this is the most disgusting company on the face of the earth

What follows is a list of statements from the Yelp reviews of RCS. There is one statement from every review. If you were CEO of this company, would you, like, do something about it? No, you wouldn't.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞,

Worst servicer I've ever dealt with.

Might just be the worst company I've ever worked with.

Lets just say that I recently sold this property just to get out from under RCS.

These guys are the worst.  I have been working on a short sale for a client with them for over a year and a half.

If you are forced to do business with them, consider borrowing money at a 10% higher interest rate just to pay down the loan.

It's hard to imagine how a company like this exists.

this people are idiots.

These guys are the worst.

It's really "0". The worst company I ever dealt with. I finally filed a claim with the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau.

Is RCS a legitimate company? Definitely the most frustrating, time wasting experience I have ever had with a loan servicer.

This dreadful company purchased our mortgage loan a year ago.

I wish I could rate a 0 stars for this company.

My two rental mortgages were transferred to them. Worst servicer I've ever dealt with. I'll be reporting them to the FTC later today.

Terrible company with unbelievably shady business practices.

Be sure to send your complaint with documentation to the consumerfinance.gov S

Home buyer beware!

They are conniving and underhanded.

They charged my account twice in one month for the same amount. CREEPY!

On the phone being robbed by RCS as I write this.

Is this place for real?

My loan was sold to these A$#holes.

I recall when my loan was first sold to RCS, I kept receiving phone calls for late payments before the payment grace period was even over.

This is fraud and this company needs to be reported to the BBB and federated regulators

If we all work together, maybe we can cause RCS to consider being smart, but I wouldn't bet on it.

They refuse to pay my insurance premiums out of my escrow account and refuse to let me stop escrowing and just pay the premiums myself.

...asking for forgiveness for the amount of 4 letter words that come out of my mouth any time I have to deal with this pathetic, archaic, sad excuse of a company.

File a complaint with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov)

This is more of a BUYER BEWARE review more than anything else.....

Updating my original complaint with these clowns.

Nothing but crooks and should be out of business !!!

I do not believe company like this exists.

this is the most disgusting company on the face of the earth.

Not a Good Company by far.. Not a Happy Camper.

May even see if a lawyer wants to take on a class action suit against them.

This company is pathetic. Be afraid, be very afraid.

What a bunch of crocks. A trip to Fort Worth might just be in order. The CEO needs an old fashioned arse whooping

What a bunch of crooks. A trip to Fort Worth might just be in order. The CEO needs an old fashioned arse whooping

So their customer service (a) blames me, then (b) blames Bank of America and then (c) tells me that my stellar payment history and credit (800+) will allow them to reverse the late fee

 I've had constant problems with their services.

This company should be investigated for causing consumer fraud.

Apparently this company should be shut down they also acquired my loan and i have since have had nothing but headaches with these bozos.

This is a worst company. Make sure to double check the monthly mortgage statement every month. As part of the escrow analysis, RCS incorrectly doubled the PMI amount for my loan.

Justices put "ownership" of the note in scare quotes. RCS Bites Dust on Appeal

Legal: David H. Charlip of Charlip Law Group, LC, Aventura, for appellant. Raymond Hora of McCalla Raymer, LLC, Orlando, for appellee.

Appellant challenges a final judgment of foreclosure, claiming that the court erred in denying his motion for involuntary dismissal. He claimed that appellee did not prove standing to foreclose at the time suit was filed. We agree that the evidence is insufficient to show the plaintiff had standing and reverse.

Appellant executed a note and mortgage to ABN Amro Mortgage Group (“ABN”) in 2006. In 2009, appellant received a letter from CitiMortgage informing him that the servicing of his note and mortgage was being transferred from CitiMortgage to Residential Credit Solutions (“RCS”). RCS also sent a letter informing appellant of the transfer of the servicing of the loan. When he defaulted on the mortgage, RCS sent him a notice of default and subsequently filed suit, alleging that it had the right to enforce the note and mortgage. Attached to the complaint was the mortgage and note to ABN. The note was stamped “original” and did not contain any endorsements or allonges. Also attached was an assignment of the mortgage from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as receiver for Franklin Bank, to Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems (“MERS”), as nominee for RCS.

About nine months after filing the complaint, RCS filed what it claimed was the “original” note. Filed with this note was an undated, blank allonge, payable to the bearer, allegedly executed by a vice president of ABN. Nothing about the appearance of this allonge, as contained in the appellate record, shows that it was affixed to the note with which it was filed.

Just two weeks before the foreclosure trial, RCS moved to substitute Bayview Loan Servicing as the plaintiff, alleging it had transferred servicing of the loan to Bayview. The documents attached to the motion do not mention that the ownership of the loan or mortgage was also transferred. The trial court allowed the substitution over appellant's objection.

At trial, a litigation manager for Bayview testified. He was not a records custodian for RCS or for Bayview. He was not familiar with the computer systems that either of the prior servicers, CitiMortgage and RCS, used for compiling information on the loan or how it was inputted into the systems. He had no information as to whether the information on the loans was inputted into the prior servicers' systems correctly. He could not testify to the truth or accuracy of RCS's records, just that they were provided to Bayview.

He testified that Bayview was the servicer and holder of the note. He believed that Bayview had acquired the note through a purchase agreement with RCS, but he had not seen the agreement, nor did he have a copy of it. His belief that Bayview was the owner of the note under the purchase agreement was based on “a screen shot of our capital assets systems, which has information in regards to the status of the loan with us.” This screen shot was not produced at trial.

As to the allonge with the blank endorsement from ABN, he did not know when it was executed or whether the signature on it was a “wet ink” signature or a stamp. He did not know whether the allonge was affixed to the note prior to it being filed in the court file. He did not know if the vice president who signed the allonge on ABN's behalf was in the employ of ABN in November 2009, when Bayview's records showed that servicing of the loan had been transferred from ABN to Franklin Bank.

The manager agreed that on January 29, 2010, when RCS mailed appellant a notice of intent to take legal action on the note and mortgage, RCS was not the owner and holder of the note by way of the September 30, 2009 assignment of mortgage, but testified, “[t]here may have been a purchase agreement or some other document.” He testified that, on that date, “I only know that RCS was servicing. I don't know for a fact who was the holder of the note at the time.” While he did testify that RCS owned the note and mortgage on the date the complaint was filed, he then inconsistently stated that RCS had brought the suit as the servicer of the loan, not its owner.

Although appellant moved for involuntary dismissal on the ground that Bayview had not proved standing because it had not shown that it had the right to enforce the note and foreclose the mortgage, the trial court rejected this claim. It entered a final judgment of foreclosure in which it found that Bayview was due and owing the unpaid balance of the note. This appeal follows.

Appellant argues that Bayview failed to prove that it was the owner or holder of the note and that it had the right to foreclose. Based upon this confusing record, we agree that it presented no competent evidence that RCS was the holder of the note at the time it filed suit or that it was a nonholder in possession and entitled to enforce the note. Therefore, Bayview failed to prove standing.

Standing of the plaintiff to foreclose on a mortgage must be established at the time the plaintiff files suit. See McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). McLean set forth the requirements that a plaintiff may prove standing in a mortgage foreclosure:

Standing may be established by either an assignment or an equitable transfer of the mortgage prior to the filing of the complaint ․ For example, standing may be established from a plaintiff's status as the note holder, regardless of any recorded assignments․

If the note does not name the plaintiff as the payee, the note must bear a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank endorsement․ Alternatively, the plaintiff may submit evidence of an assignment from the payee to the plaintiff ․

Even in the absence of a valid written assignment, the mere delivery of a note and mortgage, with intention to pass the title, upon a proper consideration, will vest the equitable interest in the person to whom it is so delivered.

Id. at 173 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Appellant notes several deficiencies in Bayview's proof which result in a failure to show standing to foreclose the mortgage. First, while the note and mortgage were originally held by ABN, the only assignment of mortgage attached to the complaint and introduced at trial was one from FDIC as receiver for Franklin Bank to MERS as nominee for RCS. There is no proof of any transfer of the note or mortgage from ABN to Franklin Bank. Second, while Bayview contends that the undated allonge supplies the connection, as it shows a transfer payable to bearer, there was no proof that the allonge was attached to the note, and Bayview presented no proof of when it was executed. Finally, there was no competent evidence of what rights Bayview acquired from RCS.

We recently addressed how a plaintiff may show it is entitled to foreclose on a promissory note in Murray v. HSBC Bank, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D239 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 21, 2015):

“Because a promissory note is a negotiable instrument and because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note, the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be ․ a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder.” Mazine v. M & I Bank, 67 So.3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

A “person entitled to enforce” an instrument is: “(1) [t]he holder of the instrument; (2)[a] nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder; or (3)[a] person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to s[ection] 673.3091 or s[ection] 673.4181(4).” § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013). A “holder” is defined as “[t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.” § 671.201(21)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). Thus, to be a holder, the instrument must be payable to the person in possession or indorsed in blank. See § 671.201(5), Fla. Stat. (2013).

