Protect your identity by regularly reviewing your credit report

On July 10, 2013   /   Blog, Technology  
Protect your identity by reviewing your credit report

Protect your identity by reviewing your credit report

One of the most effective ways to protect your identity is to be sure you regularly review your credit report. A credit report includes information on where you live, how you pay your bills, and whether you have been sued or arrested, or have filed for bankruptcy.

Consumer reporting companies sell the information in your report to creditors, insurers, employers and other businesses that use it to evaluate your applications for credit, insurance, employment or renting a home.

Inspect the report for accounts opened in your name

You should review your credit report to ensure the information is accurate and complete. A thorough review can help guard against identity theft as it can reveal any accounts which have been opened in your name you might not know about.

One Solution for all credit reporting agencies

Only one website is authorized to fill orders for the free annual credit report you are entitled to under law. It is www.annualcreditreport.com.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies (Equifax®, Experian® and TransUnion®) to provide you with a free copy of your credit report once every 12 months. Under the Act you must request your credit report and provide your name, address, Social Security Number and date of birth to the Credit Agency.

How to regularly request your credit report at no cost to you

Keep in mind, each company is required to provide one free report every 12 months. You can order all three once a year, or stagger the requests throughout the year so you can obtain a report more often than just once a year.

Only one website is authorized to fill orders for the free annual credit report you are entitled to under law. It is www.annualcreditreport.com.

Questions or comments?  Please share below!

Back to Top

An Assignment of Proceeds Fraught with Fraud

On July 23, 2012   /   Blog, Escrow  

Our Company decided years ago to take a stand and stop accepting assignments of proceeds to third parties. Our decision was spurred by too many bad experiences. This story provides yet another reason why we do not accept assignment of proceeds instructions.

Absentee Borrower

assignment of proceeds fraudThe transaction was a loan for a borrower who owned their property free and clear. The property was located in the state of Washington, but the borrower lived in California. The transaction was being handled by an escrow officer in Washington, who arranged for an approved notary to meet with the borrowers in California to execute the loan documents.

Proceeds Wired

Along with the executed loan documents, the borrower submitted instructions to the escrow officer regarding where he wanted her to wire his loan proceeds. The loan amount was $248,000 and the borrower’s proceeds were for just over $209,000. The wire instructions from the borrower instructed the escrow officer to wire almost $90,000 to a small business and the balance of $120,000 to another individual. The escrow officer complied with his request and the loan closed.

The owner contacted the lender stating he did not have a mortgage with them or anyone…

Surprise! No Loan Payments Are Made

The first payment date came and the borrower failed to pay. The lender sent a notice of late payment, but instead of sending it to the borrower’s mailing address in California, they sent the notice to the property address in Washington. The owner contacted the lender stating he did not have a mortgage with them or anyone, as his property was free and clear, and that he did not sign any loan papers with them. When the lender asked if he lived in California he said no, that he lives at the property address and had for years.

A Forgery is Revealed

The lender looked into the file and discovered the borrower was an imposter. The lender has now filed a claim under the title policy for forgery. Upon notification of the claim, we attempted to recall the outgoing wires and freeze the recipient’s two separate bank accounts – both located at Chase Bank. Chase Bank responded both accounts were drawn to a zero balance and closed upon receipt of the wire transfers.

What If?

If the escrow officer had stuck to Company Policy and Procedure would she have closed this fraudulent deal? We’ll never know. None of the loan proceeds were made payable to the actual borrower. If she had insisted on paying the proceeds to the borrower what would he have done? Would we still have the money? To add insult to injury, the signing was set up with an approved notary and not BancServ. The approved notary only carries $100,000 in errors and omissions insurance which is the minimum amount required by Our Company to be included on the approved notary list. If it is proven the notary did not properly identify the signer, the maximum amount which can be recouped from them is $100,000. BancServ carries $15 million in errors and omissions insurance. Had a BancServ notary been used, instead of an approved notary, we would stand a better chance of being reimbursed our losses.

Moral Of The Story

Company policy prohibits settlement agents from accepting assignments of proceeds to unrelated third parties. Company policy also prohibits splitting up proceeds. Instead, settlement agents should make one disbursement. To add insult to injury, neither of these disbursements appeared on the closing statement and the lender knew nothing about them. In this story, had the escrow officer followed policy she might have been able to avoid a very expensive claim for fraud and forgery.

Questions or comments? Please share below!

Back to Top

Mortgage Fraud Quiz

On June 12, 2012   /   Blog, Title Insurance  

Mortgage Fraud Quiz

Mortgage fraud is a material misstatement, misrepresentation or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase or insure a loan. It continues to evolve as lenders and fraudsters alike adapt to changing economic conditions and government regulations. How much do you know about it? Take the quiz to find out.

1.  A title policy insures against:

    1. Fraud and forgery
    2. Principal and interest
    3. Madness and mayhem
    4. Metes and bounds

2.  A straw buyer is:

    1. Someone who purchases straws in bulk
    2. Someone with good credit who agrees to help someone with bad credit obtain a loan
    3. A first time home buyer
    4. Someone who is over 65

3.  Which of the following items are commonly fabricated in order to induce a lender to approve a loan:

    1. Employment verifications
    2. Mortgage loan applications
    3. Bank statements
    4. All of the above

4.  What document is the most forged document in a real estate transaction:

    1. Deed
    2. Power of Attorney
    3. Mortgage
    4. Purchase Contract

5.  Flopping occurs in what type of transaction:

    1. Refinance
    2. Deed in Lieu
    3. Bulk Sale
    4. Short Sale

6.  Which of the following steps can a settlement agent follow to assist in preventing fraud from occurring in one of their transactions:

    1. Disclose all receipts and disbursements on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement
    2. Make sure the funding lender has everything the settlement agent has
    3. Trust their escrow gut
    4. All of the above

7.  Proper identification should be issued by a governmental entity and include a physical description and (select all that apply):

    1. Include the bearer’s signature
    2. Include the expiration date
    3. Include the bearer’s weight
    4. Include the bearer’s photograph

8.  Which of the following is a red-flag warning of a possible fraudulent transaction (select all that apply):

    1. Purchase offer is more than the list price
    2. Unusual expenses paid by the seller
    3. Silent second mortgages
    4. Transactions not recorded on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement

9.  What are the two classifications mortgage fraud schemes are put into:

    1. Fraud for profit and fraud for housing
    2. Tit for tat
    3. Civil and criminal charges
    4. Tax evasion and wire fraud

10.  Who are usually the perpetrators in a fraud for housing scheme:

    1. Cops
    2. Industry professionals
    3. Drug dealers
    4. Ex-cons

 

Quiz Answers:

  1. A title policy insures against:
    Answer: Fraud and forgery
    The Covered Risks section of both an Owner’s and Lender’s title policy state the insured is covered for, “a defect in the title caused by…forgery, fraud…” Since this coverage is offered in all of the title polices available, fraud and forgery is of major concern to the title industry as well as our Company.
  2. A straw buyer is:
    Answer: Someone with good credit who agrees to help someone with bad credit obtain a loan
    Generally, a straw buyer is someone recruited by a perpetrator to take out a mortgage and purchase a house in their name. The straw buyer normally does not live in the house or have the intent to reside at the house. They often receive cash in exchange for the use of their credit and name.
  3. Which of the following items are commonly fabricated in order to induce a lender to approve a loan:
    Answer: All of the above
    Mortgage fraud schemes involve falsifying a borrower’s financial status by including material misstatements on documents the lender’s underwriter relies on, when evaluating the eligibility of a borrower. This is done by supplying fictitious employment verifications, mortgage loan applications and bank statements
  4. What document is the most forged document in a real estate transaction?
    Answer: Power of Attorney
    A Power of Attorney is written authorization to represent or act on another’s behalf in private affairs, business or some other legal matter. As a result, perpetrators sometimes forge the names of property owners in order to sell a property out from under the rightful owner or use the Power of Attorney to get a loan to strip all the equity from a property unbeknownst to the property owner.
  5. Flopping occurs in what type of transaction:
    Answer: Short Sale
    A flopping scheme requires the perpetrator to conceal or provide falsified information to the loan servicer. This is information the servicer needs to make informed short sale decisions. These concealments might include hiding the true parties to transaction, any contingent transactions or the true value of property.
  6. Which of the following steps can a settlement agent follow to assist in preventing fraud from occurring in one of their transactions:
    Answer: All of the above
    The settlement agent is often the best defense against mortgage fraud. Without them, the fraud might never be prevented. It is important the settlement agent fully disclose all receipts and disbursements on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and material facts to the funding lender.
  7. Proper identification should be issued by a governmental entity and include a physical description and:
    Answer: Include the bearer’s signature and photograph
    Forged documents are often one of the many elements included in a mortgage fraud scheme. It is important to the lender and title company the borrower is property identified. Although the identification requirements for the purpose of notarizing vary from one state to the next, it is often the lender who requires the borrower present identification which contains all of these elements.
  8. Which of the following is a red-flag warning of a possible fraudulent transaction:
    Answer: A, B, C and D
    Although any one of these items alone might not be an indicator – combined they definitely have the makings of a scheme.
  9. What are the two classifications mortgage fraud schemes are put into:
    Answer: Fraud for profit and fraud for housing
    The FBI defines these two classifications. They state fraud for housing entails misrepresentations by the applicant for the purpose of purchasing a property for a primary residence. This scheme usually involves a single loan. Fraud for profit often involves multiple loans and elaborate schemes perpetrated to gain illicit proceeds from property sales.
  10. Who are usually the perpetrators in a fraud for housing scheme:
    Answer: Industry professionals
    Industry professionals are the ones most familiar with the ins and outs of the loan process – and most often the perpetrators involved in a fraud for housing scheme. The scheme could never occur without the cooperation of the real estate agents, loan officers, appraiser and settlement agent assisting in all the material misrepresentations which must be provided.

How did you do?  Please share your comments below!

 

Back to Top

A Case of Brotherly Identity Theft…

On January 9, 2012   /   Blog, Escrow, Title Insurance  

The case…

This is a real estate fraud/identity theft case brought by plaintiffs Darryl Dumas (“Darryl”) and Darryl Dumas as Trustee of the Dumas Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated February 7, 2001 against Darryl’s brother Derrick Dumas (“Derrick”), among others, concerning real property located at 1875 Paradise Drive, Los Angeles, Calif. 90025 (“Subject Property”). On January 12, 1994, Darryl purchased the property by Grant Deed. In 1998, Darryl moved out and began renting out the subject property. In April of 2001, Darryl transferred title to the property to his trust.

Identity Theft
In 1999, Derrick started a mortgage brokerage company known as Countywide Loans. In February 2008, Derrick indicated he could arrange for Darryl to obtain a line of credit with Chase, secured by the subject property for up to $500,000 on favorable terms. Darryl was interested in an increased line of credit to have the flexibility to make investments when the opportunities arose. Darryl agreed to apply for the Chase secured equity credit line and allegedly provided his brother, Derrick, with his personal financial information in order to facilitate the application.

ID Theft & Real Estate Fraud

Derrick was out of the country from June through November of 2008. In early November 2008, Darryl’s other brother, David, informed him that Derrick had obtained a loan against his home under his name without his knowledge or consent. Darryl then asked David to check the records for the subject property to see if Derrick might have done something similar to him. A few days later, David advised Darryl there was a $350,000 loan against the subject property in favor of a lender named Overland Direct. Derrick’s company, Countywide, had originated the loan and sold it to Overland Direct. Our Company insured this transaction and issued a $350,000 lender’s policy to Overland Direct.

“Derrick confessed that he had stolen Darryl’s identity, forged his signatures on the loan documents to take out a loan…”

Derrick returned to the United States in the middle of November 2008. On November 16, 2008, Darryl confronted him at their parents’ home. Derrick confessed that he had stolen Darryl’s identity, forged his signatures on the loan documents to take out a loan from Overland Direct against the subject property and kept the loan proceeds.

Forgery Claim Covered

The Notaries…

The notaries of the various documents involved in this fraud were Dante C. Gumiran (Commission No. 1638844, CA) and Caroline P. Diaz (Commission No. 1522651, CA). Both Gumiran and Diaz were employed by Derrick at Countywide Loans. Gumiran signed a declaration that his boss, Derrick, instructed him to notarize the relevant documents outside the presence of the purported signer, Darryl. Diaz alleges in her declaration that she did not notarize the documents at all and that her signature is a forgery. She insinuates that someone used her notary stamp, which she left at her desk at Countywide Loans.

In February 2009, Overland Direct’s $350,000 note went into default and the loan went into foreclosure. Overland Direct received notification from Darryl, however, that his signature was forged and that he never applied for the loan in question. Based on this information, Overland Direct submitted a claim to Our Company.

Our Company ended up defending our insured lender in a suit filed by Darryl as well as ultimately incurring a policy limits loss ($350,000) plus expenses on this claim.

Recouping our Losses

This matter has been reported to law enforcement and we are following up to ensure the notaries have been reported to the notary board in California for further investigation. In addition, we are pursuing Derrick in a civil action to recoup our losses.

By The Way
We have two other claims involving Derrick forging borrower’s names, which are still in the midst of investigation and will result in further litigation. As a result, the names of the parties (with the exception of the notaries) have been changed.

Questions or comments? Please share below!

Back to Top

Fake Short Pay Letters? True Story…

On November 1, 2011   /   Blog, Escrow  

Short sale fraud

Leading the way.

The FNF Family of Companies is the leader in the industry. Being the leader is not always easy. Many times we are the first ones who uncover the latest schemes and, as a result, issue a new policy and procedure. It is our settlement agents who are on the front lines implementing the new policy and often hear, “No other company makes us do this!”

This story illustrates just how important it is for us to follow the Company policies and procedures even if no one else requires them.

Joy Turner, senior escrow officer for one of our sister branches, opened a sale transaction. The seller was in the process of negotiating a short sale with his lender, Bank of America, through the services of a third-party short sale negotiation company. There were no real estate agents involved. The buyer was purchasing the property using a private lender and the sales price was $200,000, pending approval from the existing lender.

On June 10, 2011, Bank of America issued their short pay letter approving the sale for $200,000. Per the letter, the closing was to take place no later than June 27, 2011. As the 27th approached, it was clear the buyer and seller were not going to meet this deadline. It did appear the transaction was going to close, but they just needed an extension of a few days. Joy told the seller she would need a revised letter extending the closing deadline.

The new lender’s funds came in on June 28, 2011 and so did the extension letter from Bank of America. The new deadline for closing on the short pay letter was July 1, 2011. On the morning of June 29, 2011 Joy worked to get everything together for recordation and disbursement. Per Company policy, Joy knew she needed to contact the loss mitigator at Bank of America to confirm the terms and amount shown on the short pay letter.

Something’s Fishy
Something about the extension letter and HUD-1 approval Joy received from Bank of America didn’t look right. First, the communication did not come through www.equator.com. This was unusual since approval letters were delivered using this online system for every Bank of America short sale Joy had closed recently. Joy picked up the phone and called the person named on the HUD-1 approval. His name was Vitto Pastor. Joy found it odd his title shown on the approval letter said Senior Operations Analyst, Business Operations, since it is usually a loss mitigator who issues short pay approvals. She left him a message.

“…according to their records, the seller had never applied for a short sale”

Shortly thereafter Joy received a returned phone call but it wasn’t from Pastor. It was Kenneth Teele, senior investigator at Bank of America. Kenneth advised her Pastor did work for Bank of America – but not in their Loss Mitigation Department and Pastor did not issue the HUD-1 approval letter. Kenneth went on to explain the HUD-1 approval and short pay letter she received were fraudulent and, according to their records, the seller had never applied for a short sale. He also revealed the outstanding loan balance for this loan exceeded one million dollars.

Joy left a message for the seller to call her, stating there was a problem with the short pay approval. Instead of returning her call, the seller e-mailed Joy asking her to send him copies of everything he signed, including the short pay letter. Joy again asked him to call her, but he responded by saying he was in a meeting and would call later. He never did.

