RMS Value Add
Below are examples of the RMS “value add” that are beyond normal oversight. These are examples of unnecessary delays and other types of issues which, if not identified by RMS, did or would have resulted in total of hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses to the investor that were reversed or recovered from the servicer:
o Foreclosure loan-level examples
M3 211474 and 220599. Foreclosure Management New Mexico redemption. Through audit, RMS identified 2 loans where the servicer allowed redemption in an amount significantly lower than the foreclosure bid. Servicer claimed it was attorney error but showed no evidence to validate it was counsel’s error. On behalf of the investor, RMS “demanded” reimbursement and settled …show more content…
Charge off submission. Servicer submitted a charge off recommendation due to a tax sale and resented a credible argument for the charge off. As part of the investigation, RMS disputed the charge off due to the servicer and/or vendor allowing the tax sale but also through the investigation, RMS discovered there were excess sale proceeds in the amount of $89,024.29 that servicer was not even aware of that the investor was entitled to
M3 220648. Tax sale. As part of a transfer to a new NY foreclosure attorney, new counsel advised that the investor’s lien was wiped out and recommended the loan be charged off. Servicer was unaware of this but recommended the loan be charged off. After investigation, RMS identified there were over $32,000 in surplus funds and utilized NY counsel directly to file the action and claim for the surplus …show more content…
Insurance claim. When reviewing a foreclosure bid, RMS advised Servicer that an insurance payout for $85,000 for a sink hole on a property needed to be applied to the loan pursuant to the terms of the mortgage. Servicer countered that in Florida, sink hole proceeds needed to “remain with the property” and there was no legal choice but to use the money for repairs (and if the property went third party, funds would be provided to the buyer). RMS disputed this contention and provided document to support that funds could be applied to the loan rather than to be used for repairs. Servicer agreed with the rebuttal, allowed the proceeds to be applied to the loan (an $85,000 wind fall for the
Below are examples of the RMS “value add” that are beyond normal oversight. These are examples of unnecessary delays and other types of issues which, if not identified by RMS, did or would have resulted in total of hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses to the investor that were reversed or recovered from the servicer:
o Foreclosure loan-level examples
M3 211474 and 220599. Foreclosure Management New Mexico redemption. Through audit, RMS identified 2 loans where the servicer allowed redemption in an amount significantly lower than the foreclosure bid. Servicer claimed it was attorney error but showed no evidence to validate it was counsel’s error. On behalf of the investor, RMS “demanded” reimbursement and settled …show more content…
Charge off submission. Servicer submitted a charge off recommendation due to a tax sale and resented a credible argument for the charge off. As part of the investigation, RMS disputed the charge off due to the servicer and/or vendor allowing the tax sale but also through the investigation, RMS discovered there were excess sale proceeds in the amount of $89,024.29 that servicer was not even aware of that the investor was entitled to
M3 220648. Tax sale. As part of a transfer to a new NY foreclosure attorney, new counsel advised that the investor’s lien was wiped out and recommended the loan be charged off. Servicer was unaware of this but recommended the loan be charged off. After investigation, RMS identified there were over $32,000 in surplus funds and utilized NY counsel directly to file the action and claim for the surplus …show more content…
Insurance claim. When reviewing a foreclosure bid, RMS advised Servicer that an insurance payout for $85,000 for a sink hole on a property needed to be applied to the loan pursuant to the terms of the mortgage. Servicer countered that in Florida, sink hole proceeds needed to “remain with the property” and there was no legal choice but to use the money for repairs (and if the property went third party, funds would be provided to the buyer). RMS disputed this contention and provided document to support that funds could be applied to the loan rather than to be used for repairs. Servicer agreed with the rebuttal, allowed the proceeds to be applied to the loan (an $85,000 wind fall for the