Issue Date
April 30, 1998
Audit Case Number
98-NY-221-1003
TO: Art Agnos, Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, and Chairman, Mortgagee Review Board
FROM: Alexander C. Malloy, District Inspector General For Audit
New York/New Jersey
SUBJECT: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Buffalo Branch Office
Non-Supervised Mortgagee
Buffalo, New York
We completed an audit of the books and records of the Buffalo Branch Office of Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., a non-supervised mortgagee. The objective of the audit was to determine whether
Countrywide originated loans in accordance with regulations and requirements of the U.S.
Department Housing and Urban Development/Federal Housing Administration (HUD/FHA), which
require adherence to prudent lending practices. The review covered the period between July 1, 1995,
and June 30, 1997, and consisted of a review of 20 HUD/FHA loans.
Our review concluded that for six of the 20 loans we reviewed, Countrywide did not adhere to
prudent lending practices when it underwrote the loans. Specifically, we found processing
deficiencies that resulted from insufficient assets to close loans, discrepancies in the amount of earnest
money on deposit, and income ratios that exceeded HUD/FHA standards. We believe these
deficiencies occurred because Countrywide personnel did not assure that those loans were processed
in accordance with HUD/FHA requirements. As a result, mortgages were approved for unqualified
mortgagors causing HUD/FHA to assume unnecessary insurance risk.
If you or your staff have questions, please contact William H. Rooney, Assistant District Inspector
General for Audit, on (212) 264-8000, extension 3976.
Executive Summary
We completed an audit of the books and records of the Buffalo Branch office of Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., a non-supervised mortgagee. The objective of the audit was to determine whether
Countrywide originated loans in accordance with regulations and requirements of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development/Federal Housing Administration (HUD/FHA),
which require adherence to prudent lending practices. The review covered the period between July
1, 1995, and June 30, 1997, and consisted of a review of 20 HUD/FHA insured loans. A summary
of the results of our review is provided below:
Our review concluded that for six of the 20 loans we
Four loans in default
reviewed, Countrywide did not adhere to prudent lending
practices during the underwriting process. Our review
disclosed that each of the six loans had at least one significant
deficiency and that four were in default. Specifically, we
found processing deficiencies that resulted from insufficient
assets to close loans, discrepancies in the amount of earnest
money on deposit, and income ratios that exceeded
HUD/FHA standards. We believe these deficiencies occurred
because Countrywide personnel did not assure that those loans
were processed in accordance to HUD/FHA requirements.
Consequently, mortgages were approved for unqualified
mortgagors causing HUD/FHA to assume unnecessary
insurance risk.
We recommend that the Mortgagee Review Board take
appropriate administrative action against Countrywide and
indemnify HUD/FHA for any future losses on the six loans in
question.
The results of the audit were discussed with representatives of
Exit conference
Countrywide during the course of the audit and at an exit
conference held on February 4, 1998, attended by:
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Sherri Young, Regional Vice President
Leslie Eberhard, Branch Manager
Buffalo Area Office-HUD
Glenn Ruggles, Director Single Family Housing
Page iii 98-NY-221-1003
Executive Summary
Lambross Touris, Housing Specialist
Joseph Hobot, Housing Specialist
Mark Surdi, Production/Real Estate Owned Branch
Office of the Inspector General
William H. Rooney, Assistant District Inspector General
For Audit
Garry Clugston, Senior Auditor
Nancy Condren, Auditor
Countrywide representatives told us that their written
comments would be forwarded to us shortly after the exit
conference. On March 12, 1998, we received their written
comments. Countrywide acknowledged the lack of
documentation to close the HUD/FHA insured loans. We
included their written comments as Appendix C to this report.
98-NY-221-1003 Page iv
Table of Contents
Management Memorandum i
Executive Summary iii
Introduction 1
Finding
Inadequate Loan Origination Practices Resulted
in Approval of HUD/FHA Insured Loans for
Unqualified Mortgagors 3
Internal Controls 5
Follow Up On Prior Audits 7
A Summary of Loan Origination Deficiencies 9
B Narrative Case Presentations 10
C Auditee's Comments 20
D Distribution 22
Abbreviations
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
FHA Federal Housing Administration
Page v 98-NY-221-1003
Introduction
Countrywide Home Loans Inc.(Countrywide) is a non-supervised mortgagee with its headquarters
located in Pasadena, California. Countrywide originates loans nationwide with branches in nearly
every state. The Buffalo Branch Office underwrites loans for the Buffalo and Western New York
area and is located at 3061 Sheridan Drive, No. 5, Amherst, New York.
