Daily Archives: June 11, 2014

How Homeowners Can Effectively Use TILA in their Foreclosure Defense

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Many homeowners often wonder what is TILA and how it applies to them.

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA)   (Subject to Update)

This post is designed to enlighten homeowners about the benefits of TILA in their foreclosure defense.

Some of the things homeowners should be aware of is that, Under TILA, a debtor has a right of rescission as to nonpurchase residential
mortgages that lasts for three days after completion of the transaction or delivery of the disclosure, which ever occurs later. It is required that each debtor receives two copies of the notice of their right of rescission. According to Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank (In re Rodriguez), 278 B.R. 683 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2002), the date of the expiration of the right of
rescission must be filled in. If the notices are not given or other material disclosures are not made, the rescission right is extended from three days to three years from the completion of the transaction. See In re Lombardi, 195 B.R. 569 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1996).

Any extension of the right of rescission beyond the three-year period provided by TILA must come from state law. The Supreme Court in Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), held that federal law does not provide an extension of more than three years, and that equitable tolling does not apply because the three year limit is a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations. Some states allow rescission in recoupment beyond the TILA’s three-year extension period. See, Fidler v. Cent. Coop.
Bank, 336 B.R. 734 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998)

TILA §1635(b) provides a three-step rescission process:

1. The debtor must first give notice of the rescission. By invoking rescission, the debtor is relieved of liability for any finance or other charge, and the security interest becomes void.

2. The creditor must return any money paid or property given, including the down payment.

3. The debtor must tender any property received or the value of it.

Courts have considerable discretion concerning the three-step process, and are able to circumvent the process if they see fit. See, Williams v. BankOne, N.A. (In re Williams), 291 B.R. 636 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003); Bell v. Parkway Mortgage, Inc. (In re Bell), 309 B.R. 139, 167 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2004).

In the event a court requires that the principal debt be repaid in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the rescinding borrower/debtor still receives a considerable benefit. In this case, the creditor must reduce the obligation by the amount the borrower has paid through any down payment, closing costs, insurance premiums and by the amount of the finance charges. The obligation to repay only the principal over the life of a Chapter 13 plan is an unsecured claim.

TILA § 1640(a) provides for damage actions for violations of its requirements. In an individual action relating to a closed-end credit transaction secured by real estate or a dwelling, statutory damages of not less than $200 and not greater than $2000 are recoverable. Damages can also be recovered where rescission is available. In cases
dealing with personal property loans, although rescission is not available, the statutory damages are twice the finance charge, with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $1000. See, Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, 125 S. Ct. 460 (2004).

TILA § 1640(e) actions for actual and statutory damages are subject to a one year statute of limitations, measured from the occurrence of the violation. This section also states it, “does not bar a person from asserting a violation of this title in an action to collect the debt which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such
action, except as otherwise provided by State Law.”

Courts recognize that debtors in bankruptcy can assert damages in recoupment by objecting to a creditor’s proof of claim. See, In re Coxson, 43 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1995); Roberson v. Cityscape Corp., 262 B.R. 312 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001). Unlike the three-year right of rescission, the statute of limitations for TILA damage actions can be equitably tolled. Fraudulent concealment of a TILA violation is a basis for tolling the
one-year statute of limitations, however, mere failure to make disclosures is not enough. The consumer must prove the creditor concealed the violation and that the consumer exercised due diligence to discover the facts giving rise to the claim. See, Evans v. Rudy-Luther Toyota, Inc., 39 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Minn. 1999).

The Truth in Lending Act requires disclosure of credit terms, applies to most extensions of consumer credit and frequently apply to restructured loans that meet the definition of a refinancing under the Act and Regulation Z. The Truth in Lending Act offers actual damages, statutory damages for some violations, and attorney’s fees. For second mortgage, home equity loans, and some other transactions secured by home,
rescission may be available.

– Citation: 15 U.S.C. §1601, et seq.
12 C.F.R- Part 226 (Regulation Z)

– Liable Parties: Creditor (generally the original lender) Assignee, if violation “apparent on face” of documents

– Actionable Wrongs: Failure to disclose credit information or cancellation
rights

– Remedies: Rescission, unless transaction was for purchase or
construction of home, Actual damages, Statutory damages up to $2,000 (SEE UPDATE PER SUPPLEMENT), Attorney fees

– Limitations: 1 year to rescind under TILA, though limit does not apply to recoupment under state law
1 year to bring damages claim
3 year limitation if used defensively by way of recoupment,
unless effectively brought as a DUTPA claim

Matthews v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 185 F. Supp. 2d 874 (S.D. OH 2002). (An opinion which includes the facts and claims for a typical predatory lending case involving elderly homeowners. Claims include descriptions of TILA, HOEPA, Equitable Tolling, FHA, ECOA, Conspiracy, Fraud, Unconscionability, and Ohio’s Rico Statute.)

