Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:
Recent Articles
Related Articles

Recent Articles By Craig Malisow

National Features

  • Phoenix New Times
    Canine Crusaders

    That drug-sniffing dog up ahead? He may not be your best friend.

    By Ray Stern
  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times
    The Muscle Men

    Thanks to a string of Florida "anti-aging clinics," baseball's steroid scandal isn't limited to superstars.

    By Michael J. Mooney
  • Miami New Times
    Picked On

    Farm workers earn nada in America's green-bean capital.

    By Janine Zeitlin
  • Village Voice
    "Why I'm No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal"

    An election-season essay from one of America's greatest playwrights.

    By David Mamet

When Larry Jr. and Litton publicist Donna Marie Jendritzen said they wished the media could hear from some of the 70,000 borrowers whose homes Litton saved last year, the Press asked how that wish could be fulfilled. What resulted might be indicative of an apparent disconnect between how Larry Jr. believes his collectors treat borrowers and how they are actually often treated.

Jendritzen said federal privacy laws would make it difficult to find some satisfied souls to talk, but she would see what she could do. Ultimately, she rounded up two borrowers in Cleveland, Ohio, who explained, or tried to explain, their loan histories in a conference call.

The borrowers were calling from the offices of a nonprofit housing advocacy group called East Side Organizing Project, which acts as a liaison between distressed borrowers and their servicers. Only one of the two borrowers said he resolved his issues directly with a Litton representative. In that case, Antonito Bradley fell behind a number of times over a two-year period. Litton ultimately waived his fees and knocked $21 off his monthly payments; the missed payments were calculated back into the principal. He does not expect to fall behind again.

“They gave me a second chance, basically,” he said.

In what was supposed to be the second testimony to Litton's ability to work with borrowers, Luvonia Menefee said Litton doubled her monthly payment without telling her why.

“They upped it to $1,400 [from $669],” she said. “I wondered, ‘How could you do this?' And then that was when I could not get nobody, you know, to call back. It was always, ‘I'll call you back.' I couldn't get no explanation, so I stopped paying.”

Menefee said that, while she had the money, “I was not going to send money somewhere where no one could tell me where it was going.”

After seven months of not paying and not getting an explanation for the increase, she was notified that Litton was going to foreclose.

“Finally, my brother-in-law told me about ESOP,” she said, “and this is when I went to them. And they was like my communicator.” ESOP got on the horn to Litton and got them to knock $1,026 off her monthly payment.

“If it wasn't for ESOP, I wouldn't have been...able to smile again,” Menefee says.

When asked if a Litton borrower could get the same results if they weren't lucky enough to live in Cleveland, with ready access to ESOP, she said, “It's hard to say.”

To get more positive statements about Litton's willingness to work with borrowers, one would need to check the company Web site's “Customer Testimonials” section, the title of which erroneously implies that Litton's customers are the borrowers and not the sellers and investors perched at the top of the ladder.

Some examples:

Thank you all for everything. You all are wonderful folks. — B.T.

I have been very happy with your company in the short time that I have been with Litton — L.H.

Thank you for helping me save my home. God bless you. — F.L.

B.T., L.H. and F.L. could not be reached for further comment.

If anything, Litton is consistent in the kind of suspension of disbelief it takes to think Menefee's story is a testament to Litton's good nature. A partial review of the 1,000 complaints Litton borrowers filed with the Federal Trade Commission in 2006 details rude customer service and the inability of Litton employees to explain excessive fees that seemed to appear out of nowhere.

A 2006 case from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Court in Seattle helps illustrate the split between what Litton states are easy-to-understand monthly statements and what other people might consider hieroglyphics.

The case involved a married couple who filed for bankruptcy and disputed an additional $30,000 that Litton said they owed. The appellate court's ruling included statements from the trial judge, who repeatedly asked Litton's lawyers to provide clear itemized statements, and, apparently unsatisfied with what the lawyers presented, finally said, “Well, I don't get it,” and ruled in favor of the borrowers.

When Litton appealed, the appellate court was similarly puzzled over the mysterious $30,000.

“We agree with the trial court that what Litton provided was gibberish,” the opinion states. Elsewhere in the ruling, the judges state that, in addition to being “gibberish,” Litton's paperwork might also be classified as “sketchy.”

When asked about that description, Larry Jr. said, “Number one, we do not use gibberish. I would completely disagree with that characterization.” He said the majority of judges involved in Litton litigation have no problem understanding the company's itemized statements.

A few months before the Seattle judges were scratching their heads over the unexplained $30,000, a judge in a federal district court in Philadelphia was trying to get his arms around a seemingly spontaneous $40,000 that popped up on another borrower's bill. The only clue to the riddle was Litton's description of the sum as “other fees due.”

