chow
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 2350
Location: Cornfield County, Indiana
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: New Dirt From Uncle Herman.... |
|
|
Actually, it's just his E mortgage alert newsletter Copied by permission from him! I just have to add his contact information.
Herman Thordsen, Esq.
Law Offices of Herman Thordsen
6 Hutton Centre Drive
Suite 1040
Santa Ana, CA 92707
(714) 662-4990 (888) 667-8529
www.lendinglaw.com
it is 13 pages-here you go-
FEDERAL MORTGAGE e-ALERT©
(October 22, 2007)
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991 (TCPA) ALLOWS THE CONSUMER FOUR YEARS TO SUE YOU INSTEAD OF THE THREE YEARS ALLOWED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FACTS
Edward Sznyter sued Robert Malone on May 6, 2005 in California Superior Court alleging violation of the TCPA claiming he received four faxes from Malone between May 7, 2001 and January 29, 2002 in violation of TCPA. He requested $12,000 in damages. Malone said the three-year California Statute of Limitations applied and not the Federal four year statute. The trial court said the three year statute applied and dismissed the case. On appeal to the appellate department of the Superior Court the ruling was upheld and Sznyter then appealed to the California State Court of Appeal.
The 4th Appellate District said . . .
Reversed. When an action founded on a federal statute is brought in state court, the law of the state will apply unless there is a contrary intent expressed in federal law. Since the T CPA created a new cause of action the federal statute of limitations applied. (Sznyter v. Malone, CA4, No. D050584, 10-2-07)
MORAL
You would think after 16 years of no faxes without consent the senders would learn by now.
MORGAN STANLEY CUTS OUT 600 JOBS AND SLIMMING DOWN ITS MORTGAGE BUSINESS
FACTS
Morgan Stanley announced it was cutting about 600 jobs and slimming down its mortgage business. The intent is to eliminate about 1% of the workforce because of the downturn in the mortgage business. The company intends to take its three mortgage businesses and make them one subsidiary in Irving, Texas. (latimes 10307)
MORAL
I believe the count is now about `167 that have filed bankruptcy, closed their doors or stopped doing wholesale subprime loans.
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL (RESCAP) BEGINS LAYOFF OF 3,000 EMPLOYEES
FACTS
RESCAP issued a release stating it would eliminate 3,000 jobs which is about 25% of its workforce. This includes administrative and managerial positions. (lat101807,c4)
MORAL
The blood bath goes on. The lenders fold and those that do not are chasing the brokers to buy back loans. We are defending over a dozen brokers and lenders now in buyback demands. Are you next?
AMERICAN HOME MORTAGE INVESTMENT CORP. OF MELVEILLE, NEW YORK UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
FACTS
Federal prosecutors and the FBI are investigating into whether criminal misconduct was involved in the failure of the company. The investigation is checking into whether there were federal criminal violations causing the company to file for bankruptcy. The investigation is said to cover conspiracy, securities, mail fraud and wire fraud. The bankruptcy involved the layoff of almost 7,000 employees. (latimes 10307)
MORAL
Sort of like bowling. Hit the number 1 pin and the rest just seem to fall down.
IMPAC FUNDING CORPORATION SUES NATIONS HOME LENDING CENTER IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TO FORCE BUYBACK OF LOANS
FACTS
Impac purchased loans from 4uDirect Inc. dba Nations Home Lending Center of Florida. The agreement to purchase the loans included warranty provisions (just like the ones in the broker lender agreements). Impac sued in Orange County, California alleging that a number of the loans purchased were in breach of the warranty provisions and requested 4uDirect repurchase them according to the written agreement.. In some cases 4uDirect signed an indemnification agreement relieving 4uDirect of its immediate obligation to repurchase and left the liquidation process up to Impac.
Impac filed a demand for arbitration pursuant to the written agreement alleging that 4uDirect failed to repurchase the loans and failed to honor its payment obligations under the indemnity agreement. 4uDirect disagreed, filed defenses against Impac’s demand to buy back the loans and argued the agreement was unenforceable. The case proceeded to an evidentiary arbitration hearing and the arbitrator awarded Impac $1.4 million along with attorney fees and costs. Impac went to the Orange County Superior Court with the award.
The Orange County, California Superior Court said . . .
Confirm the award along with the attorney fees and costs. (Impac Funding Corp. vs. 4uDirect, Inc. dba Nations Home Lending, 5-23-07, 07CC00475)
MORAL
May be 4uDirect should have attended my seminar. There are even better defenses in a repurchase agreement when you fund the loan.
CALIFORNIA LEGISTATURE CAN RATIFY ADMINISTRATIVE RULE THAT REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS BETWEEN DOMESTIC PARTNERS IS EXEMPT FROM CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP REASSESSMENT UNDER PROP 13
FACTS
Proposition 13 limits the tax assessed on a real property unless there has been a change in ownership. The legislature defined “a change in ownership” as excluding transfers between spouses. Proposition 58 placed the spousal transfer exclusion in the state constitution. Later the State Board of Equalization promulgated rule 462.240 which excluded the transfer of real property between registered domestic partners from being “a change in ownership.” Thereafter, the legislature made a statutory amendment to recognize a domestic partner exception. Various county tax assessors objected arguing that the board and the Legislature lacked authority to create the domestic partner exclusion. The court agreed with the state and the county tax assessors appealed.
The 3rd Appellate District said . . .
Affirmed. While Administrative rules are void if they enlarge the scope of the statutes the agency is charged with administering, the Legislature can ratify such a regulation by statutory amendment. The scope of the definition of a “change in ownership” is a matter for the Legislature to determine. Proposition 58 grants an exclusion to spouses but it has no limiting language declaring that “only” spousal transfers shall be entitled to the exemption. A constitutional amendment is not required to create a new exemption. The Legislature has the power to define the scope of “change in ownership” and can create exclusions from that definition. It has the authority to ratify the rule 462.240 and did it. Transfers between domestic partners are excluded from “change in ownership” and thus reassessment. (Strong v. State Bd. Of Equal., C.A. 3d, C052818), 10-2-07)
MORAL
Rules cannot expand scope of statutes unless of course, the court says you can.
SUMMARY OF
FINAL REGULATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CONSUMER FINANCE LENDERS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LENDING ACT LICENSEES USING NONTRADITIONAL LOAN PRODUCTS
FACTS
1. Annual financial report is to have an addendum containing information on nontraditional mortgage products and adjustable rate mortgage products including explanation of best practices and procedures to ensure compliance with the Conference of American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Product Risks an Statement on Subprime Lending (“Guidance”). (1436; 1950.314.8).
2. Adopt internal controls and policies to ensure compliance with the guidance along with a designated compliance officer with contact information.
3. Internal consumer complaint process to resolve complaints involving Guidance type loans.
4. Maintain record of number of consumer complaints received involving guidance along with number resolved and number unresolved and workout arrangements if any.
5. Complete annual form on nontraditional loan products.
6. Maintain copies of all complaints and written responses
7. Use comparison form posted by CFL and RMLA when selling nontraditional mortgages.
8. Comply with new advertising laws involving adjustable rate mortgages, low doc, no doc, no income, no asset, stated income, stated asset, no ratio loans.
MORAL
We are preparing the manual for compliance in general applicable to California and in all probability all most of the others states. Cost of the manual is $375. If you desire a copy please forward your check payable to the “Law Offices of Herman Thordsen” and we will deliver to you. If you are interested in a seminar please advise and we will conduct one.
FAILURE TO EXAMINE COURT RECORDS LEAVES EXPERIAN LIABLE TO CALIFORNIA CONSUMER FOR INCORRECT CREDIT INFORMATION
FACTS
Landlord of James Dennis agreed to drop unlawful detainer lawsuit in return for $3,000. They filed a written stipulation with the court that no judgment would be entered against Dennis. They court register of actions however, inaccurately reported that a judgment had been entered. After Dennis completed paying the $3,000 the parties presented a Request for Dismissal and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., prepared a credit report on Dennis listing a Civil Claims Judgment had been entered against him. Hogan Information Services, a third party hired by Experian to verify the information confirmed the accuracy of the Experian report based on a copy of the stipulation between Dennis and the landlord. Dennis then sued Experian for violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Experian filed for and was granted summary judgment. Dennis appealed.
The 9t Circuit Court of Appeals said . . .
Reversed and judgment to be entered for the consumer Dennis. When conducting a reinvestigation, A credit reporting agency is required to exercise reasonable diligence in examining the court file to determine if judgment was in fact entered. Experian could have discovered the mistake of Hogan by examining the document Hogan retrieved fro the court file. It was a written stipulation that no judgment would be entered if Dennis paid as agreed. Experian is liable for the negligence in hiring Hogan which had overlooked the significance of the Request for Dismissal and the register entry indicating the case was dismissed. (Dennis v. BEH-1, CD CA No. 04-56230, 92507)
MORAL
When looking at something make sure it is final and not an interim report. This goes for anything. The stipulation indicated further work to be done. The same holds true for loan files. Make sure they are complete or get sued.
ILLINOIS REVOKES LICENSES OF INVESTOR’S CHOICE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND AMBER SENG
FACTS
The investigation found that Investor’s Choice Mortgage Corporation, owned by Kelli Wilson (also a loan originator), and loan originator Amber Seng suggested to a married couple that they should falsify the information on their mortgage application so that the loan would be approved. Initially the couple tried to borrow the funds using the husband’s credit information. When that effort failed, Wilson suggested that the wife purchase the property using her own credit record.
Wilson and Seng knew that the buyer, as an investor, was not qualified for a loan under the lender’s no document program, but they urged the buyer to falsify the application to state that the property was to be owner-occupied. This allowed the buyer to qualify for a loan without having to provide documentation about income, outstanding debts, or other information about her or her husband’s financial situation.
Wilson and Seng also had the buyer falsely use one of Wilson’s rental property addresses at 3940 Paradise Canyon Ct, Naperville, Illinois 60564 as her present address with a notation “living rent free” instead of her true address. Wilson told the borrower that this would improve the likelihood of the lender’s approval of the loan application. Wilson, through Investor’s Choice, submitted the loan application and file with this fraudulent information to the lender. The false statements allowed the customer’s no document loan to be approved. The mortgage was approved by American Brokers Conduit, which has since filed for bankruptcy. The license of the company, Kelli Wilson and Mr. Seng are revoked and the company is fined $20,000.
Investor’s Choice, the mortgage company Kelli Wilson owned, was disciplined about a year ago for failure to cooperate with IDFPR examiners and for violations in its maintenance of office operations and loan file records. (Ill Govr office 101607)
MORAL
One wonders why the licensed was not revoked a year ago for failing to cooperate then. As it is now, they are under criminal indictment for this fraud.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEE AND A RESTAURANT OPERATOR PLEAD GUILTY TO MORTGAGE FRAUD
FACTS
Floyd Irons, a St. Louis public school employee and John Mineo, Jr. a Missouri restaurant operator pleaded guilty in a million-dollar mortgage fraud scheme in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
During the course of this scheme, Irons was employed by the St. Louis Public Schools. Mineo operated his restaurant and was employed as a mortgage broker at Midwest Mortgage Consultants LLC. In late 2005, Irons and associate “John Doe” met with Mineo and told him of their scheme to purchase residential real estate for investment purposes. They also told Mineo that they would obtain mortgage loans for these residential purchases through him at the mortgage brokerage company where he was employed, Midwest Mortgage Consultants for 10% or more of the home sales price to be kicked back to them. Additionally, Irons and Doe told Mineo that Irons would be identified as the sole purchaser of these residential properties, but that Irons and John Doe were in business together and that John Doe would actually pay the mortgage loans. In November 2005, Irons and Doe agreed to have Irons’ son act as a straw purchaser of a residence at 1205 Missouri Ave., St. Louis, for a purchase price of $167,000. Doe had previously purchased the residence in June for $150,000. Irons’ son, a full-time student, was not going to live in the residence and it was understood that Irons and Doe would make the payments on the loans obtained to finance the purchase.
Irons and Doe falsified information on the loan application in order to obtain the loan and, as a result, FMF Capital issued the loan for the purchase. As a result of this transaction, Doe’s first and second mortgages were paid off, and he received an additional $5,084 on the sale. No payments were made following June 2006, and the property was ultimately foreclosed on for non-payment.
In December 2005, Mineo arranged for Irons and Doe to purchase real estate at 3138-40 Michigan Ave. for $190,000. The seller had purchased the four-family property in May 2005 for $125,000. Irons, Doe and Mineo filed a false loan application and Irons obtained a mortgage loan for $180,500 in January 2006. With Irons and Mineo’s knowledge, Doe received a kickback of $20,000 from the sale proceeds and Mineo received $3,891 in broker fees.
