PadC: From linked article: "These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark," Judge Agresti said in a Dec. 20 hearing in Pittsburgh.

In other news, Claudius forgoes poison and has Laertes just shoot Hamlet.

/spoiler alert?

Wow, I guess nothing is obscure on fark

/obscure?
//

A former co-worker refinanced through them - she had nothing but problems. I vowed there and then to never deal with them.

cefm:

Yeah yeah. I went with the stripped down version, since it hits the most important point, and nobody should be getting legal advice on FARK.

Fair enough - but in this case, if there are other lenders in the same boat, I think there's a fair chance that the prior bad acts would come in under 404(b) on a "common plan or scheme" theory. Countrywide could be truly farked if they (or their attorneys) made a habit of this kind of thing.

birdmanesq: Misch: birdmanesq: Evidently Countrywide is not on your side... That's surprising...

pssst... that's Nationwide insurance...

That's embarrassing...

"Break me off a piece of that... football cream!"

/Andy is the best

HotWingConspiracy - Why do they try to shake down poor people? Aren't there more lucrative targets?

Poor people have fewer resources with which to defend themselves.

It's easier to shake $5000 each out of 20 poor people than it is trying to shake $100,000 out of one rich guy.

The best part is the poor people generally can't pay the five grand right away, so by the time you tack on interest and penalties over the years, you can get it up to eight, ten, maybe even fifteen grand before all is said and done.

The thing that was telling to me was in the linked article.

Ms. Hill's matter is one of 300 bankruptcy cases involving Countrywide that have come under scrutiny by Ms. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee in Pittsburgh. On Oct. 9, she asked the court to sanction Countrywide, contending that the company had lost or destroyed more than $500,000 in checks paid by homeowners in bankruptcy from December 2005 to April 2007.

So in essence, they were taking payments and destroying them so that the payments were late or "not received" and then foreclosing on the properties. And why is the US housing market in such disarray and what the fark is the government going to do about it?

No reason to blame the lender, if fabricating evidence was truly objectionable to consumers the market would respond and the lender would lose business. We don't really need courts at all, they're just big government waste.

/Ron Paul '08!

HAHAHA. Countrywide lendees are dumbasses!!11eleventy.

*looks at mortgage*

Oh. Never mind

I've done collections for a couple of the largest lenders in the mortgage business. infinitedigits is correct, there is a certain smell emanating from lenders these days.

And it don't smell like roses.

technicolor-misfit
The best part is the poor people generally can't pay the five grand right away, so by the time you tack on interest and penalties over the years, you can get it up to eight, ten, maybe even fifteen grand before all is said and done.

That certainly is the best part.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Just what we need. Government stepping in and controlling the market. A bunch of irresponsible schnooks who don't read fine print and can't prevent themselves from being defrauded in the capitalist market and who pays for it? We do. I paid my house off in the first three months. Ok technically my parents did and it's not "my" house per se, but I paid attention in high school economics, so kiss my ass.

When you work for it yourself and pay for it you can brag, dickhead. Until then, STFU. My guess is if your parents can pay off a house in 3 months you have never worked hard in your life and merely sucked off of mommy & daddy's tit.

Wish I had a copy of that douchebag picture. Maybe I can steal one from your profile page.

KJUW89 - A former co-worker refinanced through them - she had nothing but problems. I vowed there and then to never deal with them.


I imagined that way too literally.


/"as god is my WIT-NESSSS, I shall NE-vahhhhhhhh..."

Edrondol: And why is the US housing market in such disarray and what the fark is the government going to do about it?

Hopefully nothing. As you said, it is already in disarray

HotWingConspiracy: Why do they try to shake down poor people? Aren't there more lucrative targets?

Part of having money is knowing how to keep it. The kind of people who pay off their credit cards every month, save money, watch their credit, pay off loans early, and shop around for good terms on loans aren't that profitable to lenders. They can also afford better lawyers if you try to scam them.

Wow. From the NYT article:

"They were not offered to prove that they had been sent".

Hey, these are just novelty letters. If a judge is foolish enough to think we would imply that we actually sent those letters to these people, it's not our fault!

Edrondol - When you work for it yourself and pay for it you can brag, dickhead. Until then, STFU. My guess is if your parents can pay off a house in 3 months you have never worked hard in your life and merely sucked off of mommy & daddy's tit.

Wish I had a copy of that douchebag picture. Maybe I can steal one from your profile page.



I think your sarcasm detector is running about a quart low...

HotWingConspiracy
Because it's more cost effective.

Poor people's rights get trampled on all the time. The truth is, if you are poor, you can't expect the legal system to work. There are lots of cases of people being locked up for crimes they didn't commit with no evidence (one shaky eye-witness testimony from a child, for a example) and spending the next 7-10 years in prison while a loved one does the job of law enforcement, solves the case, proves who the real killer was and finally, gets her husband out of jail.