When that amount appeared on her bill, according to the adjudicator's decision, the borrower asked her lawyer to write to Litton, seeking an explanation. Litton's response was to send a letter directly to the borrower saying her lawyer was not authorized to represent her. (Naturally, since Litton did not believe the woman's lawyer was allowed to represent her, the lawyer did not receive a copy of that letter.)

The adjudicator found that Litton violated state and federal laws mandating that borrowers receive accurate statements and answers to questions about their bills. He ordered Litton to pay the borrower $31,000, the bulk of which was for “suffering.” The decision was later dismissed and the parties settled out of court.

It's not surprising that these problems were revealed after the borrower filed for bankruptcy, which is often the only chance a person has to save his home from foreclosure. Between January 2002 and April 2007, more than 5,000 Litton customers in Texas have filed for bankruptcy.

When Litton fired Murray, the company offered her a $6,000 severance package if she signed an agreement stating she would not sue or otherwise complain to a third party. Since Litton claims to spend about $50,000 on a typical foreclosure, the company was prepared to spend upwards of $56,000 to fire a borrower who owed $4,000. (Murray declined the severance package).

Write Your Comment show comments (9)

  1. I worked in the mortgage industry for several years. I started as a customer service supervisor in a call center and worked my way to loan officer before I left the industry hopefully for good. Anyway, I know that many people go through hard times, but whatever the case is, you must always try to pay your house note. You signed an aknowledgement of debt, and it is your responsibility to repay that debt at all cost. Federal guidelines allow a mortgage company to start foreclosure proceedings at 60-90 days past due. Having said that, I would say that if you are 4 months late on your house note and your mortgage company is just now beginning foreclosure proceedings on you...you are pretty lucky in my book.

    Comment by Wes — May 17, 2007 @ 10:32AM

  2. Wes, what about homeowners who must deal with mortgage servicing companies similar to Litton that do all that was described in this article, PLUS lie about misapplying payments, commit perjury, and hire lawyers who make physical threats? That's what happened to me, and I lost my home in spite of the fact that I made payments on time for seven years. Then the mortgage is sold, and a new Mortgage Servicing Agent begins threatening foreclosure before I am even informed that they are the ones now processing payments. I would guess this happens a lot more than the mortgage industry is willing to admint, and I know the mainstream press doesn't report it.

    Only in America can someone pump The Dream up your backside and then steal your home in spite of receiving payments on time.

    Comment by Bill — May 21, 2007 @ 12:48PM

  3. I am one of the 280,000 Federal trade Commission-certified victims of Fairbanks Capital Corp as certified in USA/Curry v. Fairbanks as mentioned by Mr. Litton. Personally, I'm tired of the industry standard line that "no one makes any money on foreclosures." I will concede that the LENDER may not make any additional money on a foreclosure action - but they aren't losing any money either, especially if the loan in default has been securitized. Contrary to Mr. Litton's claim, the longer that a mortgage servicer can keep a borrower in default the more money the servicer can make.

    In order to back up my claim all one has to do is go to www.sec.gov, look up the prospectus for any given REMIC and read the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for that REMIC. I've read dozens of prospectuses over the last year or so and virtually every PSA language is inserted that authorizes the mortgage servicer to keep any additional fees - such as assumption fees, modification fees, *late payments*, etc. AS ADDITIONAL SERVICING COMPENSATION. I have one of those statements in the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors REMIC in which my own loan is bundled. Yes, there are obviously always exceptions to the rule but I would go as far as to say that this type of language is "boiler plate" in PSAs.

    Now, having said that, there are far more "legitimate" foreclosures taking place than illegal ones. The law of big numbers states that. And in the current sub-prime "implosion" there is blame for everyone. Lenders for creating the "exotic" mortgage products, brokers for steering borrowers towards the exotics where the broker makes more commission, and borrowers themselves for attempting to live beyond their means and wanting a larger piece of the "American Dream" than they could realistically afford.

    HOWEVER, when the mortgage servicer manufactures the default - as was done in my own case and of which I have proof - the only entity deserving of blame - and possible criminal charges - is the servicer. Period. Litton's PR spin and EMC's "Mod Squad" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors devised to distract attention from the fact that some mortgage servicers are operating on a business platform designed for the same results that Fairbanks' platform was - their own bottom line.

    This is a "property laundering" scheme. Hold a borrower in some stage of default for as long as possible in order to bleed as much money from them as possible. Once the borrower can no longer come up with the late fees and modification fees and forbearance fees they are no longer of use to the servicer's bottom line. It's then time to foreclose on the property in order to get it off of the lender's and the servicers books and get rid of the "evidence". But the servicer STILL isn't done making money. In many cases, in that same PSA mentioned above, the servicer is given right of first refusal to purchase the foreclosed property. That just adds insult to injury in many cases as the servicer has already made money hand over fist from the borrower during the "default" process. NOW the servicer gets to sell the property itself most likely recovering attorney’s fees, BPO fees (whether they were allowed to charge those to the borrower per the borrower’s note or not) force placed insurance fees, etc. And if the entire amount owed isn’t recovered at the sale the servicer can either go after the borrower for the difference or they can choose to “forgive” the difference – in which case the servicer will report that difference to the IRS who will look at difference as income and will tax it accordingly.

