Mark Sievers Home Office photos released 1-07-2016
- Thread starter al66pine
- Start date
Thanks very much for posting this ^ info.
When - what mo & yr - was MS & DR TS's first mortgage on Jarvis Rd home?
When was most recent re-fi? Before or after regs summarized below? Did MS know, w a re-fi application, that lender would be verifying income info he put on app, by lender contacting IRS directly?
Was he aware any {eta: significant} discrepancy between his reported-income for self and/or Dr TS on app and the actual info reported to IRS was likely be brought to lender's attn, perhaps disqualifying them for new loan?
IOW, if there was a discrepancy, BUSTED. JM2cts.
_____________________________________________
http://www.mortgagecomplianceadviso...y-control-services/4506-t-income-verification advises mortgage lenders that "....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you will need to obtain a signed 4506-T from borrowers at both application and closing."
My personal exp w mortgage apps & loans was quite stale ~ 25 y/o. From pages 3 & 4 of FNMA "Announcement 09-19" dated June 8 2009, linked below, it appears the regs mortgage lenders must follow have in fact tightened up (azz-uming lenders are complying w the regs) since early 2000's and before. https://www.fanniemae.com/content/announcement/0919.pdf
In brief, lenders are not to rely on the borrower's self-reported income on loan app. And not to rely on Verification of Employment from discussed upthread. Lender has to verify income by requesting copies of tax returns or transcripts by requesting directly from IRS.
SurfieTX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 12,161
- Reaction score
- 190
Info about when the home was built: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ene-and-Investigation&p=12267188#post12267188
D
Deleted member 122964
Guest
I--too--cannot stop thinking about the extreme degree of "messiness" in the photos of MS's office and in some other areas throughout the house. I have stacks of papers that I bring home with me because of my teaching profession. At times, I feel like I am swamped by student work and handouts. However messy I may be during my "work process," I try to organize all the papers before moving on to some other activity. With this in mind, I can understand that MS's office manager position may have generated a lot of paperwork--even household bills and mail alone can generate a lot of "mess." However, I am absolutely stumped as to why he didn't seem to try to organize any of it. I don't understand how he could find anything or get anything accomplished. What a mess!
So, I tried to think about reasons that MS might intentionally keep a messy office. Here are some thoughts:
* Did he keep the office so messy to discourage TS from going in his office? Did he think she wouldn't become suspicious of his activities/plans because she wouldn't venture into the "hoarders' den?"
* Did he think the locked doors and messy office would discourage the police from their thorough investigation of his office? I can imagine him thinking--"They'll never want to look through all this stuff."
* Did he imagine that the staging would stop the police in their tracks and that they wouldn't want to/need to see any other part of the house (including his office, safes, etc.)?
* Was he frantically looking for something specific in his office that he needed to hide before leaving on the trip? I can imagine him getting frustrated and nervous, tossing papers everywhere in a frantic search for something incriminating and running out of time to reorganize before he left. In this scenario, he would just lock the doors and deal with the mess when he returned.
* Maybe the "hoarding"/"messiness" instinct is just part of his personality. Maybe he can't stay focused and organized. Maybe TS refused to always clean up and organize after him, so the office just turned into this. Maybe this was a point of contention between them. I don't know, though. My spouse can be messy, but--despite working full time and taking care of our family and pets--I try to keep our entire house clean and organized--even my spouse's areas. I would only stop cleaning and organizing my spouses' areas if I was trying to make a point.
And, one more point--I digress this time. . .I--too--am troubled by the lack of "cheeriness" and "color" in the house. This is a house with two young girls. I have one young daughter, and my house is an absolute explosion of bright colors and sunlight. Her toys and drawings are in every room of the house. Yep, I organize her toys too
So. . . the lack of the colorful, lively signs of a happy childhood bother/worry/concern me. I hope that we are missing photos of rooms that were dedicated spaces to the Sievers' daughters interests, toys, etc. So very, very sad. . .
