Loan Officer Gets 41 Months, Must Pay $1.9 Million in Reverse Mortgage Scheme

A loan officer was sentenced this week to 41 months in prison and was ordered to pay nearly $2 million in restitution for his part in a reverse mortgage scheme that bilked Genworth Financial Home Equity Access, the Federal Housing Administration and senior borrowers. John Incandela of Palm Beach, Florida, pled guilty in August in the $2.5 million scheme, along with two other defendants including another loan officer and title agent.

Incandela and co-defendant Marcos Echevarria, also of Palm Beach, Florida, solicited seniors to refinance their mortgages into reverse mortgages. Through wire fraud and false documentation, the defendants altered home appraisals to fraudulently inflate the borrowers’ home values, then submitted those appraisals to Genworth Financial Home Equity Access. Based on the false documentation, Genworth approved and the Federal Housing Administration insured more than $2.5 in fraudulent reverse mortgage loans.

The sentencing includes 41 months in prison, three years of supervised release and $1.9 million in restitution owed by Incandela, according to the Department of Justice.


A third defendant, Kimberly Mackey, 47, formerly a licensed title agent, was sentenced in November to five years in prison. Echevarria received a prison sentence of two years at that time. Louis Gendason, a final defendant, is scheduled to be sentenced on January 20.

Written by Elizabeth Ecker

Join the Conversation (3)

see all

This is a professional community. Please use discretion when posting a comment.

      • TexasReverse,

        It is odd that this is the second time today I find myself defending what Raymond Denton writes.  Modification versus alteration has nothing to do with who does the action but more to do with the extent to which the object has been changed.  A car dealership can modify the look of a factory built car or it can alter its look. 

        Underlying the crime there is also a definite problem with underwriting and controls at the lender.  This has more to do with the perpetrators taking advantage of procedural weakness and incompetence than the brilliance of the perpetrators; however, that does not excuse what the perpetrators did in any way.

        This case shows that lenders must obtain DIRECT confirmation with appraisers regarding value.  This fraud should have been far more limited.  The repetition shows the weakness of controls at the lender.  We all accept some failure in procedural controls but this was more like a gapping crack in the face of a dam which is inspected carefully twice daily but the crack was not discovered for more than five days after it became gapping.  Yes, the face should have held together better BUT there was also something very wrong with the inspection procedures.

string(120) ""

Share your opinion