During our audit period, which covered the period between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1997,
Countrywide’s Buffalo Branch Office originated 283 FHA insured loans under the Direct
Endorsement Program. As of July 23, 1997, the mortgages for 19 of the 283 loans were in default.
Countrywide originates and services FHA insured loans, Veterans Administration insured loans, and
conventional loans. Also, Countrywide services loans that are sold on the secondary market, e.g.,
Government National Mortgage Association pools.
Our audit objective was to determine whether Countrywide
Audit objective
originated HUD/FHA insured loans in accordance with
HUD/FHA requirements, which require adherence to prudent
lending practices.
To accomplish our objective, we performed a detailed
examination of 20 loans. We reviewed the files of 13 loans
whose mortgages went into default within one year after
origination. The remaining 7 loans were judgmentally
selected.
Our detailed examinations were intended to confirm the
Audit, Scope and
accuracy of all material information used as a basis for
Methodology
originating and closing the loans. Thus, we reconfirmed the
mortgagors’ income, assets and employment, and interviewed
mortgagors. Also, we reconfirmed the amounts that were held
in depositories, or by closing agents, employees and others
who were involved in the loan origination and closing process.
For criteria, we used two changes to HUD Handbooks
“Mortgage Credit Analysis for Mortgage Insurance on One-
to-Four Family Properties”: Handbook No. 4155.1 REV-4
and 4155.1 REV-4, CHG-1. The criteria that we used
depended upon the date of the mortgagor’s sales contract.
Our audit pertained to loans originated between July 1, 1995,
and June 30,1997. The audit work was performed at
Countrywide’s Buffalo Branch Office. We performed the
Page 1 98-NY-221-1003
Introduction
audit field work from July 1997 through January 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
A copy of this report was provided to Countrywide.
98-NY-221-1003 Page 2
Finding
Inadequate Loan Origination Practices Resulted
in Approval of HUD/FHA Insured Loans for
Unqualified Mortgagors
Our review disclosed that Countrywide did not adhere to prudent lending practices when processing
six of the 20 loans that we examined during our audit. The deficiencies occurred because
Countrywide personnel did not assure that the loans were processed in accordance with HUD/FHA
requirements. As a result, mortgages were approved for unqualified mortgagors causing HUD/FHA
to assume unnecessary insurance risk.
Section 5-1 of HUD Handbook 4000.2 REV-1, Mortgagee's Handbook Application Through
Insurance requires mortgagees to develop HUD/FHA insured loans in accordance with accepted
practices of prudent lending institutions. Also, HUD Handbook 4000.4 REV-1, Chapter 2, Section
2-5, provides that the mortgagee must obtain and verify information with at least the same care that
would be exercised in originating the loan in which the mortgagee would be entirely dependent on
the property as security to protect its investment.
In our opinion, the mortgagee did not adhere to the above requirements, as discussed below, when
it underwrote six of the 20 loans we reviewed.
Our examination of 20 loans originated by Countrywide
Examined 20 loans
between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1997, disclosed that in six
cases Countrywide either did not follow HUD requirements or
did not exercise the care expected of a prudent lender in
underwriting the loans. Consequently, we found significant
origination deficiencies in six cases, as shown below:
Deficiency No. of Loans
Insufficient Assets to Close 3 of the 6 loans
Earnest Money Deposit Discrepancy 4 of the 6 loans
Ratios Exceeded HUD/FHA Standards 5 of the 6 loans
Additionally, the mortgages of four of the six cases were in
default as of October 1, 1997, (See Appendix A).
