“IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT’S TOTALLY UNEXPECTED” – MOODY’S DOWNGRADES BofA SERVICING

In the continuing question of why anyone would want to manage the servicing of mortgage loans in this day and age, Moody’s took the step they had initially warned about in October of last year by downgrading the servicing rating of Bank of America on its prime, subprime and second lien mortgage loans as well as for its special servicer rating.
 

The rating, referred to as SQ or Servicer Quality ratings, has a high score of SQ1 and a bottom of SQ5. BofA’s servicer rating had been at the high category of SQ1. The recent downgrade puts BofA at SQ2. Moody’s SQ review covers at least nine areas of servicing functions, including management, staff experience/training/compensation, loan administration, arrears management, loss mitigation, IT systems/reporting, general quality and guidelines and financial stability. The weighting of these factors depends on whether the rating is for the Servicer as primary, special or master servicer. In the case of BofA, it was as primary servicer.

 

And BofA is not out of the woods yet. Moody’s has stated that BofA remains under review for further downgrade due to their foreclosure process.  Given the complete disarray of the loss mitigation systems, as well as claims that the staff of the servicing shops are overwhelmed and inadequately trained, it is not surprising that BofA expected this downgrade.

                                               

However, as one of the largest servicing portfolios with 13.3 million loans under management (excluding REOs), this little speed bump will not slow down the massive servicing structure. With new management recently put into place, as well as compliance with the recent Consent Order signed by BofA with the OCC and the Federal Reserve, things may start looking up for the servicing group. Whether or not they can make money at this side of the business is another question.  The trick is cost containment while the portfolio continues to be stressed by delinquencies, short sales, foreclosures and  aggressive plaintiff litigants who want homes for free. Infrastructure building, with clear policies and procedures, training and auditing is the only way to clear this up.

               

AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STEPS UP TO THE PLATE WITH THE BIG BAT FOR SERVICERS

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve got the largest of residential mortgage servicer to sign “Stipulation and Consent to Issuance of a Consent Order” today, forcing the servicers to take a look at their prior practices that allowed for robo-signing and improper foreclosure practices and to make changes to those processes in pretty quick order.

Of those servicers hit with the Order include Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Ally Financial, HSBC North America Holdings, PNC Financial Services, U.S. Bancorp, MetLife  and SunTrust Banks.

The Order appears to basically address the “robo-signing” issues that have plagued the servicing industry since last year. Claims by the OCC were that the servicers:

·         Filed affidavits in state and federal court in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records ;

·         Filed numerous affidavits or other mortgage-related documents that were not properly notarized, specifically that were not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;

·         Litigated foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings without always ensuring that the promissory note and mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party at the appropriate time;

·         Failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure processes;

·         Failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and

·         Failed sufficiently to oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.

In light of these findings, servicers are now being required to:

·         Develop Oversight Committees within 5 days to monitor and coordinate compliance with the Order;

·         Provide the Board of Directors of the Servicer with a Compliance Tracking Report within 90 days (and every 30 days thereafter), showing the progress in complying with the Order, for which the Board will then, within 10 days, have to enter such report and their findings into the corporate records.

·         Build appropriate Compliance Programs within 60 days to ensure that all servicing and foreclosure actions company with all applicable legal requirements. This Compliance Program will then need to be implemented within 120 days.

·         Provide the Regional Director of the OCC within 60 days

o   an acceptable plan (the “Action Plan”) to achieve full compliance with the Order.

§  to include effective mortgage servicing, foreclosure and loss mitigation actions, as well as associated risk management, compliance, quality control, audit, training and staffing.

o   policies and procedures for outsourcing foreclosure and related functions, with implementation with 120 days;

o   a plan to ensure appropriate controls and oversight with respect to MERS and its rules;

o   a management information system for foreclosure and loss mitigation;

o   an acceptable plan, along with a timeline, for ensuring effective coordination of communications with borrowers, both oral and written, related to Loss Mitigation or loan modification and foreclosure activities;

·         Provide within 45 days for an OCC approved independent consultant to conduct reviews of foreclosure actions

o   The OCC shall review the terms and methodology to be used by the independent consultant.  

What does all this mean? Well, in the first place, the cost to service loans will now become much more expensive, as these policies and procedures will require significant more man-hours. Anytime you build more policies and procedures with specific reporting requirements, costs go up. At 25 bps, servicers are going to be squeezed, at least in the short term, until efficiencies can be found to comply with these new requirements. This will be similar to the implementation for SOX, except that the servicers have limited revenue generation, which is now going to be scrutinized by the government.

Secondly, this can turn out to be another boon-doggle for the plaintiffs’ bar, like the first round of MERS litigation. Until the courts get their heads around what is going on, slick plaintiff’s attorneys will use these new requirements to forestall the foreclosure of their delinquent borrower clients even more. Which also mean higher costs to servicers and slower repayment of servicing advances as servicers are dragged into slower foreclosures.

Lastly, investors will be left waiting for their money even longer, if they get any at all, as the time to foreclosure and resell the home, as well as the cost of foreclosure (which may now include the policies and procedure costs), will be passed along into the securitization trusts. More government intervention always means less money to the investor.

So, while there was clearly a need to fix the broken foreclosure process following the over-greased skids that were in place, the OCC’s efforts to right the ship may have sent the boat over the other way. Let us hope that if that is the case, like in the last “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie, turning the ship upside-down actually gets us out of this “Davy Jones’ locker” of mortgage servicing. But then again, that was Hollywood and Disney.

THE HARDEST HIT FUND – TAXPAYER CASH FOR PRINCIPAL WRITE-DOWNS

In its efforts to stop the proverbial plane from nose-diving into the ocean, the Obama administration back in February of last year put forth the Hardest Hit Fund (“HHF”), a $1.5 billion taxpayer backed initiative to allow state housing authorities to come up with “innovative measures” to help homeowners in the most hardest hit states. First in line were California, Florida, Arizona, Michigan and Nevada.

 Now it appears that Wells Fargo is looking to help out Arizona underwater homeowners by using some of the HHF money to provide for principal reductions. In an announcement that it is in talks with the Arizona Department of Housing to join a program of principal reduction, Wells Fargo now joins the ranks of Bank of America in providing principal reductions to delinquent homeowners in Arizona.

This is good news for investors! Simply put, if it is structured in a way that allows the HHF money to off-set the principal reduction, the investor is made whole for the write-down. HOWEVER, if the servicer looks to capture some of that money for expenses and deferred costs, the investors will be getting less than their full reimbursement. It is up to the state housing authorities to hold the line for investors, and not the servicers.



At stake as well is the reimbursement for advances that the servicers most probably will attempt to recoup from the HHF moneys. Now, while the servicers should be entitled to any reimbursement of advances that are specifically tied to principal advances, it is questionable if reimbursement of interest advances should be permitted. The counter-argument, however, is that any interest advances not reimbursed would then most likely be added to principal (either as a straight addition or as a deferred balloon payment) and would then constitute principal as well. Either way, the servicer would be left out in the cold for a while as it attempts to get back its advances.

 So, as the property values in Arizona remain as stagnant as the hot summer air in the desert, let’s hope that this program provides a bit of cooling to the burn that homeowners have been suffering. And although this may be more of a spray of water than a jump into a pool, for those of us that have been in Scottsdale in August know, even the mist makes a difference when you are otherwise baking in that Arizona sun.

HOW ROTTEN IS THIS APPLE? – ALLY’S DECISION TO REVIEW ALL 50 STATES

Ally Financial, one of the first of the residential mortgage servicers to fall ‘victim’ to the robo-foreclosure problem that has spread like a pandemic to the entire mortgage servicing industry, has expanded its review of its foreclosure procedures to cover all 50 states. This is following Bank of America’s immediate decision to halt and review its foreclosure procedures across the entire country. The remainder of the servicing shops, including the recently added PNC and Litton Loan Servicing (Goldman Sachs’ servicing arm) has limited their review and exposure at this point to only the 23 states that have judicial foreclosure processes.

All states handle the process of foreclosure slightly differently, but the major difference is whether the state follows a judicial or non-judicial process for foreclosure. In a judicial foreclosure state, the servicer, acting on behalf of the mortgage loan holder (usually a securitization trust), files paperwork in the county court in which the mortgaged property in default is located. Initial paperwork filed with the court includes a complaint and a Lis Pendens filed with the county land records office. Notice of the action is sent to the defaulting homeowner, usually by service of process. The county court will hear the case, including any issues raised by the defaulted borrower, and enter a judgment. A writ will be issued by the court and a sheriff’s sale will be held for the auctioning of the property.

In a non-judicial foreclosure state, the process works without the intervention of the courts, which means that the defaulting borrower has less of an opportunity for complaint or to question of the process. While non-judicial foreclosure states have an even greater patchwork of procedures that follow varying requirements, the basic pattern is that the servicer just sends a notice, either as a Notice of Default or as a Notice of Sale, to the defaulting borrower. After waiting a statutorily required period of time, the servicer initiates an auction for the property.

In either case, the proceeds from the sale of the property goes to the owner of the property, generally the securitization trust holding the property as REO, as “Liquidation Proceeds” as defined in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Cash from the sale of the REO property is paid out to the servicer, the trustee and ultimately the investors pursuant to specific provisions established in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

By announcing that it will expand its review – but not its suspension – of foreclosure practices to all 50 states can only mean that the procedures followed by Ally or its outside service providers went beyond improper execution of affidavits and use of notary stamps. Rather, it looks like the entire servicing industry, in their sub-contracting the foreclosure process to law firm foreclosure mills, may have found itself completely disregarding the legal requirements to foreclosure. In non-judicial foreclosure states, such actions could have been so egregious as to prohibit defaulted borrowers to have the ability to question the foreclosure. This is because generally, in non-judicial foreclosure states, the concept of due process (which would include things like improperly signed affidavits and notary stamps) is not a valid defense to a foreclosure. Therefore, to have to question the process of foreclosure in these states would signal an issue to the actual violation of law, and not just due process.

And now it appears that the infamous “coalition of Attorneys General”, last summoned to take down Ameriquest, is being formed again, lead again by Iowa Attorney General Tim Miller. With a players list that will probably include Andrew Cuomo from New York, Ray Cooper from North Carolina, and most of the AGs from the judicial foreclosure states (Florida, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin), critical mass could be reached. But unlike actions in the past, this time the attorneys general will be fighting against the entire industry and not a lone rouge mortgage company. An interesting interplay that should be asked in this inquiry is that of the servicer’s actions, either directly or through agents, to foreclose and that servicer’s inability to modify loans under HAMP or their limited refinancing of loans under HARP, as well as their drive to push short sale under HAFA. That will be a telling sign as to their “motus operanti” or “mens rea”.

So, as the cavalry of Attorneys General form to bring their forces to bear against the various servicer Indians that have been accused of plundering the homesteads of defaulting borrowers, let us see if this turns out to be a replay of the “Battle of Little Big Horn.” Because this time, those Indians already own all of the casinos on Wall Street and have been smoking the peace pipe with several of the “White Man” in Washington for years.

“CHICKEN LITTLE AIN’T GOT NOTHING ON ME” – THE CONTINUING MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE MESS

Well, as predicted, the regulators are coming out of the woodwork over the robo-foreclosure issue. The OCC, the regulatory agency for banks, is ‘requesting’ that the big boy servicers (BofA, JPMorgan, Wells, Citigroup, HSBC, PNC and US Bank) review their foreclosure practices to see if the person signing the affidavits in foreclosure proceedings had the required knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit.

To understand the issue at hand, in State’s that have judicial foreclosure, the law requires something like the following:

• The affidavit shall state the facts that establish that the obligor has defaulted in the obligation to make a payment under a specified provision of the mortgage or is otherwise deemed in uncured default under a specified provision of the mortgage.


• The affidavit shall also specify the amounts secured by the lien as of the date of the affidavit and a per diem amount to account for further accrual of the amounts secured by the lien.


• The affidavit shall also state that the appropriate amount of documentary stamp tax and intangible taxes has been paid upon recording of the mortgage, or otherwise paid to the state.


• The affidavit shall also state that the lienholder is the holder of the note and has complied with all preconditions in the note and mortgage to determine the amounts secured by the lien and to initiate the use of the trustee foreclosure procedure.

At issue, then, is what are the requirements of an affidavit. Anderson's Manual for Notaries Public Fifth Edition describes an Affidavit as a "declaration reduced to writing, signed by the affiant, and sworn to BEFORE an officer authorized by law to administer oaths." Blacks Law Dictionary describes an Affidavit as "a written, ex parte statement made or taken under oath BEFORE an officer of the court or a notary public or other person who has been duly authorized so to act."

In several States, notaries are subject to "petty offense" fines for misuse of office. If a notary is signing affidavits without witnessing a signature, the notary is subject to fines.

An affidavit can either be based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge.

So, what does this mean to the servicers? Well, to start, did these servicers have policies and procedures in place that required this two step process, specifically (a) that the affidavit had either personal knowledge or information and belief of the facts in the affidavit, and (b) was the affidavit sworn to BEFORE a notary? Next, were these policies and procedures followed (probably not is what it appears). Lastly, what will be the penalty for failing to following these procedures?

So, it appears that one of the culprits of this new mortgage mess is the notaries working for the foreclosure mills. Like the appraisers of sub-prime mortgage originations past, these “low on the totem pole” service providers just processed without following their own rules. Now it is coming back to haunt the entire industry.

Another party to this trouble is the in-house foreclosure group heads at the servicing companies that signed the affidavits. Did they even have personal knowledge (doubtful) or a good faith information and belief of the facts stated in the affidavit? Again, it will be based upon the policies and procedures in place at these organizations. Whether there was “up-the-line” reporting from the person handling the foreclosure to the person signing the affidavit will be key.

So, as more of the servicers get taken behind the wood-shed, plaintiffs’ attorneys will have a field day with this and the regulators will continue to make political hay. Meanwhile, Joe Homeowner who is in default on his loan gets to watch TV rent free and the securitization investor will be flipping the bill for it all. Maybe hedge fund investors will start to see this . . .or maybe not. Maybe they need more write-offs.