So, I tried to think about reasons that MS might intentionally keep a messy office. Here are some thoughts:
* Did he keep the office so messy to discourage TS from going in his office? Did he think she wouldn't become suspicious of his activities/plans because she wouldn't venture into the "hoarders' den?"
* Did he think the locked doors and messy office would discourage the police from their thorough investigation of his office? I can imagine him thinking--"They'll never want to look through all this stuff."
* Did he imagine that the staging would stop the police in their tracks and that they wouldn't want to/need to see any other part of the house (including his office, safes, etc.)?
* Was he frantically looking for something specific in his office that he needed to hide before leaving on the trip? I can imagine him getting frustrated and nervous, tossing papers everywhere in a frantic search for something incriminating and running out of time to reorganize before he left. In this scenario, he would just lock the doors and deal with the mess when he returned.
* Maybe the "hoarding"/"messiness" instinct is just part of his personality. Maybe he can't stay focused and organized. Maybe TS refused to always clean up and organize after him, so the office just turned into this. Maybe this was a point of contention between them. I don't know, though. My spouse can be messy, but--despite working full time and taking care of our family and pets--I try to keep our entire house clean and organized--even my spouse's areas. I would only stop cleaning and organizing my spouses' areas if I was trying to make a point.
And, one more point--I digress this time. . .I--too--am troubled by the lack of "cheeriness" and "color" in the house. This is a house with two young girls. I have one young daughter, and my house is an absolute explosion of bright colors and sunlight. Her toys and drawings are in every room of the house. Yep, I organize her toys too
So. . . the lack of the colorful, lively signs of a happy childhood bother/worry/concern me. I hope that we are missing photos of rooms that were dedicated spaces to the Sievers' daughters interests, toys, etc. So very, very sad. . .This info ^ helps.
Some permit info: http://permits.leegov.com/tm_bin/tmw_cmd.pl?tmw_cmd=StatusViewCase&shl_caseno=RES2005-19905
Appears app. was rcvd in Oct 2005, and one year +, occupancy permit was issued Dec. 18, 2006.
IDK when title was transferred to them. Before bldg permit was first requested, as a construction loan. Or as perm. financing on completion? Either way, imo, their first mortgage prob'ly would have been before housing meltdown in 2007-08, so lending regs would have been less stringent than in summer 2015 - presumably when MS was applying for loan.
Did someone post waaaay back - links to mortgage doc's recorded w Lee County? Thx in adv.
I--too--cannot stop thinking about the extreme degree of "messiness" in the photos of MS's office and in some other areas throughout the house. I have stacks of papers that I bring home with me because of my teaching profession. At times, I feel like I am swamped by student work and handouts. However messy I may be during my "work process," I try to organize all the papers before moving on to some other activity. With this in mind, I can understand that MS's office manager position may have generated a lot of paperwork--even household bills and mail alone can generate a lot of "mess." However, I am absolutely stumped as to why he didn't seem to try to organize any of it. I don't understand how he could find anything or get anything accomplished. What a mess!
So, I tried to think about reasons that MS might intentionally keep a messy office. Here are some thoughts:
* Did he keep the office so messy to discourage TS from going in his office? Did he think she wouldn't become suspicious of his activities/plans because she wouldn't venture into the "hoarders' den?"
* Did he think the locked doors and messy office would discourage the police from their thorough investigation of his office? I can imagine him thinking--"They'll never want to look through all this stuff."
* Did he imagine that the staging would stop the police in their tracks and that they wouldn't want to/need to see any other part of the house (including his office, safes, etc.)?
* Was he frantically looking for something specific in his office that he needed to hide before leaving on the trip? I can imagine him getting frustrated and nervous, tossing papers everywhere in a frantic search for something incriminating and running out of time to reorganize before he left. In this scenario, he would just lock the doors and deal with the mess when he returned.
* Maybe the "hoarding"/"messiness" instinct is just part of his personality. Maybe he can't stay focused and organized. Maybe TS refused to always clean up and organize after him, so the office just turned into this. Maybe this was a point of contention between them. I don't know, though. My spouse can be messy, but--despite working full time and taking care of our family and pets--I try to keep our entire house clean and organized--even my spouse's areas. I would only stop cleaning and organizing my spouses' areas if I was trying to make a point.
And, one more point--I digress this time. . .I--too--am troubled by the lack of "cheeriness" and "color" in the house. This is a house with two young girls. I have one young daughter, and my house is an absolute explosion of bright colors and sunlight. Her toys and drawings are in every room of the house. Yep, I organize her toys too
Since he was the office manager for her business, wouldn't she be a bit concerned about his office space?
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Here's what I posted in another thread:
From the official records of Lee County, here's what it looks like to me.
They bought the land (Lots 27-30) for $257,000 in Feb. 2005, and got 2 mortgages at the time ($205,600 plus a $51,400 HELOC) to finance the purchase 100% (remember when that was a thing?).
In August 2005, they got a $438,000 mortgage to finance construction of the home on the land (mostly on Lot 30).
In Dec. 2005, the HELOC from the original land purchase ($51,400) was increased to $70,400.
In March 2007, they took out an additional $100,000 mortgage.
Starting in May 2009, they were facing foreclosure on the bigger mortgage from the original land purchase ($205,600). They sold the vacant parts of the land (Lots 27-29, pretty much) for $109,000 and were able thereby to pay off (or settle) the original land purchase mortgage and the HELOC.
So still remaining are the big construction loan ($438,000) and the extra $100,000 loan. But payments have no doubt been made through the years. The big one was a 30-year mortgage and the other one 20 years. Let's say the loans are both at about 6% fixed and no big extra payments have been made, then they might owe a total of about $430,000 by now.
Zillow estimates the value of the home at $450,000, which is not necessarily super-accurate, but would mean that they are not likely underwater, although certainly there isn't much equity.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
I guess I will follow AZL for input .
HAMP refi ?
Many folks were misled to believe that they would have that available when they were under water.
Many people thought their mortgages would be forgiven and redone through HAMP .. but in reality.. only the first mortgages were redone. many folks did second mortgages in those were not forgiven when HAMP kicks in
:moo:
ETA .. Interesting discussion about refinance and HAMP . Should we follow it on this thread or the other one and what is the other link?
HAMP refi ?
Many folks were misled to believe that they would have that available when they were under water.
Many people thought their mortgages would be forgiven and redone through HAMP .. but in reality.. only the first mortgages were redone. many folks did second mortgages in those were not forgiven when HAMP kicks in
:moo:
ETA .. Interesting discussion about refinance and HAMP . Should we follow it on this thread or the other one and what is the other link?
I was in the mortgage business up until the big crash when we all lost our jobs. I know things have changed since then, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines generally pertained to loans that were to be guaranteed by either of the two entities. There were many other loans sold to investors that did not fall into that category. And there were also lenders, mostly banks, who kept the loans they made in their own portfolios. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter where the loans wound up, whether they were FNMA or FHLMC guaranteed or not, all lenders used those same forms. So loans underwritten to different standards may or may not have guidelines that require the IRS transcripts obtained by the Form 4506. There were many different guidelines that each lender determined based on where the loans were going to wind up because the loans were packaged and sold in lots by categories, including risk, owner occupied, etc. The riskier the loan, the less the lender could make.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
are we not talking about the Fannie Mae paperwork from 2015 that was found at the crime scene? Are you talking about 2015?
ETA - I think we are talking about two different things. ...Recent paperwork seen on the desk versus back in 2007.
Could this be HAMP paperwork ?
Yes, I'm referring to the current paperwork found on MS' desk. I'll try to be clearer. Al66pine posted guidelines for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that said lenders have to pull a 4506 on the borrowers to verify their tax returns. My point was that not all loans are underwritten to those guidelines, therefore if they were applying with a lender that didn't require the verification by tax returns, then the Verification of Employment could have said whatever MS wanted it to say, if he made up all the supposed income. And he could also fabricate pay stubs and W2's. So phony income info could have been in the works for a loan for whoever, the Sievers or CWW or anybody who supposedly was employed by Dr. S. Does that make more sense?
On your second question, I don't know what HAMP is. I know what HARP is, the so called "affordable home refinance".
^sbm Once again, by turning to our friends Google & Wiki for info, we learn they are two diff fed programs for diff pop's of homeowners, depending on whether they are current on mortgage payments or delinquent.
HARP* "benefits homeowners whose mortgage payments are current, but who cannot refinance due to dropping home prices."
HAMP** "assists homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure,..."
ETA: IDK if TS & MS would have bn eligible for refinancing w either program. Anyone?
ETA2: Looks like both programs would req. FNMA verification of income form (or equiv) and maybe require lenders to request income info directly from the IRS by form 4506 or 4506-T. JMO.
_________________________________________________________________________
* "The Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) is a federal program of the United States, set up by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in March 2009, to help underwater and near-underwater homeowners refinance their mortgages. Unlike the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which assists homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure, this program benefits homeowners whose mortgage payments are current, but who cannot refinance due to dropping home prices in the wake of the U.S. housing market correction."
"The homeowner must be current on their mortgage payments, with no (30-day) late payments in the last six months and no more than one late payment in the last twelve months." bbm
"The mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Affordable_Refinance_Program
** "....The Home Affordable Modification Program, .... is a federal program of the United States, set up to help eligible home owners with loan modifications on their home mortgage debt... continuing from 2008....
"Under HAMP, mortgage servicers (Mortgage servicer refers to financial institutions which are paid a fee to service a loan for an investor. example: Joes bank and trust 'services' loans for Fannie Mae and in return receives payment for the service being provided) are provided with guidelines to which they must adhere. Financial institutions follow the guideline set by the Federal Government (the U.S. Treasury), to modify homeowners' mortgage loans in a particular and uniform fashion and receive incentive payments in return.[SUP][11]"[/SUP]
"All borrowers must fully document income, including signed IRS 4506-T, proof of income (i.e. paystubs or tax returns), and must sign an affidavit of financial hardship."
"....Modifications can start from now until December 31, 2016."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Affordable_Modification_Program
Thanks for looking that up. I feel so lazy now! And yes, if they were trying to get a modification or a refi under those programs, they would definitely have to have the tax returns to qualify.
My original thought was that since we cannot see whose income the form was intending to verify, there was a good chance that that person would be someone other than the Sievers, like CWW, and in that case there *might* be some kind of fraud involved. Because the VOE is not something MS would fill out on himself, nor on TS as they would be considered self employed, even if they paid themselves a salary, and no VOE would be sent to them to verify their own selves.
Thanks for your input above and in an earlier post. Helpful to get opn from someone w experience in the biz.
Yes, exactly: we don't know whose employment & income was being verified on the FNMA form.
Room for shenanigans in some situations.
BTW, yrs ago, well, actually a few decades, I was an 'ear-witness' to a verification of Mr X's employment & income - done by telephone. Mr X had coached one of his employees/direct-reports on salary $ & bonus $ info to tell lender and to identify himself as Mr X's manager and to use Mr X's actual manager's name & title.
SurfieTX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 12,161
- Reaction score
- 190
Since the IRS put a lien against the home for unpaid taxes, I guess the FM/FM loan was out of the question. Hence, the need for the latter with the VOE.
It seems to me that TS was really moving forward with opening a new office. She apparently told SH she had to find another job, had the flyers for the new office space and had discussed with Dr. P about getting out of her lease. She and LS had even named it. I think she had NO CLUE that was going to be virtually impossible given their financial situation. I get the feeling MS was scrambling trying to keep the house of cards from tumbling down and before it did, which was inevitable, he thought of this horrific plan instead.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 132
- Guests online
- 577
- Total visitors
- 709