Complaint Review: HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL KEN COLLIS JR. RAPID FUND - Lancaster California

AVENUE S Mortgage Document Auditing

Z E R O F R A U D T O L E R A N C E

October 14, 2006

Re: Dispute of Rosario Hernandez vs. Ken Collis

Dear Attorney ____________,

My name is Robert Tapia, a consumer advocate specializing in Mortgage Fraud and Predatory Lending. Our goal is to turn homeowners into educated borrowers to enable them to make informed decisions in their mortgage loans.

Purpose of Current Refinancing of Rosario Hernandez

Rosario's mother, a 79 year old woman who was awaiting funds for much needed palliative eye care relied solely on her daughter for support. Rosario had no other recourse but to draw it out of her equity. She contacted her broker who then promised her the following:

A lower monthly payment with total cash out amount of $50,000 coupled to a very low ?fixed? rate of 6.00% for 30 years.

Loan Details

$243,950 Initial Transfer Value

$265,000 Final Transfer Value

$ 1,400 Total Cash to Borrower

$19,650 Total Points and fees *

* does not include YSP

Ms. Rosario Hernandez stated that the final forms were not identical in information entered compared to that of the original she completed, signed and dated weeks ago.

After going through Rosario's Mortgage documents and supporting paperwork we found questionable data entered in origination, questionable underwriting guidelines, questionable costs incurred to extend such credit and questionable Fiduciary Duty obligated to the Hernandez's.

Course of Action

Lending practices questionable in relation to the FTC ACT- Federal Trade Commission Act, CRA ACT- Community Reinvestment Act, ECOEA- Equal Credit Opportunity Act, HOEPA- Homeownership and Equity Protection Act/ Regulation Z Section 32, TILA- Truth in Lending Act and possibly RESPA- Real Estate Settlements Procedure Act.

Rosario Hernandez would like to bring action to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission, restitution, reformation, disgorgement, and other equitable relief against her broker and/or present assignee for engaging in acts or practices in violation of the above aforementioned.

Red Flags:

A- 2 HOEPA disclosures missing.

B- Material misrepresentations in Final 1003.

As an employee making:

$1,400 a month , Rosario Hernandez entered into her application form, duly

supported by pay stubs and w-2's. Signed and dated.

Unbeknownst to Rosario on loan signing that the:

Final 1003 exhibited her qualifications to have :

$5,500 monthly salary And represented her as the owner of the business she worked

in.

CONSEQUENTLY

B- Material misrepresentations in Underwriting Documentation show the following:

$ 5,500 monthly salary of Rosario represented to fit the 85% Loan to Value Ratio and 33% Housing Ratio which was then the calculated basis of approval of a New

Loan amount of $265,000 and pay a total of $ 19,650 in points and fees to ultimately receive a Net cash out of $1,400 and subject to a loan that permits negative amortization. Furthermore even with their given criteria, the impossibility for her to afford full amortization was either unforeseen, neglected or omitted.

What transpired after the loan was signed, to the broker was simple:

He cashed in, again.

To Rosario, this is what happened:

Her mother went back home to Mexico deprived of the benefit of proper eye care and now subjected to a loan where she could barely afford the teaser rate as a

result of being trusting, financially unsophisticated, reliance on her broker's integrity, expertise in his field of profession, empathic promises, and great sense of character. It's bad enough that their family is threatened by divorce from the pressure caused by financial loses but worse to have a mother that might go blind not because of their financial inability to cover medical expenses but because of how someone blantantly

took what was intended for someone priceless to Rosario that everyone has. Mom.

She began questioning her broker, instead he offered her another solution.

The solution her broker offered her instead was ?another loan? of which she was promised a cash out of $50,000 as long she signs the highlighted fields on a set of documents that did not initially present the following: rate and terms, dates, property information or anything that resembles a signature from its originator. All the forms came from the Title Company already pre-made.

This time it looked very suspicious to Rosario. She did not sign. Then from a random flier we give out everywhere she found us and came forth. We took her in with open arms. avenues dotlendinghandatgmaildot

comTherefore, in closing, how this equates in damages to the Hernandez's solely depends on a decision from a Jury of her peers. What do you think?

Ma'am, I purposely left the fields blank and included copies of her loan documents for

your review and possibly to fill in those blanks. I have never received any compensatory

benefits or neither have I billed her for one at this point so I suggest you spend 5 minutes

of your time for the amount of money she paid you to authenticate her claim.

Sincerely,

Robert Tapia

Consumer Advocate

Rosario Hernandez victim

Signed on this __th day of October, 2006

I left the fields blank for the Attorney that charged for not doing anything.

So much for that, till the next. Fraud report.

Robert

Palmdale, California
U.S.A.