer than three floors above grade.
  • The 9% LIHTC credit rate: absent the credit fix, the LIHTC program would suffer a loss of equity investment for affordable housing projects; in place for 2013 allocations.
  • Base housing allowance rules for affordable housing: income definition rules.
  • The section 179 small business expensing limits: offers cash flow and administrative cost benefits for small firms, with limits of $500,000 for deductions and $2 million for capital purchases.
  • The section 179D deduction: provides a deduction for some energy-efficient upgrades to multifamily and commercial properties.
  • New Markets Tax Credit: no new allocations of this community development tax credit.

Click here for link to the full article.

run around

By Michael Gerrity | January 30, 2014

The securitization market involving debt tied to single-family homes is reemerging as a hot topic in Wall Street, but the source for the debt is different this time around.

A Wall Street estimate says potential financing opportunities for the new securitization market are as high as $1.5 trillion.  The new industry would sell bonds to investors all over the world from debt tied to a growing single-family rental market.  A growing number of large and private investors are purchasing single-family homes in bulk and renting them. This is creating an opportunity for banks and investors to buy into the market.

American Homes 4 Rent is the latest company making a move in the emerging market. The company announced at a conference its plan to sell securities tied to $500 million of debt, according to The New York Times.  “The investment and lending opportunities are immense and perhaps just beginning,” Jade Rahmani, a real estate analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, wrote in a recent report.

Private equity giant Blackstone Group, the largest owner of single-family homes in the U.S., became the first to sell single-family rental securitization last fall.  The REO-to-rental business has attracted institutional investors in the wake of the market collapse, with funds and REITs spending more than $20 billion to purchase as many as 200,000 homes.

Blackstone has set up its own lending arm to lend to other buy-to-rent landlords, as small investors may not be able to acquire credit. Last November, Starwood Property Trust announced it would spin-off its single-family business into a separate REIT to become one of the largest publicly-traded single-family property owners.

This new Wall Street market is creating concern among economist and members of congress members, who worry of another credit bubble.


“Proper oversight of new financial innovation is key to ensuring we don’t go down the same road of the unchecked mortgage-backed security and create an unsustainable bubble that will wreak havoc when it bursts,” Representative Mark Takano, Democrat of California, said in a letter to the House Financial Services Committee last week.

The previous credit bubble burst included defaults and failures from mortgage holders, lenders, loan insurers and hedge funds in a system dubbed “financial weapons of mass destruction” by business magnet Warren Buffet.

Before the market collapse, almost anyone could get a mortgage from a bank with little to no credit. The bank would then sell the mortgage-backed securities to pension funds, which felt safe with the loans because of the backing of insurance companies like AIG with a product called the ‘Credit Default Swap’, which in effect was a form of insurance on the invest itself. That is how many Wall Street banks were able to sell hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of high-risk investments to usually risk-adverse institutional investors worldwide. And the entire deal structure was based on the premise that housing values would always go up, and homebuyers would continue to pay their mortgages.

When the economy turned sour in 2008 and mortgage payments stopped, what ensued was a snowball-effect collapse resulting in the recession. Many years later, the economy is recovering, the housing market is rebounding, but lending remains tight. This has led to the rental market growth and a new way for Wall Street to make money.

With the foreclosure industry dropping nationwide, investors are rushing to get into the business.

“We have been very pleased with how this turned out,” American Homes 4 Rent executive director, Michael J. Burns, told The New York Times, while acknowledging it’s sometimes “heart wrenching” to acquire homes that families have lost to the bank.

“Some other family is going to move in and make it their home,” he said. – Click here for link to the full article.

February 1, 2014 12:01 AM


GRETNA – A homeowner who restructured his mortgage claims that the mortgage company repeatedly sent important mail to the wrong address that led to the repeated underpayment of the mortgage and eventually to the bank hiring a collection company to recoup $4,000.

Mark J. Boudreau filed suit against Bank of America NA and Seterus Inc. in the 24th Judicial District Court on Jan. 21.

Boudreau alleges that in his negotiations with the Bank of America in restructuring his mortgage the bank repeatedly sent important documentation to an address in Youngsville when in fact he was actually living at 729 Huckleberry Lane in Terrytown. He claims he notified the bank of such on at least five occasions. The plaintiff asserts that one such piece of mail came after he had arrived at a settlement with the bank for a monthly payment and interest of $928.45 plus a monthly escrow payment of $431.66. Boudreau claims that as the settlement was being reached the piece of mail delivered to the wrong address increased the required escrow payment to $647.17.

