Consumer complaint received 2017-02-07
Company: Ocwen Financial Corporation
State: CA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other mortgage
Issue: Settlement process and costs

Complaint:
Deposition attached evidence of XXXX attorney " XXXX XXXX '' spoon feeding questions to his robo-whitness during my deposition attached. Ocwen is scum of the earth committing fraud against me and all its corrupt signals all over our country. 


Ocwen Robo-Witnesses Have No First-Hand Knowledge Of Homeowner 's Mortgage The law firm representing XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX in a Florida foreclosure action are demanding that the homeowner 's attorney, XXXX XXXX be removed from the case because XXXX accused XXXX Bank of using Ocwen Robo-Witnesses in foreclosure cases. 

XXXX alleges the expert witnesses from Ocwen Financial, who is servicing the loan for XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX, have no first hand knowledge of the homeowners mortgage and are told what to say in court by Ocwen executives. 

Three days later, XXXX allegations of Ocwen Robo-Witnesses being used by XXXX Bank and Ocwen appeared in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Attorneys from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who are representing the former XXXX, are fuming mad about the article that detailed how XXXX Bank 's servicer on the loan, Ocwen provides scripts to its unqualified witnesses to crush homeowner defenses and allegations of improper conduct by financial services sector employees. 

XXXX provided the Daily business Review with XXXX questions and answers prepared by XXXX XXXX, a former XXXX XXXX attorney who represented Ocwen in the case against his clients, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, in 2013, as proof the lender coached " robo-witnesses '' with no first-hand knowledge of mortgage details. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX allege XXXX sought to influence the outcome of the trial by publicly disclosing privileged information inadvertently provided to him. They also accused XXXX of releasing the information in a ploy to discredit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX law firm that handled the litigation in 2013 before XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX took over the case. 

In his XXXX XXXX motion, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attorney XXXX XXXX requested the judge block XXXX and the XXXX from introducing the documents in court and filed a motion to disqualify XXXX Legal from the case. 

The dispute apparently started when XXXX accused XXXX XXXX, a former attorney for Ocwen of improperly spoon-feeding questions and answers to unqualified records custodians testifying in foreclosure cases against Florida homeowners. 

Ice provided the media with XXXX questions and answers prepared by XXXX XXXX, a former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attorney who represented Ocwen in 2013, as proof the lender coached the so-called Ocwen Robo-Witnesses who had no first-hand knowledge of mortgage details. 

The cheat sheet detailing an in-house witness preparation strategy was accidentally emailed to XXXX during a discovery disclosure in 2013 when the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was still involved. 

XXXX told the XXXX XXXX XXXX that he discussed the documents detailing the use of Ocwen Robo-Witnesses with the previous attorneys and later and later with the attorneys from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to ensure the email contained no privileged client information. In his defense, XXXX claims that opposing counsel did n't assert privilege as required by Florida XXXX XXXX XXXX Procedure until after the article was published. 

XXXX told the Daily Business Review, " We 're taking the position that it was n't privileged. The act of trying to disqualify XXXX Legal is pointless. It 's just trying to get even with us for letting the world know what they 're doing. You ca n't protect future fraud on the court by way of attorney-client privilege. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation