AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE ripoff, PREDATORY LENDING, FALSE INFORMATION RANCHO CORDOVA California

The letter that was needed at the closing is a "stated letter" requirment for your specific loan. It usually isn't far off fromt he real numbers but this is the only way the loan is process inhouse. I've worked for Ameriquest for 3 years, the last being in Nov 2003. After much tolerance, I was asked to leave because of performance. In reality my performance was impeccable, the only problem was I didn't not want to lure people who really wouln't benefit from a refi. That is one thing they wanted me to push regardless if it helped the customer or not. I learned many things being there, I had other reps making $100k a year easily, while the managers made $30k-$50k A MONTH, yep A MONTH, you can not believe the amount that was paid out to management.

Anywho, I use to work in the Lincoln office and had many occurences with improper procedures, some even led to the dismissal of manager. I was even asked to forged documents if need be, but never went thru with it until I menetioned it to my Area Manager. The place is/was a mess. Now I'm a broker, and help people with a broader range in product, you can't sell 7.5% to A+++ credit, it just doesn't work, but they pushed and pushed until i vented at a office meeting, after I opened my mouth, the WHOLE office was quiet, I was fired the following day. Good thing cuz I collected for 6 months at a decent rate. I hope they go down for the cutting and pasting too,

Now that Ameriquest is under the legal and public scrutiny it deserves, they are changing names to AMC Mortgage Service on April 1st...so if you think AMC is going to be any nicer....read the other comments in this site and shudder. I've attached a story I found online (can't name the source due to this site's policy) and it shows the legal trouble they are really in. Happy Reading:

Ameriquest Mortgage Co. is in discussions with regulators and attorneys general in 25 states that could lead to changes in its retail lending practices or customer refunds, and it separately has settled the largest class action against it for as much as $50 million.

The talks with state officials have been going on for about a year, said a spokesman for the fast-growing Orange, Calif., subprime lender. The states' concerns include the company's stated-income loans, the accuracy of its appraisals, and verbal statements made to borrowers, according to an Ameriquest bond prospectus.

"We are working to resolve the issues under discussion with these agencies," the spokesman said last week.

For several years, at least in the eyes of federal regulators and industry observers, Ameriquest has been considered a model for the industry. It was the first nonprime mortgage servicer to introduce best practices guidelines, in September 2003, and its executives have testified before Congress on the subject.

In an interview last week, Mike Guy, an assistant attorney general in Louisiana, said his state joined the talks in January. He said Prentiss Cox, an assistant attorney general in Minnesota, is leading the effort.

Mr. Cox would not discuss the situation, saying only that "any investigations we do are not public," and that "we don't have a public action" pending against Ameriquest.

Mr. Guy said the discussions are still in the "preliminary" stages and that no litigation against the company is in order. The consumer complaints from Louisiana he is seeking to address do not reach the "dozens," he said, and they involve loans made within the last year or so.

So far Ameriquest has been "very receptive," Mr. Guy said. "They want to maintain an image and don't want to be in trouble. If something is reasonable, they are willing to talk and see what they can do about it."

He said a very critical article about Ameriquest that appeared in the Los Angeles Times two days before the Super Bowl (during which the company advertised heavily) seemed to heighten the regulators' concerns.

"Any time you have an article written in regards to the company, you'll take a second look to look a little harder," he said.

According to the Feb. 15 bond prospectus, the states are also concerned about Ameriquest's retail lending policies for homes on Native American reservations and about the appropriateness of discount points it was charging until February 2003.

The court case, Bryan v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., was certified as a class action in 2001 and is presided over by the Superior Court of San Mateo County, Calif.

In the settlement agreement approved March 4, the company admitted no wrongdoing but guaranteed to pay borrowers a minimum of $15 million, plus attorneys' fees. The payout is capped at $50 million.

The roughly 62,000-member class includes residents of California, Alaska, Texas, and Alabama. Ameriquest has also vowed to maintain the best practices it adopted in 2003 and 2004, when the case was pending.

It will make refunds for allegedly failing to disclose prepayment penalties and monthly payments for property taxes and insurance. Ameriquest will also compensate borrowers for material increases in annual percentage rates which allegedly took place between the company's final disclosures to borrowers and their closings.

"We are satisfied that the terms of the settlement are fair," the spokesman said. He noted that it "pertains to some issues that are nearly ten years old and, since that time, [Ameriquest] has instituted lending best practices."

These include, among many other things, "giving customers the right to have seven days to review and rescind their loans without cost, and pricing systems that prevent arbitrary rate increases." The company also makes sure, its spokesman said, that "each customer is fully apprised of all their loan terms prior to the initiation of the loan."

The settlement is dwarfed by those made in 2002 by Ameriquest's competitors Household International Inc. (now HSBC Finance Corp.) and Citigroup Inc. for about $484 million and $215 million, respectively.

Meanwhile, Ameriquest faces action by the Connecticut Department of Banking, which has threatened to refuse to renew its state lending license and to impose civil penalties.

On Jan. 10, the department sent Ameriquest a notice of intent and right to hearing. The agency intends to require the lender to stop collecting finance charges over 5% of the loan amount when it refinances its own borrowers within two years of their initial loans.

In the bond prospectus, the company said that the Connecticut loans involved "are not voidable and rescindable." It has requested a hearing with the agency and thinks it can "address the department's concerns."

The Ameriquest spokesman said, "While we are disappointed with the Connecticut Department of Banking's decision, we are confident we will reach an agreement that addresses the regulator's concerns and permits Ameriquest to service its customers in Connecticut."

Just like Joe found an article, here is another one that appeared in a mortgage magazine I receive.

Ameriquest in Talks With 25 States
Ameriquest Mortgage, Orange, Calif., the nation's largest subprime funder, says it is negotiating with 25 states regarding concerns over some of its retail lending practices. In a mid-February bond filing, the company mentioned that the talks are between the lender and "regulatory agencies and/or attorney generals" in 25 states.

The company says the states are concerned about these issues: the "appropriateness" of discount points charged prior to February 2003; the accuracy of appraisal valuations; stated-income loans; "oral" statements made to borrowers regarding loan terms; and its policies on funding Native American reservation properties.

American Banker, an affiliate of National Mortgage News, published a story about the talks in its March 14 issue. A spokesman for the privately held lender said it cannot comment on specific regulatory matters but stressed that the company is "working to resolve the issues under discussion." He said Ameriquest is "committed to providing customers with the credit they deserve to achieve their financial goals." A source close to the company said Ameriquest first disclosed in January that it was having talks with various states. He added that the company continues to successfully tap the securitization market.

CT has denied licensing to Ameriquest as of 02/24/2005.

I hope to see more of these refusals to license in other states SOON.

In fact, this might be a good thing to forward to the regulatory agencies in your own state...just a lil' FYI for them ;-) Or even use it in a lawsuit, if appropriate.

State of Connecticut
Department of Banking

January 24, 2005

FIRST CLASS AND REGISTERED MAIL

Ms. Diane E. Tiberend, Assistant Secretary
Ameriquest Mortgage Company
1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 450
Orange, CA 92868

Re: Denial of First Mortgage Lender/Broker and Secondary Mortgage Lender/Broker Licenses

Dear Ms. Tiberend:

On December 21, 2004, Ameriquest Mortgage Company ("Applicant") filed applications for first mortgage lender/broker and secondary mortgage lender/broker licenses with the Consumer Credit Division ("Division") of this department for 3800 American Boulevard West, #800, Bloomington, Minnesota ("Applications"). Applicant is currently a licensee under Section 36a-489, as amended by Public Act 04 69, of Part I(A) of Chapter 668 of the Connecticut General Statutes, "Nondepository First Mortgage Lenders, Brokers and Originators", and Section 36a-513 of Part I(B) of Chapter 668 of the Connecticut General Statutes, "Secondary Mortgage Lenders, Brokers and Originators". Pursuant to Sections 36a-489(a), as amended, and 36a-513(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes, I hereby deny the Applications for the reasons set forth below.

Section 36a-489(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, provides, in pertinent part that:

If the commissioner finds, upon the filing of an application for a [first mortgage] license, that . . . the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of the applicant . . . and of the officers, directors and principal employees if the applicant is a corporation, are such as to warrant belief that the business will be operated soundly and efficiently, in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of sections 36a-485 to 36a-498a, inclusive, the commissioner may thereupon issue the applicant the license. If the commissioner fails to make such findings . . . the commissioner shall not issue a license, and shall notify the applicant of the denial and the reasons for such denial.

Section 36a-513(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides, in pertinent part, that:

If the commissioner finds, upon the filing of an application for a [secondary mortgage] license, that . . . the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of the applicant . . . and of the officers, directors and principal employees if the applicant is a corporation, are such as to warrant belief that the business will be operated soundly and efficiently, in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of sections 36a 510 to 36a-524, inclusive, the commissioner may thereupon issue the applicant the license. If the commissioner fails to make such findings . . . the commissioner shall not issue a license, and shall notify the applicant of the denial and the reasons for such denial.

Pursuant to authority granted me by Section 36a-17 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have, through the Division, investigated the activities of the Applicant to determine whether I can make the findings required by Sections 36a-489(a), as amended, and 36a-513(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. As a result of such investigation, I have reason to believe that during the period from August 1, 2003 to August 1, 2004, the Applicant, in violation of Section 36a 498a of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended by Public Act 04-69, imposed prepaid finance charges in connection with the refinancing of at least 53 first mortgage loans that the Applicant or an affiliate of the Applicant had previously made to Connecticut consumers, which prepaid finance charges, when aggregated with the prepaid finance charges imposed by the Applicant or its affiliate for such previous financings, exceeded the greater of five percent of the principal amount of the initial loan or $2,000.

Moreover, on January 22, 2004, the Applicant entered into a Settlement Agreement with this department imposing sanctions, including a civil penalty, for repeated violations of Section 36a-498a of the Connecticut General Statutes, for loans that occurred prior to August 1, 2003.

Based on the facts mentioned above, I am unable to find that the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of the Applicant and of its officers, directors and principal employees are such as to warrant belief that the Applicant's business will be operated soundly and efficiently, in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of Sections 36a-485 to 36a-498a, inclusive, and Sections 36a-510 to 36a 524, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes.

Very truly yours,

John P. Burke
Banking Commissioner

JPB/DK/ag

Registered Mail No. RB027864067US

SOURCE
http://www.state.ct.us/dob/orders/amerq3.htm