Stuff like that happens to poor people because juries don't like poor people and they can't afford a good lawyer. That doesn't happen to rich people, or even well off people.

Someone going through financial problems is an easy target. They can't afford to fight a real legal battle, they already have shady credit and they already are legitimately behind in payments. When a big company says, "No, no, we sent that man a letter..." and he says, "No they didn't!" Who are they going to believe?

I'm a lawyer and am currently suing a mortgage lender on behalf of my client because the lender engaged in false and deceptive acts in connection with his home loan transaction. You would be amazed at the misrepresentations and utter lies that lenders tell consumers to get them to enter a loan agreement...and even worse, the lenders think no one will ever call them on it.

The average person would be shocked and appalled at what the overworked corporate lawyer would do to cut a corner or two in a case.

kornkob: I'm not sure the lawyer is necessarily at fault here. If the lawyer asks the client to cough up the letters they sent and the client fabricates the letters, then the lawyer acted in good faith and its the client that needs to visit the PMITA room for a while, not the lawyer.

Probably THIS. Odds are pretty good the lawyer was not in on it, especially if Countrywide uses outside instead of in-house counsel for litigation (and most companies do).

If I were the judge, I'd refer it to the Grand Jury for investigation -- you've got potential obstruction of justice, fraud, suborning perjury, and some other potential crimes there. Let the U.S. Attorney or District Attorney subpoena most of Countrywide and figure out whose stupid idea this was.

TommyymmoT
If they average schmuck off the street got caught trying to steal $4700, they'd be arrested, not scolded.

Can't nail the Countrywide because they can play the internal blame game:

Q: Flunky X fabricated the letters.
X: Manager Y told me to.
Y: I was directed by R.
R: Wasn't me, it was Q.

And around and around we go.

kingMountain: i say anyone with a mortgage owned by countrywide should get six months paid by the company.

I have a HELOC that was sold to Countrywide, so THIS.

F the skulls of them.

Great, I bet the judge will bail out these homeowners with our tax money. Look, it's capitalism. If you don't like to be illegally screwed over by your lending company, then you should use a lending company that doesn't do such things. You have choices; the government shouldn't bail you out for expecting companies to be honest and to work without the rules of the law.

HotWingConspiracy Why do they try to shake down poor people? Aren't there more lucrative targets?

They aren't able to get away with high interest on people who aren't poor. Plus if they foreclose, they get to make money all over again by pocketing what they've been paid and selling the house once more.

domenad: .... the American legal system, which has worked perfectly up until this point.

AAAAAH-HAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA-HA--AH-HAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!billialeventlythousan d !!!

/actually quite saddened by this shiat

Jack Torrence

If its Countrywide, I'm in for a class action.

olddeegee

So do judges. If I was the judge I wouldn't be worried.

kornkob: That being said, almost all lawyers could use a good beating anyway.

I've had to deal with one of the exceptions. I got in a pretty nasty wreck in 1996, which was absolutely not my fault (old guy blew a stop sign while not wearing his glasses, moving fast enough in a 15mph speed limit area to total two large vehicles). Idiot roommate made me late for court (apparently 60 miles is a 15-minute trip during morning rush hour in his warped mind), so I wound up with a default judgment against me for twelve grand. Talked to the lawyer after it had already gone through, and he off the record knocked it down to about three grand (the client was an insurance company, not a person). Unfortunately, I missed some payments and it got jacked back up to about eleven thousand.

Fast forward to summer 2006. I called the guy to see just what I owed and what I could do about paying it off so I could get my DL unsuspended. He dug up the file, called me back and said "good news and bad news. The bad news is, it's eleven grand, and they won't accept a payment plan. The good news is, it'll be ten years in November, which means if you ignore it, it'll go away unless they specifically ask me to reinstate it." I asked for clarification, and he informed me that even though he knew damn well I was going to wait the thing out and let it evaporate, he had no responsibility to inform the insurance company of this, and unless they specifically asked, he wouldn't reinstate it.

So while I agree most (the vast majority) lawyers deserve a good beating (with a hose, natch), I'd be more than willing to let this guy slide. He tried to save me eight grand in '96, then saved me $11,000 just recently.

meanwhile, in related news, Countrywide stock plummets over a quarter of it's worth today.

Overview
CFC (NYSE)
$5.47 -2.17 (-28.40%)
1/8/2008 4:07 PM ET

wow, a mini story that then links to a maxi story. It's a surfing expedition.

couldn't we have just gone to the NY Time article first?

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Government stepping in and controlling the market.

How is a court doing it's job, not allowing someone who manufactured evidence to get their way, controlling the market?