The Buyer’s Perspective…
The buyer called to find out if his file had closed. Joy was in another closing so she asked one of her colleagues to tell him we would not be closing as the short pay letters were invalid. The buyer’s only response was, “Oh really?” Joy also attempted to contact the third-party negotiation company who never answered the phone or responded to her calls or e-mails.

The buyer’s lender contacted Joy on July 1, 2011, asking her to return the loan funds to them. Joy verified with her Operational Accounting Department the funds were being sent back to the same account they came from and reported the incident to her manager, Lisa.

Lisa shared the details with all the escrow officers in her operation and notified National Escrow Administration. Turns out, this was the 15th time our Company had been the target of this scheme. The bad news is, 14 of these closed and our claims department is currently working on them. The good news is Joy Turner prevented us from falling prey a 15th time.

Moral Of The Story
Joy’s transaction involved a $200,000 short sale on a loan with a balance of more than one million dollars. Had Joy accepted the short pay letter and closed, Bank of America would have rejected the nearly $200,000 short pay. The Company would have had to either unwind the deal or face a potential loss of more than $800,000 to obtain a lien release, and deliver both free and clear title to the insured buyer, and a first lien position to their new lender.

Following Company policy can seem cumbersome, but this story proves it is well worth the extra effort.

Questions or comments? Please share below!

Back to Top

Flopping – The Latest Short Sale Scam

On October 4, 2011   /   Blog, Escrow  

Short Sale Loss Mitigation

Short Sale Fraud
It is estimated lenders lose hundreds of millions annually in undervalued short sale transactions. Loss mitigators working on behalf of the lenders have anywhere from 450 to 600 active files on their desks at one time. Working the best deal for the lender is an all-consuming task for the loss mitigators and each short sale has its own complexities.

When a seller applies for short sale approval, the seller submits hardship affidavits and signs forms such as a Purchaser Eligibility Certification which includes statements such as:

In making this request for consideration of a short sale I certify under penalty of perjury:

  • All of the information in this document is truthful.
  • I/We agree that the financial information provided is an accurate statement of my/our financial status. I/We understand and acknowledge that any action taken by the lender of my/our mortgage loan on my/our behalf will be made in strict reliance on the financial information provided.
  • I understand that if I have intentionally defaulted on my existing mortgage, engaged in fraud or misrepresented any fact(s) in connection with this document, the lender may cancel any modification of foreclosure prevention agreement and may pursue foreclosure on my home. I understand the lender will use the information in this document to evaluate my eligibility for a short sale.

Even with statements such as these, the loss mitigator still goes through a process to confirm the information provided by the seller is true, but some fraudsters have found ways around this.

A Short Sale Flopping Example

In August 2010 one of our our South Pasadena, Fla. offices closed a short sale transaction. The seller (we will call him Jim Kling) had two loans on the property and the lender on both loans was Bank of America. The sales price was $425,000. Bank of America agreed to the sale and issued short pay approval letters for both loans.

The buyer was a LLC and the managing member of the LLC was Bill Hamley. The buyer purchased the property with cash and did not get a purchase money loan. At closing, the buyer and seller both signed an arm’s length affidavit which contained these statements:

“There are no hidden terms or hidden agreements or special understandings between the Seller(s) and the Buyer(s) or among their respective agents which are not reflected in the Agreement or the escrow instructions associated with this transaction.

There is no agreement, whether oral, written, or implied, between the Seller(s) and the Buyers and/or their respective agents which allows the Seller(s) to remain in the property as tenants or to regain ownership of the Property at any time after the consummation of this sale transaction.”

Cindy Archer at our escrow office was the settlement agent. She closed the sale in accordance with the terms of the short sale approval letters. Upon receipt of the payoffs, Bank of America promptly prepared and recorded a satisfaction of mortgage for each loan.

In April 2011, the buyer decided to sell the property. The seller entered into a purchase and sale agreement, and opened escrow with Cindy Archer. The title report was ordered, and upon receipt of the title report Cindy reviewed the requirements. She ordered the HOA demand, checked the property taxes and looked up the LLC with the state. The LLC was in good standing but the managing member had changed. According to the state the managing member was now Jim Kling. Remember that name? Jim Kling was the borrower who signed an arm’s length affidavit when he sold his home via short sale stating he had no side deals with the buyer. This same Jim Kling was now re-selling his home for almost one hundred thousand more than what he sold it for just eight months earlier. Not in our office he’s not!

Flopping is where the buyer of a short sale purchases the property for less than the true fair market value by influencing the appraiser or real estate agent to provide a Broker Price Opinion (BPO) which undervalues the property.”

How could Jim re-sell the same property less than a year later for $100K more when the real estate market is still depressed? This is the latest trend in mortgage fraud and it is called flopping. Flopping is the opposite of flipping. Flopping is where the buyer of a short sale purchases the property for less than the true fair market value by influencing the appraiser or real estate agent to provide a Broker Price Opinion (BPO) which undervalues the property. This information is provided to the loss mitigator who approves the sale based on the fraudulent information. The buyer then turns around and sells the property at fair market value, realizing a profit the lender should have received. In this instance, both the buyer and seller participated in defrauding the lender.

Flopping is a serious concern.

According to Fannie Mae a flopping scheme requires the perpetrator to conceal or provide falsified information to the loan servicer. This is information the servicer needs to make an informed short sale decision. These concealments may include hiding:

  • The true parties to transaction
  • Any contingent transactions
  • The true value of property
  • The transaction described above was not an arms-length short sale. Clearly the principals worked together to facilitate a reduction to the existing loan, resulting in the original borrower making a profit from the sale of his home. This is mortgage fraud on the part of the seller.

Our Company will not knowingly participate in defrauding or misrepresenting to a lender any facets of a transaction. Cindy had no knowledge of the fraud during the prior transaction. But, in the subsequent transaction, she could see what transpired and was not about to facilitate the completion of this crime. Cindy resigned from the transaction.

Back to Top

Is Title Insurance Worth It? Fraud Victims Covered…

On September 12, 2011   /   Blog, Title Insurance  

A senior escrow officer at one of our sister companies recently purchased an investment property for all-cash with her brother. After closing, they renovated the property and found tenants who would sign a long-term lease. Six months later, the property was foreclosed upon by Bank of America and the escrow officer and her brother almost lost their investment!

Title Insurance Claim Story

Fortunately for the escrow officer and her brother, they purchased title insurance at closing. They immediately notified the claims department of their loss. The claims officer began researching how the buyers could have lost the property to foreclosure when they had not mortgaged the property in the first place.

A Shell Game Indeed…
What he found was shocking. In 2010 the original owners fell on hard times and stopped making payments to Bank of America on both their mortgage and Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) as evidenced by more than one recorded Notice of Default in public records. Shortly thereafter the owners recorded a Substitution of Trustee and Deed of Reconveyance for each loan. These documents purportedly released the two Bank of America loans. They were supposedly signed by an authorized representative of BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, but were not signed in the home office of Bank of America. Instead these two releases were signed, according to the notary, in Placer County, Calif.

Next, the property owners deeded their (now free and clear) piece of property to a company, called Atlus Equity, LLC, which subsequently listed and sold the property to our escrow officer and her brother for $190,000. The tenants living in the property received Notice of Trustee’s Sale and stopped making their monthly rent payments to save for an impending move once the foreclosure occurred.

“The claims department is standing by to write the check to Bank of America in exchange for their deed.”

In the meantime, the escrow officer and her brother have been working with the claims officer to settle with Bank of America to deed the property back to them. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale states the bank is due $189,000. The claims department is standing by to write the check to Bank of America in exchange for their deed.

Sadly, after a search in the claims system, we have discovered this same scam has been pulled by the same individuals at least five times leading up to this claim.

Moral Of The Story
There are specific elements that we are cautious of when examining title for free and clear property. Specifically, we investigate the event that led to mortgages being paid in full and review recorded lien releases and investigate their authenticity if they appear to be executed outside of the main lender office.

What do you think? Is title insurance worth it? Please share your thoughts by commenting below.

Back to Top