    Mr. Litton, don’t tell me that there is no money in foreclosures. Otherwise, the law firms that Litton employs would not be members of organizations like the United States Foreclosure Network. How much money is Litton making on a monthly basis. At their peak, Fairbanks was pulling in roughly $100 million per month. How are you doing in comparison?

    For more info on my own case or if you have questions, please feel free to visit me at http://www.getdshirtz.com . After all, all you have to lose is your home.

    Comment by Mike Dillon — May 21, 2007 @ 09:50PM

  4. I am a 56 year old woman. I've owned my own homes since I was 21. My first marriage didn't work out, I had been single from age 30 to 54. I raised two children as a single parent. I received $6500 (six thousand, five hundred) grand total for child support during the time my children were growing up. I had a steady income from my job at at utility company and I cleaned houses every other weekend. The point I am trying to make is that I am a responsible adult. Unfortunately, I have needed most of my income to make monthly expenses and seldom have a large amount saved. I am a sub-prime borrower because of my income to debt ratio. I refinanced my house four years ago, I had impound accounts, etc. I was paid bi-monthly. My first check has always gone to mortgage payments. When Litton assumed servicing my loan it was HELL. I have a 15 day grace period. Litton starts calling to ask where their money is after four days (meaning that the payment was due on the first, the phone calls started on the fourth). Litton would call every day, even after they received their check and cashed it. Litton's call record for me is three times in the same hour and five times in one day. When I gave them information (ie, check has been maild, will be mailed, etc) it was never recorded, they just kept calling. I was very late one month because my car was totalled in a mud slide and I had to get it fixed so I could get to work. I called Litton right away and asked if I could make the payment late or spread it out over a series of months (at this time they did have a hefty impound accout of mine). I told them I was taking out a personal loan with my credit union, which usually takes about three weeks. Litton kindly told me that I could make the payment or they would start forclosure. Litton also "hold ons" to your checks. My checks would often be cashed two weeks after Litton received them I started sending checks express mail, with a returnd receipt. The peace of mind was worth it. I tried paying electronically - my plan being to set up a monthly automatic withdrawl. On the second month I made the July payment on June 30th. After taking their impounds off the top they applied the rest of the payment to principle. I called daily and wrote several times a month trying to get them to fix their mistake It took them six months (finally made right on Dec 27. Litton did keep the late fees assessed and has never sent me any communication that a mistake had been made. As soon as the prepayment penalties were up I refinanced my house again. My loan was expensive and I am paying a higher interest that I would have had my previous lender been more honest. It is so worth it. Litton still owes me money which I doubt I'll ever see. At the time my house was refinanced I owed approx $119,000 on it. My house appraised for $420.000. Litton said they don't make money on forclosures! In what universe? I don't even have a comeback for that remark. I'm just glad they aren't my lender anymore. If I ever make it to Houston I will probably visit their headquarters, see how the "research" on my refund is coming along and hopefully get my picture taken with Larry Jr. I am morbidly curious about a man who could do the things he does and pit his name on the company.
    Sincerely, Judith Hess-Andor

    Comment by Judith Hess-Andor — May 22, 2007 @ 12:52AM

  5. Beware Litton's latest effort to shut-up its "customers", which is to send out a letter asking you to fill out a form explaining all your problems in life and sign your name to it in exchange for some potential leniency in paying Litton. Don't fill this form out and don't send it in! The goal with this form Litton is sending out is to get you to "judicially admit" in writing that you, as the homeowner, are solely responsible and liable for all the fees Litton has charged you. Thusly, Litton can present this form in court to avoid liability for their servicing scams.

    Enron, like Litton, was based in Houston, Texas. Litton has the potential to be the next Enron. Government regulators need to take a good long look at Litton's financials and ask themselves: If Litton is not the lender and must pay most of the money it recoups by selling foreclosures to the actual lender, how does Litton make any profit at all to justify paying (allegedly) 1,500 employees AND also be able to pay executive bonuses to Larry Litton, Jr. and others? The answer, as simple math will show, is illegal fees totalling thousands of dollars that are crammed onto its customer's bills that Litton skims right off the top of every loan it services "on behalf of the lenders".

    Litton is owned by a New York company named "C-BASS". Why does a New York company need a Texas-based mortgage servicer? Simple. Texas allows non-judicial foreclosures, which allow companies like Litton to sell homes without any court ever knowing about it and allows companies like Litton to illegally sell people's homes with little or no actual notice to the homeowner.

    Comment by Patrick — May 25, 2007 @ 02:33PM

  6. Lets see it cost them 50 grand to go into forclosure so they still make a profit off each house or find a 16 dollar change and they want blood
    I have never had a nice moment with Litton ,and there are more on line with the same problems and they do not do loans they will tell you that on the phone ,,,,,,,,

    Comment by Ohgorsh — July 3, 2007 @ 05:19PM

  7. My loan was transferred to litton in October of 2006,immediately there were problems because I was given an incorrect loan number & received a late notice.That problem was resolved & than there was another problem my loan payment was 2039.52 a month.I received a letter from Litton in December advising me that I did not have enough escrow.I could pay it in a lump sum or pay the new loan amount.I sent Litton loan a copy of the 1098 stating that Security Atlantic my former mortgage company had transferred escrow to litton in the amount of 1637.My correspondence was never answered & I continued to be charged the 2152 loan payment.In March of 2007 my brother was hit by a car in Dallas Texas,I used the mortgae payment to help pay for funeral expenses & I was 60 days behind I RECEIVED A NOTICE TO ACCELERATE if i did not make payment by April 16.I called Litton on March 20 & expalined the tragedy regarding my brother.The rep was fairly understanding & ? WHEN COULD I MAKE A PAYMENT I advised I would be able to make 1 payment on March 29.He advised that would avoid the foreclosure & he took a lot of financial information over the phone.He told me I was not qualified for a repayment plan because of my low income but since my rate was so high a financial package would be mailed I was releived to say the least but on April 16 I received notice to accelerate again. It was impossible to get caught up after helping with my brothers funeral expenses & i am retired from Verizon & working part time. I received the foreclosure summons on June 24. On june 17 Litton sent one of their loss mitigation specialist to evaluate the inside of my home i beleive this is called a PBO OR SOMETHING. He took pictures I advised him I did not want to sell my home.
    I have answered the foreclosure summons,I sent the court a copy of the 1098 also all corrrespondence I received from Litton . I worked very hard for my little house.I want to keep it.There is more to this story.The summons is from Mers on behalf of Security Atlantic Mortgage Comany.I googled & Security Atlantic Mortgage had a problem with HUD & had to pay some fines.I was charged points on my loan 4300 . There was no mortgage note with the summons. I am not 100% right but why should litton be getting away with this.
    Litton bought the loan from Security Atlantiv why is mers on the summons? I need a lawyer for September 26. I am going to HUD, the FTC, THE FBI.I want to keep my home & enjoy the rest of my life.I never received the financial package from Litton THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MAILED. I am looking to keep my home ,pay a rate lower than 11.75 %.
    I beleive my summons is from Mers on behalf of Security Atlantic Mortgage because Littons reputation & class action law suits does not make them very reputable.They have hurt people in New Jersey I hope i get a lawyer who can help me with this litton Ripoff loan.

    Comment by Carlyn — August 20, 2007 @ 09:29PM

  8. Litton Loan is the worst company anyone can ever deal with either as a customer or an employee. I used to work for them and I'm telling you, they are very evil, especailly those in the Atlanta office. We are asked to asked to tell customers to send request to the research department if there's any problem with their account, I guarantee you, you might need to send that request about 6-8 times and they still won't get to it. Personally, I had a problem with them asking us to call customers on the 4th of the month, when they have 15 days grace period! And they the reason why customers get calls like 10 times a day is because they tell us that if a customer hangs up on you note the account as a "No Answer", so guess what, the system automatically dials the number back in 5 minutes and will keep dialing it until the customer is forced to actually speak with you and make a promise when the payment will be made, which doesn't mean anything because unless you make a payment by phone, and get charged $9.99 for the process, they will call you back the following day!.....Imagine a company that keeps hiring new people on weekly basis but you tell the present employees that the company is overstaffed, so you are wacthing everything they do so as to get rid of some people! Just because they are paying the new employees less money, so they look for reasons to fire the good employees 'cause they believe they are making too much money.

    Comment by Tyler Durden — September 27, 2007 @ 01:33AM

  9. I found this online about Litton Loan

    http://littonloancrueltytoemployees.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Tyler Durden — September 27, 2007 @ 01:37AM

About Us | Work for Houston Press | Esubscribe | Free Houston Classifieds | National Advertising | Privacy Policy
Problem With the Site? | RSS | Site Map
©2008 Village Voice Media All rights reserved.

Houston Press Insiders

  • Local food, music and news blasts
  • Free Stuff

buy, sell, trade (5,774)
musician (735)
rentals (7,222)
jobs (6,544)
adult entertainment (4,254)
Menu of Menus
High School Photo Contest