Also that fine print of which you speak? Some of it can be so vague not even a lawyer can figure out what it means.

KellyLockhart: She should have "recreated" receipts showing her paid in full.

If Countrywide can do it, why can't we?

Haven't you seen their ads?

"No one can do what Countrywide can"

"“These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark,” Judge Metaphor Mixor said in a Dec. 20 hearing in Pittsburgh."

I'm so sick of loser hippies whining, "Waah, corporations are evil."

You'll get over it. Seriously. You will. Suck it up.

This is why I live in a van down by the river.

Jack Torrence: and even worse, the lenders think no one will ever call them on it.

I believe they operate on the the "Like who'd ever think to call a lawyer if we do X?" principle. Of course, when someone does call a laywer, they're up the creek.

Edrondol: Adjective Bird Whiskey: Just what we need. Government stepping in and controlling the market. A bunch of irresponsible schnooks who don't read fine print and can't prevent themselves from being defrauded in the capitalist market and who pays for it? We do. I paid my house off in the first three months. Ok technically my parents did and it's not "my" house per se, but I paid attention in high school economics, so kiss my ass.

When you work for it yourself and pay for it you can brag, dickhead. Until then, STFU. My guess is if your parents can pay off a house in 3 months you have never worked hard in your life and merely sucked off of mommy & daddy's tit.

Wish I had a copy of that douchebag picture. Maybe I can steal one from your profile page.

Dude. Your sarcasm detector. Check the power cord.

Squirrel Nutkin - Can't nail the Countrywide because they can play the internal blame game:

Q: Flunky X fabricated the letters.
X: Manager Y told me to.
Y: I was directed by R.
R: Wasn't me, it was Q.

And around and around we go.


That doesn't really matter. "My boss told me to!!" isn't really a defense against breaking the law.

At the very least, you nail the guy who created the documents and the guy who handed them over to the lawyer and anyone else you can connect to it via emails or whatever.

But yeah, if anyone gets in hot water over it, it will most likely be a case of "guilty of being the lowest ranking person in the room."

Edrondol: The thing that was telling to me was in the linked article.

Ms. Hill's matter is one of 300 bankruptcy cases involving Countrywide that have come under scrutiny by Ms. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee in Pittsburgh. On Oct. 9, she asked the court to sanction Countrywide, contending that the company had lost or destroyed more than $500,000 in checks paid by homeowners in bankruptcy from December 2005 to April 2007.

So in essence, they were taking payments and destroying them so that the payments were late or "not received" and then foreclosing on the properties. And why is the US housing market in such disarray and what the fark is the government going to do about it?

I remember when I had a VISA from MBNA/BOA and I would send my payment close to a week before it was due. Most of the time my payment would go through no problem but there would be times where my payment would be posted as recieved one day late and they would hit me up with a late fee. The first time I called to complain they waived the late fee but the phone operator got an attitude with me like it was my fault. Subsequent times they were even more mean, accused me of always paying late, and were general dicks on something that was their fault.

I always suspected they were posting my payments a day late so they could hit me up for a late fee but never had any proof. Fishy that they were always 1 day late when my payments were usually posted a couple of days early.

Then one day durring one of these phone conversations they refused to waive the late fee and I said I wish I could pay off this account and be done with them. The operator said in a patronizing voice that they wish I could also. The next day I withdrew some money from my 401K and called teling them to close my account and I am paying it off. Funny how the tone n their phone rep's voice changed after that. They asked why and I told them. Then they apologized and asked if they could make it up to me. Naturally I said no and told the phone rep to tell his boss to kiss my ass and hung up.

Now credit card debt free. I do keep a Discover card for hotel reservations and other things you need a card for. Never had any problems with them and even a positive story where they could have charged me a late fee but didn't.

Jack Torrence

If its Countrywide, I'm in for a class action.

It's not Countrywide...it's a regional lender here in the Southwest/Texas.

And please people...do not blame the consumers for dealing with companies who "screw them over." Mortgage lenders are prohibited by law from engaging in deceptive trade practices. However, they do it with impunity. As a consumer, how are you supposed to know you are getting screwed if the lender is concealing information from you and making misrepresentations to you?

When a lender gets caught doing this crap, they are subject to civil liability. In Texas, they are liable under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and every other state has a similar law. The lender not only has to pay actual damages, but if the deceptove act was done knowingly or intentionally (which is almost always the case) they can be assessed punitive damages equal to 3x actual damages. And the lender has to pay the consumer's attorneys' fees. So many lawyers (like me) will take on these kinds of cases even then the consumer can't pay, because we can recover our attorney fees from the lender.

I have short positions in CFC, so I'm really getting a kick etc.

They picked the wrong state to pull that shiat in.