Anderson v. Frye, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20935. Plaintiff must show each of the following: (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she applied for and was qualified for loans; (3) that the loans were given on grossly unfavorable terms; and (4) that the lender continues to provide loans to other applicants with similar qualifications,
but on significantly more favorable terms. Citing Matthews,.

In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inv. Litig., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P94,314 (May 2007) “[W]hile Plaintiff is required to prove the existence of some unlawful act independent of the civil conspiracy itself, that unlawful act does not need to be committed by each of the alleged co-conspirators.” Citing Matthews,.

Regulation Z Sec. 226.20 Subsequent disclosure requirements

(a) Refinancings. A refinancing occurs when an existing obligation that was subject to this subpart is satisfied and replaced by a new obligation undertaken by the same consumer. A refinancing is a new transaction requiring new disclosures to the consumer. The new finance charge shall include any unearned portion of the old finance charge that is not credited to the existing obligation. The following shall not be treated as a refinancing:

(1) A renewal of a single payment obligation with no change in the original terms.

(2) A reduction in the annual percentage rate with a corresponding change in the payment schedule.

(3) An agreement involving a court proceeding.

(4) A change in the payment schedule or a change in collateral requirements as a result of the consumer’s default or delinquency, unless the rate is increased, or the new amount financed exceeds the unpaid balance plus earned finance charge and premiums for continuation of insurance of the types described in Sec. 226.4(d).

(5) The renewal of optional insurance purchased by the consumer and added to an existing transaction, if disclosures relating to the initial purchase were provided as required by this subpart.

Commentary to Section 226.20 Subsequent Disclosure Requirements

Paragraph 20(a) Refinancings.

1. Definition. A refinancing is a new transaction requiring a complete new set of disclosures. Whether a refinancing has occurred is determined by reference to whether the original obligation has been satisfied or extinguished and replaced by a new obligation, based on the parties’ contract and applicable law. The refinancing may involve the consolidation of several existing obligations, disbursement of new money to
the consumer or on the consumer’s behalf, or the rescheduling of payments under an existing obligation. In any form, the new obligation must completely replace the prior one.

– Changes in the terms of an existing obligation, such as the deferral of individual installments, will not constitute a refinancing unless accomplished by the cancellation of that obligation and the substitution of a new obligation.

– A substitution of agreements that meets the refinancing definition will require new disclosures, even if the substitution does not substantially alter the prior credit terms.

1. Annual percentage rate reduction. A reduction in the annual percentage rate with a corresponding change in the payment schedule is not a refinancing. If the annual percentage rate is subsequently increased (even though it remains below its original level) and the increase is effected in such a way that the old obligation is satisfied and
replaced, new disclosures must then be made.

2. Corresponding change. A corresponding change in the payment schedule to implement a lower annual percentage rate would be a shortening of the maturity, or a reduction in the payment amount or the number of payments of an obligation. The exception in §226.20(a)(2) does not apply if the maturity is lengthened, or if the payment
amount or number of payments is increased beyond that remaining on the existing transaction.

Court agreements. This exception includes, for example, agreements such as reaffirmations of debts discharged in bankruptcy, settlement agreements, and post judgment agreements. (See the commentary to §226.2(a)(14) for a discussion of court approved agreements that are not considered “credit.”)

Workout agreements. A workout agreement is not a refinancing unless the annual percentage rate is increased or additional credit is advanced beyond amounts already accrued plus insurance premiums.

Insurance renewal. The renewal of optional insurance added to an existing credit transaction is not a refinancing, assuming that appropriate Truth in Lending disclosures were provided for the initial purchase of the insurance.

This regulation limits refinancing to transactions in which the entire original obligation is extinguished and replaced by a new one. Redisclosure is no longer required for deferrals or extensions.

When Homeowner’s good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at http://www.fightforeclosure.net “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

 

What Every Homeowner Should Know About Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provides two ways to stop a
debt collector from calling a consumer:

1. If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay the debt or that the consumer wishes the collector to stop calling, the collector must cease calling after one final communication. 15 USC § 1692c(c).

2. If a debt collector knows that the consumer is represented by an attorney and knows or can readily ascertain the attorney’s name and address, the debt collector may not communicate with the consumer unless the attorney fails to respond to communications within a reasonable time. § 1692c(a)(2).