Although, nine months after filing the complaint, RCS filed what purported to be the original note with an allonge payable to bearer, it was undated and there is no proof it was affixed to the promissory note. “An allonge is a piece of paper annexed to a negotiable instrument or promissory note, on which to write endorsements for which there is no room on the instrument itself. Such must be so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” See Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So.2d 886, 887 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 76 (6th ed.1990)); see also Isaac v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 74 So.3d 495, 496 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The litigation manager did not know when the allonge was executed, or whether it was affixed to the note prior to filing. No evidence was presented that the allonge was executed and attached to the note prior to the filing of the initial complaint. Indeed, RCS did not allege in the complaint that it owned and held the mortgage. It merely alleged that it had the right to foreclose the note and mortgage. Therefore, the allonge provided no evidence that RCS was a “holder” at the time it filed the complaint.

Alternatively, Bayview argues that RCS was a nonholder in possession. However, Murray shows the fallacy of that claim. In Murray, we held that the lender, HSBC, had not proved standing where it had alleged that it was a nonholder in possession of the note and mortgage, because it did not prove that each prior transfer of the note conferred the right to enforce it:

HSBC was thus left to enforce the note under section 673.3011(2) as a nonholder in possession of the instrument with the rights of a holder. The issue then is whether HSBC is a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

Anderson v. Burson, 424 Md. 232, 35 A.3d 452 (2011), is instructive. There, the court held that the plaintiff was a nonholder in possession and analyzed whether it had rights of enforcement pursuant to a Maryland statute that employs the same language as section 673.3011, Florida Statutes. Anderson, 35 A.3d at 462. “A transfer vests in the transferee only the rights enjoyed by the transferor, which may include the right to enforce [ment],” through the “shelter rule.” Id. at 461–62.

A nonholder in possession, however, cannot rely on possession of the instrument alone as a basis to enforce it․ The transferee does not enjoy the statutorily provided assumption of the right to enforce the instrument that accompanies a negotiated instrument, and so the transferee “must account for possession of the unendorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired it.” Com. Law § 3–203 cmt. 2. If there are multiple prior transfers, the transferee must prove each prior transfer. Once the transferee establishes a successful transfer from a holder, he or she acquires the enforcement rights of that holder. See Com. Law § 3–203 cmt. 2. A transferee's rights, however, can be no greater than his or her transferor's because those rights are “purely derivative.”

Murray, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D239 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). Because HSBC did not offer evidence of one of the prior transfers of the note, we held it did not prove that it was a nonholder in possession.

Similarly, in this case, Bayview did not prove that either RCS or itself was a nonholder in possession. It never connected FDIC as receiver of Franklin Bank, from which RCS acquired an assignment of mortgage, to ABN, the original note holder.

As alternative proof of its “ownership” of the note and mortgage, Bayview relied on a letter from RCS to the appellant, notifying him of the transfer of servicing rights to RCS, and a similar one from Bayview when it became the servicer of the loan. Neither letter addressed a right to enforce the note. None of the servicer agreements were placed in evidence to prove what rights either RCS or Bayview acquired under those agreements. Finally, as to the transfer between RCS and Bayview, the litigation manager testified that while he believed that Bayview purchased the note and mortgage from RCS, he had never seen a purchase agreement, and no document memorializing the purchase was entered into evidence. Therefore, because there is a gap in the transfer of the note and mortgage, Bayview did not prove that RCS, and subsequently Bayview, were nonholders in possession. See Murray, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D239. Simply stated, the evidence presented was woefully inadequate to prove standing to foreclose. It was quite apparent from the record that Bayview's litigation manager did not have the requisite knowledge, nor did he produce documentary evidence, to support the claim.

We thus reverse and direct judgment in favor of the appellant dismissing the foreclosure on the mortgage for failure of the appellee to prove its standing.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, J.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Important announcement from Maybe Life is Fair: Residential Credit Solutions is history!

Pat yourself on the back and have an ice-cold beer if you used up a lot of their time complaining about their illegal practices and requiring their response. You helped! 

They lost money hand over fist because they wanted to foreclose more than they wanted to collect payments. Serves them right and may they all face foreclosure one day. If any of the spineless cretins decide to become whistleblowers, it'll be a miracle. They probably think they were doing everything right. Such is life in a cult.

You might want to check out the Legal Disclosures page, which strongly hints that Residential Credit Solutions is in trouble with the authorities. It's partially reproduced in the bottom half of today's frenetic graphic. It is not clear from the wording whether redress is available for servicing clients or only those whose loans originated with Residential Credit Solutions.

Links to regulatory bodies in other states offer hope that former clients all across the country will be compensated.

The RCS Effect on Parent Company Stock: Bet Right and Sit Tight

The RCS Effect is one of Mr. Stowe's most powerful and lasting legacies. Without knowing it, he's blessed many thousands of investors with the gift of confidence. We all called this, and it's playing out pixel perfect on stock charts all over the internet. If you didn't invest in MTGE, it's understandable...risky sector and all that. But if you didn't bet against RCS by shorting WAC, shame on you!

Let's go back in time, to the announcement day. Sure, there was some feistiness at MTGE a few days before, but we're not too concerned with that. You did mighty fine as a mortal: $2000 in MTGE would now be $2460. And, if you'd borrowed $2000 of shares of WAC and sold them on doomsday, you would spend just $840 to buy the shares you need to pay back the loan. If you'd been in line to get on that slide that preceded doomsday...well, I guess we're not too concerned about that, either. Just be happy that you made $460 for banking on RCS-free MTGE and $1160 by shorting WAC. You're up $1620 minus those pesky commissions and short term cap gains taxes. All indications are that it's not too late to join the fun. MTGE is climbing a stairway to heaven, and WAC looks like a straight shot to sea level, no paddling required.

83 Fannie Mae Defaulters in Miami now have a new servicer

Heads up, Miami borrowers!

Here are two excerpts from Third Straight Win for Bidder on Fannie Nonperformers in National Mortgage News today.

"New Jersey Community Capital, a nonprofit community development financial institution, made the winning bid for Fannie Mae's third "community impact pool" of nonperforming loans. NJCC had won the auctions for Fannie Mae's first and second pools in this series, which are aimed at nonprofits, smaller investors and minority- and women-owned businesses."
"The latest pool won by the nonprofit contains 83 loans backed by properties in the Miami metro area. The unpaid principal balances totaled $19.7 million."

Background reading: How Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner 'Hijacked' the Obama Presidency

Because RCS didn't make the playing field. They just noticed there was no referee and no goaltender.

This is by Max Read over at Gawker, back in the past. Read resigned his position as editor after running a wildly viral piece on Tim Geithner's brother that portrayed him as a client of a prostitute who, like him, was a man. The subject claimed that the text messages were not genuine and denied all aspects of the story.

There is a new book out about the Obama presidency—Confidence Men, by Pulitzer-winning former Wall Street Journal writer Ron Suskind—and you know what that means! Hot gossip. Hot political gossip.

Items from the book, which comes out Tuesday, have been leaking out here and there through the usual mouthpieces—Politico's Mike Allen was running items in his "Daily Deals" email or whatever it is—but we're partial to the bloggy lil' Frank Rich—Adam Moss conversation on New York's website, in which Moss describes Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers as the book's "villains." ... Read the rest at Gawker

   

. 

Servicer Clinging to A$$ Offered a Deal to Banks Clinging to Assets

 Since 2013, maybe earlier, they lost money every quarter. The firm that bought them in later 2013 just dumped them in January 2016. How could that firm have made such a massive mistake? I hope they review the claims RCS execs made before they were acquired. So what was the big appeal? ResidentialCredit Solutions Inc. aimed to profit by buying and servicing distressed mortgages.

WELL, THEY DIDN'T. QUEUE THE EXCUSES.

"There's a real reluctance to sell assets right now," said Dennis Stowe, Residential Credit's president. 

OH! GUESS WHAT?  YOU WERE IN THE WRONG BUSINESS, COWGIRL.

"We can move the assets off their books and make it a sale, because we bring two things - capacity and capital," said Randy Appleyard, a senior vice president and the head of asset sourcing at Residential Credit. 

HOW ABOUT COMPETENCE AND COMPLIANCE, WRANGLER?

Mr. Stowe said he was surprised when the Hope Now alliance announced last week that its lender and servicer members would respond to borrowers within 45 days on whether they qualified for a loan modification.

"To me, that sounds like a long time to go by to get financials from a borrower," he said. It takes Residential Credit an average of 19 days from the time the company receives a financial package from a borrower until a modification is finalized, he said.

NOW THAT'S A PILE OF MANURE. 

"If a borrower is about to lose their home, it's not a two-minute phone call," Mr. Stowe said.

ABOUT TO LOSE HOME, OR MODIFY THE LOAN LIKE YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY, CHIPMUNK CHEEKS?

(c) 2008 American Banker and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.americanbanker.com/ http://www.sourcemedia.com/