Daily News related to the Foreclosure Crisis

The biggest unpunished heist in human history - Max Keiser

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

 Date

Article

Articles are added weekly 

Source

  Comment

10/29/25

Re-Securitizing Paper = Third-Party Junk Debt!
(BREAKING NEWS)— We all learn something new every day, right? While I’m not making any promises here, the main theme of this short public/paid subscriber piece benefits everyone, especially those who are fighting Selene Finance LP out of Houston, who claims to be the servicer of a “newer dated” REMIC trust. As I’ve explained before, third-party junk debt pools come straight out of hell. These Delaware-based statutory trusts with no EIN number (so they don’t have to report an income) are totally maintained by mortgage loan servicers, who retain attorneys to go to court and lie about the capacity of these trusts in an effort to do nothing more than: Misleading the homeowner into signing a loan modification, which traps them into the re-securitized paper; and Collecting payments on top of the loan modification with the pure intent on foreclosure of the home! My sources are telling me that Selene Finance LP is one such entity that conducts business in the manner just described and they also inform me that 2-year bridge loans are being used to “buy them out” and expose their dirty deeds. The one thing the servicers don’t want is to be exposed in court. If you are facing Selene Finance, we need to know (contact us through Substack). All bets are off with these RE-REMICs! The other part of the equation is the attorneys who represent the servicers. They are retained, carte blanche, to do whatever is necessary to misrepresent the truth in favor of their clients. In both deed of trust and mortgage states, the servicer’s employees manufacture false and misleading assignments in favor of the servicer-controlled RE-REMIC and proceed to conduct foreclosure proceedings after fleecing unsuspecting homeowners for thousands of dollars in cash all the while conducting what amounts to dual tracking in the foreclosure of the property. When the property is sold, the servicer then retains all the proceeds, pays the parties involved in the foreclosure process itself … and then sticks the rest of the booty in its proverbial pocket (and no one is the wiser). It then proceeds to launder the money through its networks of servicing entities in order to continue and fund its “process”.

10/24/25

ICE First Look at Mortgage Performance: Mortgage Performance Remains Strong as FHA Foreclosures Emerge
ATLANTA & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--ICE Mortgage Technology, a neutral provider of a robust end-to-end mortgage platform and part of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (NYSE: ICE), and one of the leading providers of mortgage data, today released the September 2025 ICE First Look at mortgage delinquency, foreclosure and prepayment trends. The data shows that overall mortgage performance remains historically strong, with both delinquencies and foreclosure activity remaining below long-term averages. While some shifts are emerging among government-backed loan segments, these trends largely represent a normalization of market dynamics rather than broad-based weakness. “The mortgage market remains remarkably resilient, with mortgage performance continuing to hold up well,” said Andy Walden, Head of Mortgage and Housing Market Research at ICE. “Delinquency rates improved in September, and even as we see increases in activity among FHA loans, we’re largely returning to more typical levels following several years of artificially low foreclosure volumes.” Key takeaways from this month’s findings include:

10/23/25

ARCPE 1, LLC loses foreclosure after loan date error, court rules
A simple date mismatch in loan documents just cost a lender its foreclosure – reminding mortgage pros everywhere that paperwork precision is everything. That’s the big takeaway from the October 21, 2025, decision by the Washington Court of Appeals in the case of Jerry and Judith Ross versus ARCPE 1, LLC. The case began in 2007, when the Rosses borrowed $350,000, secured by a promissory note and a deed of trust. The promissory note stated the loan would mature on January 31, 2017, while the deed of trust listed February 28, 2017, as the maturity date. By 2023, the Rosses had not repaid the loan. ARCPE 1, LLC, which had acquired the loan from Morgan Stanley Credit Corporation, initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings in February 2023. ARCPE argued that the February 28 date in the deed of trust controlled, making its foreclosure timely under Washington’s six-year statute of limitations for written contracts. The Rosses, however, contended that the statute of limitations began on January 31, 2017, the maturity date in the promissory note, making ARCPE’s foreclosure attempt eight days too late.

10/23/25

Court rules lenders can't restart foreclosure deadlines – JPMorgan Chase loses key New York case
A New York appeals court just made it clear: mortgage lenders can’t hit the reset button on foreclosure timelines by dropping and refiling their cases. Here’s what happened. Back in May 2004, JPMorgan Chase Bank gave Grigory Turkov a home equity line of credit for $200,000, secured by a property in Staten Island. Fast forward to January 2010 – JPMorgan Chase decided to foreclose, demanding the full amount right away. But after a few years, in December 2014, the bank dropped that first foreclosure case. You might think that would be the end of it, but in August 2018, JPMorgan Chase tried again, launching a new foreclosure case against Turkov and another defendant, Galina Brodovskaya. This time, the borrowers pushed back, arguing that the bank had missed its window. Their main point? New York law gives lenders six years to foreclose after they call in the full debt, and that clock started ticking back in 2010.

10/21/25

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Certiorari with FAPA Implications
In a significant development for lenders and borrowers alike, on October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Fox decision, leaving unresolved questions about the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). This decision has shifted the focus to the New York State Court of Appeals where oral argument was heard on October 16, and potentially to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

10/17/25

New York court makes it harder for lenders to restart foreclosure clock
A New York appeals court clarified that lenders can’t reset foreclosure deadlines by dropping and refiling cases, tightening timelines for mortgage professionals. On October 15, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, issued its decision in GITSIT Solutions, LLC v Azcuy, a case focused on the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions. The case began in 2005, when Christopher Azcuy and Susan Gayle Cohen executed a note in favor of HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), secured by a mortgage on their Haverstraw, New York property. In 2012, HSBC started a foreclosure action and elected to accelerate the entire mortgage debt.

10/17/25

Consumer Financial Services Bites of the Month - October 2025 - "October Road with the CFPB"
In this month's article, we share some of our top "bites" covered during the October 2025 webinar. Bite 13: CFPB Hires Attorney-Advisors On October 10, 2025, media outlets reported that the CFPB is hiring attorneys to defend the CFPB in appellate litigation.

10/10/25

ATTOM: Foreclosures Continued to Rise in the Third Quarter
There were 72,317 foreclosure starts nationwide in the third quarter, an increase of 2% compared with the second quarter and up 16% compared with year ago, according to ATTOM’s latest U.S. Foreclosure Market Report. States that had the greatest number of foreclosure starts in third quarter included Texas (9,736), Florida (8,909), California (7,862), Illinois (3,515) and New York (3,234). Major cities with a population of 200,000 or more that had the greatest number of foreclosure starts for the quarter included Houston (3,763); New York (3,452), Chicago (3,144), Miami (2,502); and Los Angeles (2,321).

10/09/25

New California Law on Servicing of Second Mortgages Causes Confusion Among Lenders and Servicers
On June 30, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 130, which includes a new provision to the California Civil Code, Section 2924.13. The new law (previously discussed here) became effective on July 1. The purpose of the law was purportedly to make it more difficult for loan servicers to non-judicially foreclose on so-called “zombie mortgages.” The section of AB 130 that created the new Civil Code provision was an add-on to a lengthy budget trailer bill, and there is no legislative history to fall back on with respect to certain vague or confusing provisions in the new law. After three months of attempting to service junior liens under the new law, loan servicers are discovering that there are problems associated with servicing loans under the new law. For example:

10/08/25

Nation’s largest mortgage lenders, service providers hit with allegations of price-fixing
A class action lawsuit alleging a “nationwide conspiracy” designed to “artificially inflate residential mortgage rates and fees” has been filed against one of the largest mortgage service providers in the U.S., Optimal Blue, and 26 of the largest U.S. mortgage lenders. Filed on Oct. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the lawsuit claims these entities have operated a “data-sharing network” since at least 2019 that enables them “to orchestrate a price-fixing scheme.” Optimal Blue offers pricing software embedded in loan origination systems (LOSs) used by lenders to price home mortgages.

10/03/25

Class Action Alleging Deceptive Mortgage Acceleration Notice Language Proceeds
A North Carolina federal court has allowed a putative class case to proceed on a theory that a residential mortgage servicer’s notice that it “may” accelerate is deceptive under the FDCPA and state law. On September, 16, 2025, a judge for the US District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina issued a memorandum opinion and order in the class action proceeding captioned Christel England et al. v. Selene Finance, LP, case number 23-cv-00847, denying the defendant servicer’s motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint. The putative class plaintiffs alleged that the servicer’s default notice is deceptive under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the North Carolina Collection Agencies Act. The language of the notice at issue is familiar to the residential mortgage servicing industry. Titled Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate, the notice states that:

10/02/25

On September 22, 2025, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Mortgage Forbearance Act into law, with an immediate effective date. The law, designed to provide emergency relief to California mortgage loan borrowers impacted by the various wildfires that occurred earlier in 2025, is in many ways reminiscent of the CARES Act forbearance framework from 2020. However, given that it is a state law, it has limitations compared to its predecessor. On the other hand, in situations where it does apply, the Mortgage Forbearance Act imposes additional burdens that will create compliance challenges for servicers.

copyright MSFraud.org