The FDCPA cannot be used to stop direct collections from creditors because it is applicable only to third-party debt collectors.

The FDCPA does not apply to creditors collecting debts on their own behalf, except if they use a name other than their own to do so. “Debt collector” is defined in §1692a(6) as a person who is “collecting on behalf of another” and who “regularly” collects or attempts to collect debts. Lawyers often come under this definition of debt collector. The Supreme Court in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), held that an attorney who regularly uses litigation to collect consumer debts on behalf of a client is a debt collector, subject to the FDCPA. Therefore, lawyers who bring suits on behalf of clients against consumers, seeking payment of debts, need to adopt practices that comply with the FDCPA and this includes “appearance” attorneys.

Section 1692g requires that a debt collector send a written “validation” notice along with the debt collector’s initial communication to the consumer. The notice must contain the following:

– the amount of the debt;
– the name of the creditor;
– a statement that unless the consumer disputes the validity
of the debt within 30 days of receipt of the notice it will be
assumed to be valid, and
– information that verification of the debt will be obtained if
the consumer disputes it.

Debt collectors must convey the validation notice in a legible manner that will be noticed.

Any debt collector that fails to comply with any FDCPA provisions is liable to the consumer for any actual damages and for up to $1000 in statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1)-(2). The consumer may recover the costs of the action and a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. Actual damages include compensation for emotional distress. State law requirements for recovery of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress are inapplicable. See Maxwell v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 281 B.R. 101 at 118 (noting that the appropriate standard for judging unfairness of debt collection practices is from the perspective of “the least sophisticated debtor,” suggesting that damages for subjectively-experienced emotional distress could be recoverable even if that distress is greater than what an ordinary debtor might experience).

A debt collector is, “any person who uses an instrument of interstate
commerce or mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Repossession and the sale of personal property is not a debt collection activity under the FDCPA. Likewise, with respect to non-judicial foreclosure of security interests in houses. See, Bergs v. Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, LLP, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16827, at 1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2003); Beadle v. Haughey, 2005 WL 300060, 4 (D.N.H. Feb. 9, 2005) It is not clear whether foreclosing on a mortgage constitutes debt collecting activity under the FDCPA. Id. at 4. However, the most recent case to discuss whether proceeding in rem is debt collecting and subject to the FDCPA seems to suggest it is.
Piper v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2005). In Piper, the law firm subjected itself to the FDCPA by attempting to collect a personal liability and requesting payment to be made directly to the firm instead of to the city. Accordingly, the court stated that “the issue for decision is whether PLA’s communications to Piper were communications by a ‘debt collector’ with a ‘consumer’ in ‘connection with the collection
of a [debt].’” Id. at 232.

The Seventh Circuit determined that a loan servicer was not a debt collector under the FDCPA because it was seeking payment currently due under a superseding agreement. Bailey v. Security Nat’l Servicing Corp., 154 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 1998).

When Homeowners good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at http://www.fightforeclosure.net “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net

How Homeowners Can Effectively Use RESPA in their Foreclosure Defense

11 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Non-Judicial States, RESPA, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

It is important for every homeowner to use the RESPA provisions in their foreclosure defense.

Most Homeowners often wonder what is RESPA. This post is designed to enlighten homeowners as to what RESPA is and how the provisions of RESPA can help them in the foreclosure fight.

So What is RESPA!

    Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

1. RESPA initially applied to loans subject to a first lien on residential property of one to four units. In 1992, it was amended to apply to subordinate loans on such property as well. The implementing regulations are contained in Regulation X, 24 C.F.R. § 3500, as well as in Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.19.

2. RESPA requires good faith estimates of Truth In Lending Act disclosures before consummation or within three business days after the creditor receives the consumer’s written application, whichever occurs earlier. Re-disclosure is required no later than consummation or settlement. According to § 226.19(b), when dealing with variable-rate loans a booklet on adjustable rate mortgages must be provided along with other detailed disclosures specified in the regulations.

3. RESPA prohibits mortgage transaction servicers from giving and creditors from accepting “any portion, split or percentage” of any charge made or received for settlement services “other than for services actually performed. 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). High and unearned fees that are not actionable under RESPA, are still subject to challenge as unconscionable and that it is an unfair and deceptive practice to represent a charge as for a specific purpose, when the actual cost of that item is much less.

4. RESPA also requires servicers of covered mortgages to respond to written requests from the borrower or the borrower’s agent for information or disputes concerning the servicing of the loan, and to either make appropriate corrections or, after investigation, explain why the account is correct. Failure to comply with the response requirements gives rise to liability for actual damages, statutory damages up to $1000 in case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance and attorneys’ fees and costs, with special class action provisions.

5. The provisions of RESPA which deal with mortgage servicing are generally found in either 12 U.S.C. § 2605 or § 2609. Section 2605, known as the “Servicer Act,” requires servicers to respond to borrower requests for information and to correct account errors (referred to as “qualified written requests”), § 2605(e); disclose information relating to the transfer of servicing operations, §§ 2605(a) and (b); and make timely payments out of escrow accounts. § 2605(g); Section 2609 deals
exclusively with escrow accounts and limits the amount servicers can demand to be deposited in an escrow account and requires an escrow analysis be conducted to determine the proper escrow payment. § 2609(a); It also requires servicers to provide an annual escrow statement § 2609(c) and a notice of escrow shortages or deficiencies.
§ 2609(b)

6. There is one requirement imposed by § 2605 that does not apply if the borrower is behind on payments. Section 2505(g) requires a servicer to make payments from an escrow account for taxes, insurance and other charges “in a timely manner as such payments become due.” As long as the borrower’s mortgage payment is not more than thirty days late, the servicer must pay escrow items such as taxes and insurance in a timely manner even if there are not sufficient funds in the escrow account to cover the items. Reg. X, 24 C.F.R. § 3500.17(k)(2). RESPA creates an express right of action for a servicer’s failure to make payments from an escrow account for taxes, insurance and other charges “in a timely manner as such payments become due.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g). Regulation X provides that this obligation to make timely disbursements out of escrow does not apply when the “borrower’s payment is more than 30 days overdue.” Reg. X, 24 C.F.R. § 3500.17(k)(1), (2) The regulation has no explanation of this limitation. It could be interpreted to mean that a servicer has no obligation to timely disburse payments for taxes and insurance or other charges whenever the home owner’s mortgage payment is more than thirty days late at the time the disbursement becomes due, even if there are sufficient funds in the escrow account to cover the disbursement.

7. The regulation should not give an exemption to a servicer who wrongly claimed that the borrower was late with payments at the time the disbursement was required, or if timely payments are being made under a forbearance or repayment agreement. If the exemption does not apply, the servicer must pay escrow items such as taxes and insurance timely even if there are not sufficient funds in the escrow account to cover the
items.[ Reg. X, 24 C.F.R. § 3500.17(k)(2) The application of the regulation denies a servicer an opportunity to force-placed insurance from another carrier in this situation. The servicer is required to pay the insurance premium on the borrower’s policy when due by advancing funds. Any escrow deficiency resulting from the advance is paid by the borrower through an adjustment to future escrow payments following an escrow
account analysis.

It is important for homeowners to know that;

RESPA – provides a private cause of action for violation of its prohibitions against misuse of escrowed funds, kickbacks from companies providing settlement services, and steering borrowers to title insurance companies. Either treble or statutory damages plus attorney’s fees are available for violations. RESPA also requires advance disclosures (Good Faith Estimate), and disclosure at settlement of settlement costs in real estate transactions. While the statute does not create a private cause of
action for disclosure violations, analyzing the disclosures often reveals Truth in Lending and HOEPA violations.

The bankruptcy mentors say that to avoid the Reg X 30-day default exception, an argument can be made that the exception does not apply after confirmation of the plan. The reason is that the confirmation designates the account as reinstated. In re Jones, 2007 WL 1112047 (Bankr.E.D.La. Apr 13, 2007)(plan confirmation “recalibrates” the
amounts due as of the petition date); In re Wines, 239 B.R. 703 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999) (post-petition mortgage debt treated like a current mortgage and consists of those payments which come due after the bankruptcy petition is filed. Ongoing postpetition payments, including escrow amounts and timely disbursements, should be treated under the terms of the note and mortgage as if no default exist. The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Single-Family Uniform Instrument for a mortgage or deed of trust
(Section 3, entitled “Funds for Escrow Items”), requires the servicer to maintain the escrow account in compliance with RESPA. A provision in the plan can require the servicer to comply with the RESPA escrow account requirements during the administration of the plan.

The general RESPA preemption provision provides that state laws are
preempted only to the extent of their inconsistency with RESPA. 12 U.S.C. § 2616. State laws providing greater protections to borrowers than RESPA that are not inconsistent with RESPA are not preempted.

– Citation: 12 U.S.C. §2601, et seq. 24 C.F.R. Part 3500 (Regulation X) 64 Fed. Reg. 10079 (HUD Policy Statement on lender paid broker fees)

– Liable Parties: Lender Broker, if not exclusive agent or lender,
Servicer, Title Company

– Actionable Wrongs: Failure to give Good Faith Estimate; disclose other credit-related information and give HUD-1 Settlement Statement and servicing statements; Payment or acceptance of kickbacks or referral
fees; Making charges for which no identifiable services are provided; Improper servicing of loan.

– Remedies: Three times amount of illegal charges Attorney fees

– Limitations: 1 year to bring an affirmative claim No limit if raised by way of recoupment

Hirsch v. Bank of America, 328 F. 3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2003). (provides a two-part test in analyzing RESPA kickback violations involving a mortgage broker. First, the court must “determine whether the broker has provided goods or services of the kind typically associated with a mortgage transaction.” Then, the court must “determine whether the total compensation paid to the broker is reasonably related to the total value of the goods or services actually provided.”

Recently followed by: Culpepper v. Irwin Mortg. Corp., 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 824 (11th Cir. Ala. July 2, 2007) (applying two part test)

§ 203.508 Providing information.

(a) Mortgagees shall provide loan information to mortgagors and arrange for individual loan consultation on request. The mortgagee must establish written procedures and controls to assure prompt responses to inquiries.

(c) Within thirty days after the end of each calendar year, the mortgagee shall furnish to the mortgagor a statement of the interest paid, and of the taxes disbursed from the escrow account during the preceding year. At the mortgagor’s request, the mortgagee shall furnish a statement of the escrow account sufficient to enable the mortgagor to reconcile the account.

(d) Mortgagees must respond to HUD requests for information concerning individual accounts.

(e) Each servicer of a mortgage shall deliver to the mortgagor a written notice of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the mortgage. The notice must be sent in accordance with the provisions of § 3500.21(e)(1) of this title and shall contain the information required by § 3500.21(e)(2) of this title. Servicers must respond to mortgagor inquiries pertaining to the transfer of servicing in accordance with §3500.21(f) of this title.

§ 203.550 Escrow accounts.
It is the mortgagee’s responsibility to make escrow disbursements before bills become delinquent. Mortgagees must establish controls to insure that bills payable from the escrow fund or the information needed to pay such bills is obtained on a timely basis. Penalties for late payments for items payable from the escrow account must not be charged to the mortgagor unless it can be shown that the penalty was the direct
result of the mortgagor’s error or omission. The mortgagee shall use the procedures set forth in § 3500.17 of this title, implementing Section 10 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2609), to compute the amount of the escrow, the methods of collection and accounting, and the payment of the bills for which the money has been escrowed.

In the case of escrow accounts created for purposes of § 203.52 or § 234.64 of this chapter, mortgagees may estimate escrow requirements based on the best information available as to probable payments that will be required to be made from the account on a periodic basis throughout the period during which the account is maintained.

The mortgagee shall not institute foreclosure when the only default of the mortgagor occupant is a present inability to pay a substantial escrow shortage, resulting from an adjustment pursuant to this section, in a lump sum.

When the contract of mortgage insurance is terminated voluntarily or because of prepayment in full, sums in the escrow account to pay the mortgage insurance premiums shall be remitted to HUD with a form approved by the Secretary for reporting the voluntary termination of prepayment. Upon prepayment in full sums held in escrow for taxes and hazard insurance shall be released to the mortgagor promptly.

When Homeowners good faith attempts to amicably work with the Bank in order to resolve the issue fails;

Home owners should wake up TODAY! before it’s too late by mustering enough courage for “Pro Se” Litigation (Self Representation – Do it Yourself) against the Lender – for Mortgage Fraud and other State and Federal law violations using foreclosure defense package found at http://www.fightforeclosure.net “Pro Se” litigation will allow Homeowners to preserved their home equity, saves Attorneys fees by doing it “Pro Se” and pursuing a litigation for Mortgage Fraud, Quiet Title and Slander of Title; among other causes of action. This option allow the homeowner to stay in their home for 3-5 years for FREE without making a red cent in mortgage payment, until the “Pretender Lender” loses a fortune in litigation costs to high priced Attorneys which will force the “Pretender Lender” to early settlement in order to modify the loan; reducing principal and interest in order to arrive at a decent figure of the monthly amount the struggling homeowner could afford to pay.

If you find yourself in an unfortunate situation of losing or about to lose your home to wrongful fraudulent foreclosure, and need a complete package that will show you step-by-step litigation solutions helping you challenge these fraudsters and ultimately saving your home from foreclosure either through loan modification or “Pro Se” litigation visit: http://www.fightforeclosure.net