The plaintiff alleges over the next several months he paid what he thought was the agreed upon amount, but received a notice from Seterus Inc., a collection agency, that he owed $4,000 due to his payments being lower than what was required. Boudreau asserts that Seterus Inc. was operating under false information provided to them by Bank of America concerning the mortgage payment required. After extensive negotiations and disputing the alleged debt Boudreau filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against Bank of America and Seterus Inc.

The defendant is accused of changing the terms of settlement agreement after they had already been established and using the incorrect contact information for vital mail that should have been provided.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for mental anguish and distress, damaging the credit of the plaintiff and interference with business opportunity.

Boudreau is representing himself in the case pro se.

The case has been assigned to Division F Judge Michael P. Mentz.

Case no. 734-786.

Breach of Contract, changing the terms of settlement agreement, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,damaging the credit of the plaintiff, interference with business opportunity, Seterus Inc., using the incorrect contact information for vital mail.


May 10, 2013

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is on a roll. There’s been a fair bit of media coverage about abusive debt collection practices, particularly in credit cards, but at least until Harris filed a suit on Thursday against bank miscreant JPMorgan (hat tip Deontos), surprisingly little action.

Because the amounts are usually much smaller than in mortgages, banks have incentives to play fast and loose if they think they can wring some extra blood out of the turnip of an overextended consumer. But the result often goes well beyond just improperly submitting information to the court. JP Morgan and other banks have been accused of trying to collect on debt where they have the amounts wrong, where the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, or where the consumer was never notified an action was underway. And when the debt is sold to debt collectors, the same problems with inaccuracy of information, invalidity of the debt, and abuse of the legal system multiply.

Chase had its dirty laundry aired in public by whistleblower Linda Almonte, who filed an SEC suit in 2010, settled, and then decided to break her confidentiality agreement in 2012. She was an important contributor to an American Banker story that also revealed that the OCC had been investigating. As we wrote:

“The American Banker story discusses the operations of a unit that handled delinquent credit card borrowers. Handling these accounts involved using three different computer systems that communicated reasonably well on current borrowers but not with delinquent or defaulted ones. As a result, the operation had involved a high level of manual checks to make sure the amounts borrowers owed were accurate before they were sent off to collection (which in high population states, was an in-house operation, but for most, involved the use of outside law firms….

Linda Almonte, who was a process specialist who had worked at WaMu, joined in 2009 and was fired, as she charged in a wrongful termination lawsuit, for refusing to send files to collection that has obvious problems in them. Almonte filed a whistleblower complaint with the SEC (see an Abigail Field story for more detail). Her charges:

1. Chase Bank sold to third party debt buyers hundreds of millions of dollars worth of credit card accounts. . .when in fact Chase Bank executives knew that many of those accounts had incorrect and overstated balances.

3. Chase Bank executives routinely destroyed information and communications from consumers rather than incorporate that information into the consumer’s credit card file, including bankruptcy notices, powers of attorney, notice of cancellation of auto-pay, proof of payments and letters from debt settlement companies.

4. Chase Bank executives mass-executed thousands of affidavits in support of Chase Banks collection efforts and those Chase Bank executives did not have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavits.

…the American Banker story quotes current and recent employees who confirm that he bad practices that Almonte called out are still very much alive. Specifically:

“We did not verify a single one” of the affidavits attesting to the amounts Chase was seeking to collect, says Howard Hardin, who oversaw a team handling tens of thousands of Chase debt files in San Antonio. “We were told [by superiors] ‘We’re in a hurry. Go ahead and sign them.’”…

The records the law firms used to sue people sometimes differed from Chase’s own files at an alarming rate, according to a routine Chase presentation prepared by Almonte and later submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some law firms’ records disagreed with Chase’s in almost 20% of cases sampled, a rate far above what is regarded as an acceptable level of errors.

“That’s horrendous,” says a former Chase attorney who was informed of the numbers by American Banker…

Borrower correspondence sent to the San Antonio facility, such as bankruptcy notifications, address changes, and hardship requests were being dropped on an unmanned desk, according to a 2009 printout from Chase’s troubleshooting log….

“I understand there were documents trashed, yes,” she says. [Carol] McGinn retired from the San Antonio facility in June of 2010 after she says she became uneasy with how it was being managed.”

Full article from Naked Capitalism can be found here