Shortly after the purchase of the Michigan Avenue property, Mineo contacted John Doe, who agreed that he and Irons would purchase a property at 18433 Woodland Meadows Dr., Glencoe, Mo., for $450,000, with $40,000 being kicked back to them from the purchase price.
Irons and Doe submitted a false loan application in Irons’ name to Midwest Mortgage and obtained the loans. Mineo received $8,850 in broker fees. The property had previously sold for $240,000 in December 2004. Mineo’s company also received $23,000 from the seller’s proceeds.
On Jan. 31, 2006, one day after closing on the Woodland Meadows property, Mineo arranged for the purchase of residential real estate at 11 Arundel, St. Louis, for $830,000, with $60,000 being “kicked back” to them from the purchase price. After falsifying the loan application, Irons and Doe obtained the loans for the purchase of the Arundel property. Mineo received $5,720 in broker fees. The property had previously sold for $260,000 in 1998. (nmn92607)
MORAL
About $160,000 received for the fraud. Their respective attorneys probably received at least $100,000 in attorney fees to attempt to keep them out of federal prison. Then there is the mandatory order of restitution to make the lenders whole and therefore the two have a net loss. Irons brings his son into a criminal venture who hopefully was not indicted. Irons and Mineo bring shame to their respective families. Tell me. Where is the profit in this anywhere? We defend people and attempt to keep them out of federal prison for this very type of crime. They have spouses, children and in some cases immigration problems because they are not citizens. It can be heartbreaking. If you have been involved, remember, the federal people have as long as ten years to file an indictment. One of the loans here was over 6 years old. See your attorney now if you have been involved. They can do a lot of mitigation before an investigation begins that can keep you out of prison and possibly prevent an s indictment legally. After the investigation begins it is a lot more difficult.
QUEENS NEW YORK MORTGAGE BROKER MANAGER STEALS BORROWER ID AND GETS ARRESTED
FACTS
Jacob Milton (a.k.a. Sabbirul Haque Talukder and Mohammed Saber), 41, and Shamsun N. Nira (a.k.a. Nira Niru, Nira Rabbany and Monihhah Khatun), 37, both of 77 Hickory Road in Port Washington, Long Island, and employees of Griffin Mortgage Co., located at 72-32 Broadway in Jackson Heights of a Jackson Heights mortgage company have been charged with stealing the personal identity of a 44-year-old Queens man to fraudulently take out $1.3 million in mortgage loans on two properties as well as stealing the personal identity of four other individuals to fraudulently obtain multiple credit cards in their names.
It is alleged that the victims went to the defendants’ mortgage company to apply for mortgages and, in the
process, turned over personal identifying information – including their names, date of births and social security numbers.
The defendants were arraigned before Queens Criminal Court Judge Ira Margulis on criminal complaints variously charging them with first-, second, third- and fourth-degree grand larceny, second-degree attempted grand larceny, second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, first-second- and third-degree identity theft, first-degree falsifying business records, first-degree scheme to defraud, second-degree criminal impersonation and third-degree unlawful possession of personal identification information. Milton, who faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted, was ordered held without bail and Nira, who faces up to seven years in prison if convicted, was ordered held on $500,000 bail. Both defendants are scheduled to return to court on October 30, 2007.
According to the criminal charges, Marya Macias, while working for the defendant Milton between April 2006 and June 2007, went with her husband, Juan Carlos Alvarez, to Griffin Mortgage to meet with Milton and apply for a mortgage. In the process of filling out an application, Milton requested and received personal identifying information from the couple, including their names, dates of birth, social security numbers and other personal identifying information needed to file for mortgages. On October 2, 2007, Mr. Alvarez reviewed his credit reports through the three major credit reporting agencies and discovered that his home address had allegedly been changed without his permission to 8 North Fifth Street in Deer Park, Long Island – an address the defendant Milton had listed for a 2006 Mercedes Benz ML35 he drove.
The District Attorney said that it is further alleged that Mr. Alvarez had referred his sister, Lorena Alvarez and her husband, Hector Sandoval, 44, to Milton for a mortgage. On October 9, 2007, Mr. Sandoval received a credit report which revealed that, without his knowledge, his home address had also been changed to the Deer Park address and that he held $1.3 million in mortgages on two additional properties – one at 156-17 110th Avenue in Queens and the other at 371 Arlington Avenue in Brooklyn.
