Want to eliminate uncertainty from the REO / foreclosure market and legal system? One simple SarbOX affidavit filed with the SEC will do it:

I hereby affirm that my staff (and I) have reviewed the current, pending and recently completed foreclosures. In no instances did we find any substantive errors, including: The wrong house being foreclosed upon; a mortgage note that was held by another bank (but not B of A) incorrectly used as a basis of a B of A foreclosure. Nor did we find that an incorrect house or person was foreclosed upon. Last, I affirm that no home without a mortgage was ever the subject of a foreclosure proceeding by B of A

Brian Moynihan, CEO
Bank of America


Bank of America is claiming that there were no mistakes made in foreclosures, despite widespread perjury, fraud, and omitted file and document reviews. I sincerely doubt that, given the Legal Impossibilities & Foreclosure Errors we have already discovered.

However, investors have been skittish as more and more of the Fraudclosure issue has been revealed.

The simple solution to this issue: Have Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan sign some variation of the attestation above, and submit that with the BofA Sarbanes Oxely filings.

This will put a lot of investors, Title Insurers, and REO Foreclosure buyers at ease.

Mr. Moynihan ?

Category: Corporate Management, Credit, Foreclosures, Legal, Real Estate, Regulation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

27 Responses to “How BofA Can Prove No Foreclosures Were Invalid”

  1. Low Budget Dave says:

    I am sure they will be happy to hire a law firm to sign that statement. For a small fee. Maybe even the same law firm that signed all the foreclosure docs to start with.

  2. peter north says:

    Grab a Snickers. You might be waiting for a while. ;-)

  3. franklin411 says:

    How ironic…here’s a Wal-Mart ad touting their employees. The actor says he got his first job at Wal-Mart, and was so good that a big bank offered him a job. Of course, Wal-Mart is such a wonderful place to work that he opted to stay!

  4. You are joking, right? You don’t really believe bankers, or anybody for that matter, should be held to a standard of perfection such as this, do you?

  5. cliffynator says:

    Deny. Deny. Deny.

    “That depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

  6. AHodge says:

    Moynihan has that same crazy, certainty of purpose, look in his eye as ken lewis had when he plunged ahead w Countrywide etc.
    These last two CEOs have nearly wrecked a relatively good bank
    with formerly decent risk mgt and accounting

  7. Rikky says:

    he didn’t say no mistakes were made he talks about specific examples which by and large may be correct.

  8. super_trooper says:

    I belive him. After all it probably took them less time to “review” the foreclosures than it did to foreclosure properties.

  9. beaufou says:

    You’re wasting your time BR,
    this is how those people think nowadays:

  10. Mannwich says:

    Accountability in the corporate world is for chumps, BR. Don’t you know that by now? The only way to survive in that environment is to SHIRK as much responsibility and accountability as one can. Parry, deflect, obfuscate, pass the buck. Repeat.

  11. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Denninger also has an interesting take on BoA/SarbOx.


    If I’m reading his post correctly, this is from either a court filing or conference call:

    “It appears as though many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies.”

    “Mortgage Related Assets” triple pledged, totally unhedged.

    I can hear it now, “Mistakes were made . . .”

    Context: They found 30,000 defects in a 102,000 mortgage sample and blew it off like it was a statistical margin of error.

  12. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Note: The context comment has nothing to do with fraudulently selling the same “asset” to multiple investors — it’s more for comparison.

  13. dss says:

    Bank of America starts thaw in foreclosure freeze

    This absolves BAC of everything! No need to be signing pesky affidavits that might be used against BAC in court.

    “Bank of America Corp. said it’s confident of its foreclosure decisions. The bank is still delaying foreclosures in the 27 states that don’t require a judge’s approval. It said it’s still reviewing its cases in those states.

    The bank’s move comes two weeks after it began halting foreclosures nationwide amid allegations that bank employees signed but didn’t read documents that may have contained errors. These employees have earned the nickname “robo-signers.”

    The company said it plans to resubmit documents with new signatures in the 23 states that require judicial authorization to restart the foreclosure process. It will delay fewer than 30,000 foreclosures.

