Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Foreclosure Crisis In California (2012)

Foreclosure Crisis In California (2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2 |Likes:
Published by wmartin46
1. Introduction

The  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco’s 
Office  of  the  Assessor‐Recorder  retained 
Aequitas  Compliance  Solutions,  Inc.  to 
review  382 residential  mortgage  loan
transactions (the  “subject  loans”)  that 
resulted  in  foreclosure  sales that  occurred
from  January  2009  through  October  2011.
1
  
Over  this  period,  there  were  2,405 
foreclosure  sales.    The  subject  loans  thus 
represent  approximately  16%  of  the  total.
(See Appendix B – Methodology.
1. Introduction

The  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco’s 
Office  of  the  Assessor‐Recorder  retained 
Aequitas  Compliance  Solutions,  Inc.  to 
review  382 residential  mortgage  loan
transactions (the  “subject  loans”)  that 
resulted  in  foreclosure  sales that  occurred
from  January  2009  through  October  2011.
1
  
Over  this  period,  there  were  2,405 
foreclosure  sales.    The  subject  loans  thus 
represent  approximately  16%  of  the  total.
(See Appendix B – Methodology.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: wmartin46 on Feb 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/06/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
FORECLOSURE
IN
CALIFORNIA
A CRISIS OF COMPLIANCE
SAN FRANCISCO | FEBRUARY 2012P
REPARED
B
Y
 
Aequitas Compliance Solutions, Inc. | 422 31st Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 | Phone 949.272.3955 | aequitasaudit.com
 
 
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
2. A California Primer ............................................................................................................. 2
 
2.1 Understanding Residential Lending in California .................................................................... 2
 
2.2 Understanding Foreclosure in California ................................................................................. 2
 
3. Why This Is Important ....................................................................................................... 3
 
4. How This Relates to the Foreclosure Settlement ..................................................... 5
 
5. Presentation of Findings .................................................................................................. 6
 
5.1 Assignments ............................................................................................................................ 6
 
5.2 Notice of Default ..................................................................................................................... 8
 
5.3 Substitution of Trustee ............................................................................................................ 8
 
5.4 Notice of Trustee Sale ........................................................................................................... 10
 
5.5 Suspicious Activity and Other Issues ..................................................................................... 11
 
5.6 MERS Conflicts and Results ................................................................................................... 12
 
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 14
 
 Appendix A Understanding Securitization ................................................................ 16
 
 Appendix B Methodology ................................................................................................ 18
 
NOTICE: The information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legalcounsel. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, nothing provided herein should be usedas a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
 
FORECLOSURE IN CALIFORNIA
A CRISIS OF COMPLIANCE
AEQUITAS COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. | 1
1.
 
Introduction
The City and County of San Francisco’sOffice of the Assessor‐Recorder retainedAequitas Compliance Solutions, Inc. toreview 382 residential mortgage loantransactions (the “subject loans”) thatresulted in foreclosure sales that occurredfrom January 2009 through October 2011.
1
 Over this period, there were 2,405foreclosure sales. The subject loans thusrepresent approximately 16% of the total.(See Appendix B – Methodology.)We analyzed the subject loans to determinethe mortgage industry’s compliance withapplicable laws. Specifically, we focused ouranalysis on important topics relating to sixSubject Areas:
 
Assignments
 
Notice of Default
 
Substitution of Trustee
 
Notice of Trustee Sale
 
Suspicious Activities Indicative of Potential Fraud
 
Conflicts Relating to MERSOur Subject Areas and the topics weexplore therein may not be exhaustive.Nonetheless, we believe our analysispresents an accurate picture of the natureand frequency of the mortgage industry’sperformance respecting compliance withimportant aspects of California’s non‐ judicial foreclosure laws.Overall, we identified one or moreirregularities in 99% of the subject loans. In84% of the loans, we identified what appearto be one or more clear violations of law.
1
Throughout this paper, we are offering no opinion on themerits of various legal arguments put forth by the industryor those representing homeowners. We simply report theexceptions found based on publicly available facts and ourunderstanding of applicable regulations. We explain ourunderstanding of such regulations in the discussionsalongside the specific exception rates presented herein. It isour goal to present only objective findings of facts.
(In this report, we refer to bothirregularities and violations as“exceptions”).As Figure 1.1 shows, we found significantexception rates across all Subject Areas.
Figure 1.1 Loans Exceptions by Subject Area
Figure 1.2 illustrates the volume of exceptions. The
y‐axis
represents thepercentage of the subject loans with variousexception counts. For instance, “≥1” showsthe percentage of subject loans with one ormore compliance exceptions. Likewise,“≥5” shows the percentage of subject loanswith five or more compliance exceptions.The bars show both exceptionsrepresenting clear violations of law andthose where the facts identify likely orpotential violations.
Figure 1.2 Loans with One or More Exceptions
Figure 1.3 shows the percentages of loanswith multiple exceptions across different
75%8%85%42%82%58%
0%25%50%75%100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
≥1≥2≥3≥4≥5Clear Violaons Likely or Potenal Violaons

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->