SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GraceZ who wrote (21316)6/4/2004 10:09:18 AM
From: X Y ZebraRespond to of 306849
 
well, well...

it appears that it is not a "simple flipping" that caught these prospective... er, millionaire-tycons-to-be. it seems as though there was a full scale scheme misrepresentation of certain facts and skirting requirements and in collusion with others that got them in hot waters...

not 'just the flipping' thing... -g

In mortgage flipping schemes, investors buy rundown homes, then turn around and sell them at inflated prices to low-income buyers.

Trial evidence indicated that from 1997 to early 2000, Hammond induced people to buy property in Baltimore City by applying for mortgage loans. Hammond acquired control of about 200 inner-city properties. Evidence indicated that settlements of 150 of those properties closed at a title company in which Chase had an ownership interest. The government said Chase's title companies closed settlements for Hammond without the borrower producing the necessary funds.

Frederic Leffler, attorney for both title companies, helped Hammond skirt requirements that the seller hold title to property for six months before a lender would make a mortgage loan, the government said. Appraiser Christopher Francis testified at trial that he inflated values of properties he appraised for Hammond. Hammond paid David Allen Ulrich to recruit borrowers from northern Virginia, the government said.

When borrowers defaulted on the 200 mortgages, lenders lost the value of their loans, and the properties could not be sold to cover the loan amount. Some lenders did not foreclose on the loans because the properties would not support the costs of foreclosure, the government said. Mortgage lenders lost $4 million in the scheme.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DUH!