Page 3 98-NY-221-1003
Finding
Appendix A to this report provides a summary of the loan
origination deficiencies noted during our review, while
Appendix B-1 through B-6 provide an individual description
of the origination deficiencies for each of the six loans that
Countrywide did not adhere to prudent lending practices. In
our opinion, the deficiencies resulted in the approval of
mortgages for unqualified mortgagors, which has caused
HUD/FHA to assume unnecessary risk.
In addition to the above, we noticed that Countrywide was not
Countrywide did not
complying with HUD/FHA's requirements regarding the
comply with prepayment
prepayment of items by the mortgagee and sellers.
requirements
Specifically, Handbook 4155.1 REV 4, CHG 1 allows the
mortgagee and the seller to prepay certain items on behalf of
the mortgagor prior to closing. For example, the mortgagee
and seller may prepay mortgage insurance, taxes and interim
interest on behalf of the mortgagor; however, these items must
be identified on the Good Faith Estimate and the HUD-1,
Settlement Statement.
Our review disclosed 11 instances where just an amount was
recorded on the Good Faith Estate and the HUD-1 Settlement
Statement, without identifying the items that were prepaid. As
a result, the mortgagors may not have had a full and clear
understanding of the closing costs. We believe this deficiency
occurred because Countrywide's personnel may not have
adequately reviewed closing documents or were not
adequately familiar with HUD requirements concerning the
prepayment of items.
Recommendations We recommend that the Mortgagee Review Board require
Countrywide to:
1A. Indemnify HUD/FHA against future losses on the six
loans in question (FHA Case Nos. 372-2537173, 372-
2515409, 372-2572435, 372-2525724, 372-249-8901
and 372-265-7293).
1B. Assure that all HUD/FHA guidelines regarding
origination including requirements on prepayments of
items are followed.
98-NY-221-1003 Page 4
Internal Controls
In planning and performing our audit, we considered internal controls of Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., in order to determine our auditing procedures and not to provide assurance on internal controls.
Internal controls consist of a plan of organization and methods and procedures adopted by
management to ensure that resource use is consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that
resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data is obtained,
maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports.
We determined that the internal controls relative to our audit
Internal controls assessed
objective were:
• Procedures for taking mortgage loan applications for
applicants seeking HUD/FHA insured loans.
• Procedures for verifying information included in
applications for HUD/FHA insured loans.
• Procedures for conducting underwriter reviews of loans
proposed for HUD/FHA mortgage insurance.
It is a significant weakness if internal controls do not give
Assessment results
reasonable assurance that resource use is consistent with laws,
regulations, and policies; that resources are safeguarded
against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data are
obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. As
illustrated by the finding, Countrywide needs to strengthen
internal controls in the three areas mentioned above.
Page 5 98-NY-221-1003
Follow Up On Prior Audits
Grant Thornton, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, audited Countrywide for the year ended
February 28, 1997. The accounting firm's audit report on Countrywide did not contain any findings
related to the Buffalo Branch Office.
Page 7 98-NY-221-1003
APPENDIX A
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.
Buffalo, New York
SUMMARY OF LOAN ORIGINATION DEFICIENCIES
Earnest Ratios
Insufficient money exceeded
HUD/FHA Mortgage Settlement Assets to deposit HUD/FHA Appendix
Case Number Amount Date close discrepancy standards Loan status as of 10/1/97 Reference
372-2537173 $45,335 12/29/95 X X X In Default B-1
372-2498901 $35,238 7/20/95 X X Loan is current. B-2
372-2515409 $34,330 11/30/95 X X X In Default B-3
372-2657293 $43,418 3/7/97 X X Loan is current. B-4
372-2572435 $43,316 3/29/96 X In Default B-5
372-2525724 $77,860 9/29/95 X In Default B-6
Totals $279,497 3 4 5
Appendix B-1
Page 1 of 2
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2537173
Loan Amount: $45,335
Settlement Date: 12/29/95
Status: Last payment 1/97
Summary
Countrywide approved the mortgage without verifying that the mortgagor had sufficient cash
assets to obtain the loan, and without resolving a discrepancy that existed between the amount of
earnest money held by the seller/broker and the amount reported on the HUD-1. Furthermore,
the mortgagor’s 38.9 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income exceeded
HUD/ FHA’s standard of 29 percent. Therefore, HUD/ FHA’s decision to insure the loan was
based on Countrywide’s inaccurate representation that the mortgagor met requirements.
Pertinent Details
A. Insufficient Assets to Close
Countrywide did not verify that the mortgagor had sufficient funds to close the loan as required
by Handbook 4155.1 Rev-4 , Paragraph 2-10. Countrywide verified that the mortgagor’s
daughter donated $710 as a gift to the mortgagor and verified that earnest money of $600 was
held by the seller/broker as a deposit, which resulted in total assets of $1,310. However, the
amount needed to obtain the loan per the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet was $4,193.43.
Also, the worksheet indicated that the mortgagor had zero assets. There was no explanation in the
files indicating where the mortgagor would obtain the assets.
B. Questionable Verification of Earnest Money
In addition to the lack of verification of sufficient assets to close the loan, there was a
discrepancy in the amount of earnest money on deposit. The seller/ broker provided verification
that $600 in earnest money was being held as a deposit from the mortgagor. However, the
HUD-1, Settlement Statement listed only $500 as the amount of earnest money that was on
deposit.
Appendix B-1
Page 2 of 2
C. Credit Analysis Ratio Exceeded HUD/FHA Standard
Countrywide approved the loan despite the fact that the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet
showed an excessive 38.9 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income .The
HUD/ FHA standard in effect at the time specified a 29 percent limit on the mortgage payment
expense to effective income ratio ( Handbook 4155.1 REV-4 CHG 1, Paragraph 2-12 ). The
compensating factors used by Countrywide to justify using the higher ratio were that $350 per
month rent from a second unit was not used to qualify the mortgagor, there was no outstanding
debt, and the mortgagor was an inner city minority. However , the Mortgage Credit Analysis
Worksheet also indicated that the mortgagor’s monthly housing expenses would increase from
$300 to $508. In our opinion, the compensating factors did not offset the increase in housing
expenses; therefore, we believe Countrywide did not have adequate justification to use the higher
ratio.
Appendix B-2
Page 1 of 2
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2498901
Loan Amount: $35,238
Settlement Date: 7/20/95
Loan Status: Current
Summary:
Countrywide approved the mortgage without resolving a discrepancy between the
amount of earnest money held by the seller/broker and the amount reported on the HUD-
1, Settlement Statement. Also, both the mortgagor’s 42.11 percent ratio of mortgage
payment expense to effective income and 42.11 percent ratio of total fixed payment to
effective income exceeded HUD/FHA’s standards. Therefore, HUD/FHA’s decision to
insure the loan was based on Countrywide’s inaccurate representation that the loan met
requirements.
Pertinent Details
A. Questionable Verification of Earnest Money
Our review of the loan files showed that Countrywide verified that the seller/broker held
$1,400 in earnest money as a deposit from the mortgagor. However, the HUD-1
Settlement Statement listed $100 as earnest money on deposit. In our opinion, the
significant discrepancy between the amount of earnest money on deposit with the
seller/broker and the amount stated on the HUD-1, Settlement Statement should have
raised questions. In addition, our review disclosed that at the mortgage closing a check
for $223.90 in loan proceeds was issued to the mortgagor, but was endorsed over to the
seller/broker. There is no explanation in the files as to why that transaction occurred.
B. Credit Analysis Ratios Exceeded HUD/FHA Standards
Countrywide approved the loan despite the fact that the Mortgage Credit Analysis
Worksheet showed an excessive 42.11 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to
effective income, and an excessive 42.11 percent ratio of total fixed payment to effective
income. HUD/FHA standards in effect at that time (Handbook 4155.1 REV-4 CHG-1)
Appendix B-2
Page 2 of 2
specified a 29 percent limit on the mortgage payment expense to effective income ratio,
and a 41 percent limit on the total fixed payment to effective income ratio. No
compensating factors were provided on the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet to justify
approving the loan with ratios exceeding the standards.