A review of New York City Department of Finance records revealed that the Queens house had sold for $625,000 and the Brooklyn house for $685,000. In executing a court-authorized search warrant at Griffin Mortgage on October 15, 2007, it was discovered that the mortgage application that Lorena Alvarez and Hector Sandoval had filled out had been allegedly altered by taping an address – 78-02 162nd Street in Fresh Meadows – over Ms. Alvarez’s true address. The fraudulent mortgage application – which had not yet been filed – was in the amount of $675,000.
The District Attorney said that it is additionally alleged that Milton and the defendant Nira stole the identities of three Queens residents and a Bronx resident who had met with Milton at Griffin Mortgage Co., and applied for mortgages. In all four instances, the victims filled out applications and provided their personal identifying information but then declined to proceed with the applications, citing them as too expensive. Thereafter, the four victims allegedly began receiving bills from various stores – such as Home Depot, Lord & Taylor, Victoria’s Secret – at which they did not have accounts. In all, more than $15,700 worth of merchandise was allegedly billed to the fraudulent accounts by the defendants. In at least two instances, it is alleged that the defendants opened Home Depot accounts using an Ohio driver’s license which, according to that state’s motor vehicle records, does not exist. (Queens Co. DA 101707)
MORAL
Remember the privacy laws? Did you background your employees? If not, then arguably you can be sued for negligent hiring and allowing these same employees access to private information thereby being vicariously liable for the losses. Investigate the people you hire. They can just as easily steal from you as from the potential borrower.
TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL OBTAINS INJUNCTIONS AGAINST FLORIDA AND CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE ASSISTANCE COMPANIES
FACTS
The Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott announced that the 408th District Court issued a temporary injunction against a Florida-based “foreclosure rescue” scheme. Under the court order Foreclosure Assistance Solutions, LLC of Florida, and its principal operators, Herb Zerden and Adolfo Quintero, as well as J.W.W. Services, Inc. of California and owner John Woodruff, are prohibited from targeting and deceiving Texans who fall behind on their mortgage payments.
In September, 2007 the Attorney General obtained an emergency restraining order and froze assets belonging to Foreclosure Assistance Solutions and its various operators. The temporary injunction extends the initial order, securing approximately $750,000 in fees that the defendants charged more than 700 Texans who paid for its services. The monies will remain frozen pending further orders from the court.
The defendants mailed cards and letters to homeowners who were facing foreclosure because of delinquent mortgage payments. The defendants’ promotional materials boasted established relationships with mortgage companies and banks nationwide. These purported relationships, Foreclosure Assistance Solutions claimed, would enable it to persuade lenders to refrain from foreclosing on its customers. Homeowners who responded to Foreclosure Assistance Solutions were pressured to immediately sign a $1,200 contract. Once Foreclosure Assistance Solutions received its fee, company representatives rarely interacted with clients. When homeowners repeatedly called the company seeking information or action, they were ignored. Because the terms of the company’s customer contract strictly prohibited homeowners from directly contacting their mortgage companies, Foreclose Assistance Solutions’ inaction worsened the situation for many homeowners.
The temporary injunction prohibits the defendants from continuing to target and mislead troubled Texas homeowners. The court’s order also requires that Foreclosure Assistance Solutions disclose important account information to its Texas customers. Specifically, the defendants must provide each of its customers with a written statement describing every contact the company’s representatives had with the customer’s mortgage company. The disclosure statement must include the specific dates of contact, the mortgage company representative with whom they spoke, and the results of the contact. If Foreclosure Assistance Solutions representatives learn they cannot prevent a home from going into foreclosure, the company is obligated to notify the home owner within 48 hours. Foreclosure Assistance Solutions must also provide refunds to any of its existing customers it is unable to help.
The Attorney General reminded the company’s customers that they should not wait for Foreclosure Assistance Solutions to contact them about the status of their mortgage. Homeowners need to call their lenders immediately and ask what preventative measures, if any, the defendants have taken on their behalf.
The pending legal action seeks court-ordered restitution for homeowners who were harmed by the defendant as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Additionally, the Attorney General has requested up to $5,000 per violation for failure to register as a business that conducts telephone solicitations. (101907TXAG)
MORAL
For marketing purposes you should tell the potential borrowers about this type of scam. It will help instill trust and prevent them from being scammed. At the same time you may be able to get a take out loan for them.
OKIE DOKIE....THAT'S THIS WEEK TIDBITS!!!
UPCOMING EVENTS
DATE/TIME SUBJECT/LOCATION
DATE: October 24, 2007
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
LENDER BUYBACKS AND HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST THEM.
1.You do not necessarily have to buy back a loan that has gone bad.
2.The contract you signed with the lender may not be valid as to the loan involved in the buy back request.
Other defenses that may assist you in legally avoiding the buy back request.
LOCATION National University, Carlsbad, California
705 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 150
COST:???
Sponsored by San Diego North- California Association of Mortgage Brokers
To Register, Contact:
Lauren Pasion
San Diego North CAMB Coordinator
12375 Angouleme Court
San Diego, CA 92130
(858) 523-9990, Ext. 203 (for credit card payment info)
LaurenPasion at gmail.com
$20 MEMBERS $30 AT THE DOOR
$30 NONMEMBERS $40 AT THE DOOR
Please make checks payable to SDNC CAMB.
OCTOBER 26, 2007
2:00 to 4:30 p.m. LENDER BUYBACKS AND HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST THEM.
3.You do not necessarily have to buy back a loan that has gone bad.
4.The contract you signed with the lender may not be valid as to the loan involved in the buy back request.
Other defenses that may assist you in legally avoiding the buy back request.
LOCATION San Francisco Hilton-333 O’Farrell St., San Francisco
At least ten must preregister to go forward.
Cost $45 per person. Contact Loretta at 714-662-4990
ESTATE PLANNING FOR ASSET PROTECTION Some easy ways to protect your assets among others:
1. IRA plans are generally protected subject to state law. This protection can be as high as $1 million.
2. College Savings Plans known as 529s are protected if in effect over two years and beneficiary is child or grandchild.
3. Homesteads on the house you live in are protected to a large extent if not exceeding a certain amount.
If you would like to more information, we will e mail a questionnaire to review at no charge upon request. The information you return for analysis is kept confidential as privileged.
THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE.
If you want to make certain you receive our e-mails, please add our e mail address in your address book. Otherwise, AOL among other servers may reject the message and you will not receive the information.
Herman Thordsen
IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH:
• MORTGAGE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
• NEVADA MORTGAGE LENDING DIVISION
• HUD AUDITS AND THE MORTGAGEE REVIEW BOARD
• RESPA VIOLATIONS
• LENDERS DEMANDING YOU BUY BACK LOANS
• LICENSING IN ANY OF THE UNITED STATES
• DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AUDITS OR DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
• DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION RMLA OR CFL LICENSES
• W-2 EMPLOYEE vs. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ISSUES
• MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME LAWS
Please contact Herman Thordsen toll free (888) 667- 8529.
Our firm and its attorneys represent numerous mortgage brokers and lenders, in California and nationally. We are the attorneys for trade associations including Central Coast Chapter-(CAMB), Central Valley Chapter-(CAMB), Inland Empire Chapter-(CAMB), North Bay Chapter-(CAMB), North San Diego Chapter-CAMB), San Diego Chapter-(CAMB), San Francisco Peninsula Chapter-(CAMB). Silicon Valley Chapter-(CAMB), South Los Angeles Chapter-(CAMB). He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Mortgage Banking and Real Estate Appraisal Programs at California State University, Fullerton. In the past, the firm has represented the Nevada Association of Mortgage Brokers. Mr. Thordsen has been a member of the California Department of Real Estate Solicitation Task Force Committee, the California Department of Motor Vehicles Anti-Fraud Task Force.
Mr. Thordsen is a syndicated columnist for Broker Universe, a division of Thomson Media as well as publishing monthly columns for the San Diego Chapter-CAMB. He is also a responding attorney for RESPANEWS.com. Mr. Thordsen conducts seminars on Federal and State mortgage loan audit compliance issues that cover HUD, RESPA, TILA, PREDATORY LENDING, NEVADA and CALIFORNIA. He authors numerous manuals and articles on HUD Audits, California Department of Real Estate Audits, Nevada Mortgage Lending Division Audits, Truth in Lending, RESPA, Mortgage Fraud and Predatory Lending. His most recent publication is on loan officer minimum wage and overtime laws.
Mr. Thordsen is an invited guest speaker before trade groups, and is a guest speaker on Mortgage Radio: “Legal Sand Traps” to discuss RESPA, minimum wage and overtime issues as well as legal requirements |
|
