Print

[ira01]

PMI will buy it back "now" if they lose because it's public info & we will be watching.

But for every thing we find,i suspect PMI hides 100 more things from us successfully.

+1.

[snake]

From what we've seen posted here so far, re identity theft, we have the husband claiming the wife done him wrong, but we don't see the evidence, if any, and the court hasn't ruled yet.  Prosper claims that they put the money in his account, and that he lost the evidence.

I wouldn't expect Prosper to buy the loan back yet- with only allegations of ID theft.  ALong with others, I do have serious questions about their "we're only the agents" claims.

Prosper admitted it was a joint account between the husband and wife, so the fact that Prosper deposited the money there has no bearing on whether he was the actual Prosper borrower (as opposed to his wife, using his identity).  Prosper did deny his allegations that he had no contact with anyone from Prosper.  I wonder if they have any evidence to support this.  It would certainly be pretty bold (and stupid) for the husband to have alleged that if it were not true.  I wouldn't be surprised if all Prosper can come up with is something like "it is our business practice to always contact borrowers of $25K by phone, and so we must have spoken with hubby this time pursuant to that practice."  I guess we'll find out eventually.

perhaps this is why they require signatures now

[big-al]

From what we've seen posted here so far, re identity theft, we have the husband claiming the wife done him wrong, but we don't see the evidence, if any, and the court hasn't ruled yet.  Prosper claims that they put the money in his account, and that he lost the evidence.

I wouldn't expect Prosper to buy the loan back yet- with only allegations of ID theft.  ALong with others, I do have serious questions about their "we're only the agents" claims.

Prosper admitted it was a joint account between the husband and wife, so the fact that Prosper deposited the money there has no bearing on whether he was the actual Prosper borrower (as opposed to his wife, using his identity).  Prosper did deny his allegations that he had no contact with anyone from Prosper.  I wonder if they have any evidence to support this.  It would certainly be pretty bold (and stupid) for the husband to have alleged that if it were not true.  I wouldn't be surprised if all Prosper can come up with is something like "it is our business practice to always contact borrowers of $25K by phone, and so we must have spoken with hubby this time pursuant to that practice."  I guess we'll find out eventually.

perhaps this is why they require signatures now

I believe the signature they require is merely a digital signature - the borrower merely has to return to the site and formally accept the loan.  I don't think it would have changed anything here, because the wife had full control of the husband's account.

[xraider]

Answer is attached.  I posted the only thing I found remotely interesting.  Ira, maybe you'll have another take?

Thanks, xraider.  Nope, that was a bunch of nothing besides the part you previously posted.  Prosper filed its Answer on May 30, and presumably they were served a couple weeks before that, so Prosper has known about this for at least about two months.  Xraider, I noticed this Answer was to the Amended Complaint -- did Prosper file an Answer to the original Complaint (or did the Plaintiff file a POS showing that (and when) Prosper was served with the original Complaint)?  That would probably push the time Prosper knew about this back several more months. 

Ira, the first document I posted was the initial complaint.  I then went back and looked at the whole docket and went, "Oops!"

Once I get to work and have a chance, I'll post the wife's response.

[bamalucky]

Wouldn't my idea of requiring  a notary solve problems such as this?

[112233]

Wouldn't my idea of requiring  a notary solve problems such as this?

you mean like what other loan companies do in the industry when they can't meet the client face-to-face?

[beerbud1]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

[cubbiesnextyr]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

Does it qualify?  Right now, isn't it simply alleged ID theft?

[xraider]

Since when has Prosper required an adjudication of identity theft before repurchasing a fraudulent loan?

I'd say that someone making these statements in federal court carries a lot of weight.....

[yankeefan]

Are the Plaintiff's statements to the Court more likely to be true than Prosper's (we're just the agent) statements?  Just sayin'...

[xraider]

For reasons I don't understand, I can't get the wife's 5-page motion to dismiss to be under 128 kb.

Any suggestions?

Here's the husband's 6-page opposition to the wife's motion, however. 

[112233]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

Does it qualify?  Right now, isn't it simply alleged ID theft?

that is true. do we know of any standards that prosper applies to determine if a loan qualifies for repurchase? maybe we can look at other repurchased loans as a comparison.

also, when a borrower notifies Prosper that their loan was acquired fraudently, what does Prosper do on it's own to determine whether the claim is valid?  some possibilities in my mind: 1) do nothing and wait for a court decision that clears the borrower 2) launch the verification process again and revalidate each item in the borrower's application 3) send the case to their fraud unit so they can dig deeper into the borrowers background in order to make a dertmination.

What would a bank do for example if I called them up and told them a loan was taken out in my name fraudulently? Certainly they arent going to wait around for a court to decide the matter, no?

[xraider]

All I can say is that 2 creditors have already settled with the husband.

[cowdog]

What would a bank do for example if I called them up and told them a loan was taken out in my name fraudulently? Certainly they arent going to wait around for a court to decide the matter, no?

If it went into a joint account then both account holders are both individually and separately liable for it, and the issue of fraud is another matter which would need to be proven separately. A bank is probably hesitant to make a deposit to a joint account in the first place, I remember literally decades ago (probably 1981) a bank refused to deposit a signature loan I had taken into a joint account I held, it had to go into a single title account.

[ira01]

What would a bank do for example if I called them up and told them a loan was taken out in my name fraudulently? Certainly they arent going to wait around for a court to decide the matter, no?

If it went into a joint account then both account holders are both individually and separately liable for it, and the issue of fraud is another matter which would need to be proven separately.

This isn't true.  Under Federal law, spouses have the right to obtain credit individually in their own name, and the fact that the proceeds were deposited into a joint account does not make the other spouse liable on the debt.  If the husband's allegations in this case are true, he is absolutely not liable for the debt, which is why he is suing all of the creditors for a declaratory judgment that he is not liable and that the creditors cannot report the debt as his to the CRA's.  And if those allegations are true, then this loan was procured through ID-theft, making Prosper liable to all the lenders to repurchase the loan for the full principal amount pursuant to the LRA.