Appendix B-3
Page 1 of 2
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2515409
Loan Amount: $34,330
Settlement Date: 11/30/95
Status: Last payment 6/96
Summary
Countrywide approved the mortgage without verifying that the mortgagor had sufficient cash
assets to obtain the loan. Also, the mortgage was approved with a discrepancy between the
amount of earnest money held by the seller/broker and the amount stated on the HUD-1,
Settlement Statement existed. Furthermore, the mortgagor’s 36.75 percent ratio of mortgage
payment expense to effective income exceeded HUD/FHA’s standard. Therefore, HUD/ FHA’s
decision to insure the loan was based on Countrywide’s inaccurate representation that the
mortgagor met requirements.
Pertinent Details
A. Insufficient Assets to Close
Countrywide did not verify that the mortgagor had sufficient funds to close the loan as required
by Handbook 4155.1 Rev-4 , Paragraph 2-10. Countrywide verified that the mortgagor’s wife
donated $1,100 as a gift to the mortgagor and that earnest money of $380 was held by the
seller/broker for total assets of $1,490. The amount needed at mortgage closing, per the
Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet, was $3,367.82. This worksheet also indicated that the
mortgagor had zero assets. There was no explanation in the files indicating where the mortgagor
would obtain additional assets.
B. Questionable Verification of Earnest Money
In addition to the lack of verification of sufficient asset to close the loan, was a discrepancy in
the amount of earnest money on deposit. The seller/broker provided verification that it was
holding $380 in earnest money from the mortgagor. However, the HUD-1, Settlement Statement
showed only $100 as the amount of earnest money on deposit.
Appendix B-3
Page 2 of 2
C. Credit Analysis Ratio Exceeded HUD/FHA Standard
Countrywide approved the loan despite the fact that the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet
showed an excessive 36.75 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income. The
HUD/ FHA standard in effect at the time specified a 29 percent limit on the mortgage payment
expense to effective income ratio (Handbook 4155.1 REV-4 CHG 1 Paragraph 2-12 ). The
compensating factors used by Countrywide were: “ four years in same line of work and the
mortgagor recently turned full time”. However, we noted that those factors had already been
considered in computing the ratio and did not justify exceeding the HUD/FHA standard. In
addition, the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet showed that the mortgagor’s monthly housing
expenses would increase from $0 to $378. This increase was not included in the mortgage credit
calculations and there was no explanation in the files as to why it was not included.
Appendix B-4
Page 1 of 1
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2657293
Loan Amount: $43,418
Settlement Date: 3/7/97
Loan Status Current
Summary:
Countrywide approved the loan without verifying that the mortgagor had sufficient cash assets to
close the loan, and without resolving a discrepancy between the amount of earnest money held by
the seller/broker and the amount stated on the HUD-1, Settlement Statement. Also, the
mortgagor’s 34.19 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income exceeded
HUD/ FHA’s standard. Therefore, HUD/FHA’s decision to insure the loan was based on
Countrywide’s inaccurate representation that the mortgagor met requirements.
Pertinent Details
A. Questionable Verification of Earnest Money
Our review of the loan files showed that Countrywide received documentation from the
seller/broker indicating that $2,400 was being held in earnest money as a deposit.
However, the HUD-1, Settlement Statement had different numbers. It listed $1,612.50
as earnest money on deposit under the Summary of Mortgagor’s Transactions and
$1,700 as earnest money on deposit under the Summary of Sellers Transactions.
B. Credit Analysis Ratio Exceeded HUD/FHA Standard
Countrywide approved the loan despite the fact that Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet
showed an excessive 34.19 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective
income. The HUD/FHA standard in effect at that time (Handbook 4155.1 REV-4 CHG-1)
specified a 29 percent limit on the mortgage payment expense to effective income ratio.
The compensating factors stated by Countrywide were “child support collection paid in
full at closing”. However, we noted that the mortgagor’s monthly income had already
been adjusted for the change in the child support payment and did not justify exceeding
the HUD/FHA standard.
Appendix B-5
Page 1 of 1
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2572435
Loan Amount: $43,316
Settlement Date: 3/29/96
Loan Status: Last Payment 8/96
Summary
Countrywide approved the loan without verifying that the mortgagor had sufficient cash
assets to close the loan. Therefore, HUD/ FHA’s decision to insure the loan was based on
Countrywide’s inaccurate representation that the mortgagor met all requirements.
Pertinent Details
A. Insufficient Assets to Close
Countrywide did not verify that the mortgagor had sufficient funds to close the loan as required
by Handbook 4155.1 Rev-4 , Paragraph 2-10. Countrywide verified assets totaling $2,502.
However, the amount needed to close the loan per the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet was
$3,817.04. This worksheet also indicted that the mortgagor had only $200 of available assets.
There was no explanation in the files indicating where the mortgagor was going to obtain the
additional assets.
Appendix B-6
Page 1 of 2
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
NARRATIVE CASE PRESENTATION
FHA Case Number: 372-2525724
Loan Amount: $77,860
Settlement Date: 9/29/95
Status: Last payment 5/96
Summary
The mortgagor’s 39.72 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income and the
45.05 percent ratio of total fixed payment to effective income exceeded HUD/ FHA’s
standards.
Pertinent Details
A. Credit Analysis Ratios Exceeded HUD/FHA Standards
Countrywide approved the loan despite the fact that the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet
showed an excessive 39.72 percent ratio of mortgage payment expense to effective income, and
an excessive 45.05 percent ratio of total fixed payment to effective income. HUD/ FHA’s
standards in effect at the time specified a 29 percent limit on the mortgage payment expense to
effective income ratio and a 41 percent limit on the total fixed payment to effective income ratio
( Handbook 4155.1 REV-4 CHG 1 Paragraph 2-12 ). No compensating factors were provided
on the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet. Also, the Mortgage Credit Analysis Worksheet
indicated that the mortgagor’s monthly housing expenses was going to increase from $0 to
$828.64. This increase was not included in the mortgage credit calculations and there was no
explanation in the files as to why it was not included.
Countrywide’s Comments
Although the mortgage credit analysis did not provide any compensating factors, it
appears that the underwriter approved the loan with high ratios due to the mortgagor’s
marital status, additional income, previous home ownership and excellent credit history.
Appendix B-6
Page 2 of 2
OIG’s Evaluation of Countrywide’s Comment
At the time of the purchase the mortgagor was in the process of a divorce; therefore, any
additional income resulting from the marital status ( income from spouse) in our opinion,
should not have been a compensating factor to justify exceeding HUD/FHA’s ratios.
Appendix D
Distribution
Secretary's Representative, New York/New Jersey, 2AS
Director, Single Family Division, 2CHS, Buffalo Area Office (2)
Buffalo Area Coordinator, 2CS (2)
Field Comptroller, Midwest Field Office, 5AF
Office of Comptroller, Mid-Atlantic Field, 3AFI
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and
Management, SDF (Room 7106)
Office of the Housing-FHA Comptroller, HF
(Attention: Comptroller, (Room 5132) (5)
Acquisitions Librarian, Library, AS (Room 8141)
Chief Financial Officer, F (Room 10164) (2)
Deputy Chief Financial Officer, FF, Room 10166 (2)
(Acting) Assistant to Secretary for Labor Relations, SL, Room 7118
Associate General Counsel, Office of Assisted Housing
and Community Development, GC (Room 8162)
Director, Participation & Compliance Division, HSLP, Room 9164
Inspector General, G, Room 8256
Counsel to IG, GC, Room 8260
HUD Webmaster, GC, Room 8260
Public Affairs Officer, G, Room 8256
Assistant Inspector General, GA Room 8286
Countrywide Home Loans, Attention Leslie D. Eberhard, Buffalo, New York
Director, Housing & Community Development Issue Area,
U.S. GAO, 441 G Street, NW, Room 2474
Washington, DC 20548
(Attn: Judy England-Joseph)
Subcommitte on General Oversight & Investigations
O'Neill House Office Building, Room 212
Washington, DC
(Attention: Cindy Sprunger)
Honorable Pete Sessions
Government Reform and Oversight Committee
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4305
Page 22 98-NY-221-1003
Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250
Honorable John Glenn, Ranking Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250
Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20505-6143
Page 23 98-NY-221-1003
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Buffalo, NY
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 1998-04-30.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)