    “The basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” Dan Frahm, a Bank of America spokesman, said in announcing the bank’s new approach”

    Their basis is accurate, the bank is confident of it’s foreclosure decisions. What more reassurance that no foreclosures were invalid than this? Sheesh, isn’t a non-binding not under oath, press release from a spokesman good enough for all of you doubters?

  14. bergsten says:

    Since your affirmation says that they didn’t “find” any errors (as opposed to there being any errors), remove the last sentence and it’s good to go!

    A little (well, maybe medium-sized) bag of cash for the PR firms to spread around, and that’s that.

  15. bergsten says:

    Oh, and since he doesn’t have to “find” anything that’s already been discovered, it’s good to go.

    For instance, he doesn’t need to find this: Mortgages which can legally only be sold once were sold again and again.

  16. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    This should clarify things:


  17. bergsten says:

    Now we know what Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom did when they finally got out of prison.

    Mel, are you out there somewhere? We’ve got the plot for The Producers Two all ready.

  18. bergsten says:

    @Petey — did any employee happen to get a pet Parrot by any chance?

  19. VennData says:

    “…In a letter Monday, a group of institutional bond investors raised objections to the handling of 115 bond deals issued by affiliates of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America Corp. in 2008…”


  20. Andy T says:

    Difficult to envision that the CEO of this company is going to swear (via a SarBox affadavit) that hundreds of thousands of foreclosures are absolutely perfect and would open himself up to criminal prosecution if .00005% of the process had an error.

    In fact, I’m not sure any sane person would sign such a thing. Probably not a real shocker if he doesn’t take you up on this one.

  21. Adam says:

    He’ll get away with it.

    My question is if you added the phrase “or any of it’s subsidiaries” after each mention of Bank of America to the affidavit, would he sign it?

  22. bman says:

    You’d also have to have a bail bondsman and a tether to go along with that signature before I’d consider believing anything that was written above it.

  23. dss says:

    At this point does anyone believe what any bank executive has to say? Under oath, or not? And by the same token, does anyone believe that any of these criminals will be prosecuted, much less stripped of their wealth?

    Martha Stuart goes to jail, Mozzilo gets to keep the majority of his ill gotten gains, no jail time; the rest continue to make speeches protesting their company’s innocence and give campaign contributions.

    But hey, it’s all the fault of those borrowers, banks threw due diligence out the window a long time ago.

  24. jad714 says:

    Look, the way I see it, where there’s one hidden issue, there’s a million.


  25. “A little (well, maybe medium-sized) bag of cash for the PR firms to spread around, and that’s that.”


    you’re close, though it seems you haven’t been around the Flack-Houses (much/recently)..

    make that: “a medium-sized bag of Coke”, and those firms will, assuredly, see to it that ‘the Issue’ is framed with ‘the correct Optics’…

  26. [...] links: How BofA can prove no foreclosures were invalid – Barry Ritholtz MHA compliance audits: is your shop ready? – MortgageOrb Those blemished [...]

  27. Winecountrycop says:

    This is a great thread. Wanted to add another, possibly simpler (maybe even low-brow) perspective. I am a lawman in CA and I was more intrigued with the actual false statements and notary public violations; here in CA these carry a $25K fine per offense. Now I am not sure how many of these “robo signatures” are for CA homes, but I would be very interested in some revenue here…I mean, if we’re on pace to do 1.2 million foreclosures this year – and say, 50% were in the “procedural error” bucket – this could be $15billion or so. Not bad. And you just know that some of these poor folks will roll on the bank execs – which brings you into the conspiracy area where you really don’t want to be.

    Another aspect of all of this is providing false statements that are then relied upon by law enforcement. I came across this today which was pretty good: http://www.knowyourmortgagebanker.com/blog/blame-the-victim-or-the-perp (also – you can see how much these guys all make…CEO for B of A makes $17K per day!). I know that if some bank employee or their lawyer files false paperwork and I had to evict the wrong family or lock up the wrong house there would be hell to pay.