Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 11johara28

“I read the article and could not figure out the fraud involved.

Personally, if I was holding the note, I would want to be sure that coverage was in effect to protect my interest in the property.”

Based on this article, it looks like people that did properly insure were told that their policies didn’t exist, or something like that...and then got slammed by Balboa for a new policy (which was worked into their escrow payments). At least that’s how I read it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hackers-Say-Bank-of-America-nytimes-2431503127.html;_ylt=AkAHF3h4OzH5pudpJmDk7L.7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NnUwbXFkBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN0b3BTdG9yaWVzBHNsawNoYWNrZXJzc2F5Ym8-?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

At least that’s how I read it...but I’m not I’m getting it right.


18 posted on 03/14/2011 7:07:42 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: BobL

What’s remarkable is this new “force-placed” policy is typically much higher than the previous policy. The article cited an example of one that changed from 4k to 33k. Plenty of room for everybody in that 29k difference.


20 posted on 03/14/2011 8:59:14 AM PDT by Chunga85 ("Foreclosure Fraud", TARP, "Mortgage Crisis", Bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson