What Borrowers Must Know About Voiding Liens in a Mortgage

06 Sunday Oct 2019

Posted by BNG in Appeal, Bankruptcy, Banks and Lenders, Borrower, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Note - Deed of Trust - Mortgage, Pro Se Litigation, Real Estate Liens, State Court, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

enforceability of judgment lien, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, homeowners, involuntary liens, Lien, lien stripping, lien voidance, liens, Loan, Loan servicing, Mortgage loan, Mortgage modification, Mortgage servicer, Pro se legal representation in the United States, Property Lien Disputes, property liens, Real Estate Liens, Removing Liens, Types of Real Estate Liens, Unperfected Liens, voluntary liens

There are numerous methods for voiding questionable liens in any given mortgage. In this post, we’ll discuss an interesting decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding.

This decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit poses a serious threat to mortgage companies that service mortgages of chapter 13 debtors. Mortgage servicers should be aware of the case’s implications and adjust their internal case monitoring procedures as necessary.

Consider a common situation. A borrower files a chapter 13 bankruptcy case, and her mortgage servicer files a proof of claim for the mortgage balance. The borrower then objects to the proof of claim based on some purported technicality: the signature was forged, the endorsement was improper, the servicer lacks standing to enforce the note, etc. For whatever reason, the mortgage servicer does not respond to this objection, and the claim is disallowed by default.

When this happens, the borrower will often attempt to leverage a favorable settlement, like a mortgage modification, by filing a lawsuit to void the mortgage under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). This provision allows a bankruptcy court to void a lien if the lien secures a claim that is not “allowed.” Because the mortgage was “disallowed” by default due to the mortgage servicer’s failure to respond, this statute theoretically allows the court to void the mortgage altogether.

Courts generally do not void mortgages that are substantively valid but were disallowed because of a default. The most common solution in these situations is a settlement and a motion to reconsider the disallowance under 11 U.S.C. § 502(j). Bankruptcy courts may grant these motions for “cause” at their discretion, which is typically satisfied if the mortgage servicer can prove the substantive validity of the mortgage. See generally In re Oudomsouk, 483 B.R. 502, 513-14 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2012). This works to everyone’s advantage: the mortgage servicer gets paid through the bankruptcy, and the debtor avoids the risk of post-bankruptcy foreclosure if the lien’s validity is ultimately upheld after the case concludes.

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In re Blendheim may change this result. 2015 WL 5730015 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2015). In Blendheim, the debtors owned a condominium with two mortgages. After filing chapter 7 and obtaining a discharge of their unsecured debts, the debtors immediately filed a chapter 13 case to restructure their mortgages on the condominium (this process is known as a “chapter 20”). HSBC, the senior servicer, filed a proof of claim for the senior mortgage, but the debtors objected because (a) HSBC attached only the deed of trust, and not the promissory note, to the proof of claim, and (b) one of the signatures on the note was purportedly forged.

For reasons unknown, HSBC did not respond to the objection, and the bankruptcy court entered an order disallowing HSBC’s claim by default. Five months later, the debtors brought an adversary proceeding to void the mortgage under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). Almost eighteen months after the bankruptcy court disallowed HSBC’s claim, HSBC filed a motion to reconsider the disallowance. HSBC also challenged the debtors’ attempt to void the mortgage because the disallowance was not actually litigated; it was the result of a default. The bankruptcy court disagreed, finding that (a) HSBC had no good reason for failing to respond to the claim objection, and (b) the statute plainly permitted lien avoidance in these circumstances. After the bankruptcy court confirmed the debtors’ plan, which provided for payment of only the junior mortgage, HSBC appealed.

On appeal, HSBC raised three primary issues. First, it argued that Section 506(d) should not operate to void its mortgage, notwithstanding the plain language of the statute, when the order disallowing the claim was not actually litigated but was based on a default. Second, it argued that even if the lien were properly voided under Section 506(d), the result could not be permanent because the debtors, having recently received a discharge in their chapter 7 case, were not eligible for a discharge in their chapter 13 case. Third, it argued that by losing its lien because of a default order in the bankruptcy case, as opposed to a formal lawsuit, it was denied due process.

The court disagreed with HSBC on each issue. First, it held that lien avoidance was appropriate. HSBC cited cases where courts refused to void a mortgage when a claim was disallowed for being filed late. The court distinguished these cases, holding that a creditor who files a late proof of claim is not “actively participating in the case” and therefore cannot have its state law lien rights impacted. See generally Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 418-19. But when a creditor timely files a proof of claim then willfully fails to respond to the debtors’ objection to the claim, the situation is fundamentally different. According to the court, the Bankruptcy Code plainly allows permanent lien avoidance when a creditor, like HSBC, “just sle[eps] on its rights and refuse[s] to defend its claim.” Blendheim, 2015 WL 5730015, at *11.

Next, the court addressed HSBC’s second argument and held that lien avoidance was appropriate even though the debtors were not eligible for a discharge. Acknowledging a split of authority, the court clarified that discharge affects only personal liability, not the in rem rights of creditors, so the cases on which HSBC relied were distinguishable. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code prohibits lien avoidance just because a borrower has no right to a discharge.

Finally, the court held that HSBC’s due process was not offended. HSBC received notice of the claim objection and had ample time to respond. Its failure to do so, while fatal to its lien, did not violate its due process rights.

What This Means for Mortgage Creditors

The Blendheim case may have serious implications for mortgage creditors. This situation is not an outlier: mortgage servicers commonly fail to respond to claim objections. his may be because of the quick deadline to respond to these objections or the use of separate legal counsel for handling administrative functions in bankruptcy versus defending adversary proceedings. Historically, when a claim is disallowed based on a creditor’s failure to respond to a claim objection, bankruptcy courts will grant a reconsideration motion under Section 502(j) if the creditor can prove the substantive validity of the mortgage.

After Blendheim, the result may be different. The Blendheim court, after all, did not seem to care about the underlying validity of HSBC’s claim. Instead, it focused on HSBC’s failure to respond without a good reason.

How does this Affect Mortgage Creditors

Mortgage servicers should be aware of this decision and should make sure that they are closely following the dockets of cases involving their borrowers in bankruptcy. If they don’t, they risk losing their mortgage lien, if any, altogether.

CASE STUDY: HSBC v. BLENDHEIM

[The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the Author. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance]

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

If you are a homeowner already in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy with questionable liens on your property, you needs to proceed with Adversary Proceeding to challenge the validity of Security Interest or Lien on your home, Our Adversary Proceeding package may be just what you need.

Homeowners who are not yet in Bankruptcy 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 https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/ “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, Unjust Enrichment, 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: https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/

If you have received a Notice of Default “NOD”, take a deep breath, as this the time to start the FIGHT! and Protect your EQUITY!

If you do Nothing, you will see the WRONG parties WITHOUT standing STEAL your home right under your nose, and by the time you realize it, it might be too late! If your property has been foreclosed, use the available options on our package to reverse already foreclosed home and reclaim your most prized possession! You can do it by yourself! START Today — STOP Foreclosure Tomorrow!

What Homeowners Should Know About Foreclosure Defense

10 Friday May 2019

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Case Study, Credit, Federal Court, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage Laws, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adversary proceeding, affidavits, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Banks and Lenders, Consequences of a Foreclosure, Court, Deed of Trust, defaulting on a mortgage, False notary signatures, Forbearance, Foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense strategy, Foreclosure in California, foreclosure in Florida, foreclosure process, homeowners, judicial foreclosures, lender, Loan Modification, MERS, mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage law, Mortgage loan, Mortgage note, mortgages, non-judicial foreclosures, Promissory note, Robo-signing, Securitization, securitized, UCC, Uniform Commercial Code

Over the past few years, a growing number of homeowners in the foreclosure process have begun to fight back, by stalling foreclosure proceedings or stopping them altogether. The legal strategy employed by these homeowners is known as foreclosure defense.

Since 2007, nearly 4.2 million people in the United States have lost their homes to foreclosure. By early 2014, that number is expected to climb to 6 million. Historically, the legal process of foreclosure, one that requires a homeowner to return his or her house to a lender after defaulting on a mortgage, has tilted in favor of the banks and lenders — who are well-versed in the law and practice of foreclosure.

The simplest way to avoid foreclosure is by modifying the mortgage. In a mortgage modification, the homeowner convinces the lender to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage in order to make the payments more affordable.

A mortgage modification can include:

A reduction or change in the loan’s interest rate.
A reduction in the loan’s principal.
A reduction or elimination of late fees and penalties for non-payment.
A reduction in your monthly payment.
Forbearance, to temporarily stop making payments, or extend the time for making payments.

The goal of the foreclosure defense strategy is to prove that the bank does not have a right to foreclose. The chances of success rest on an attorney’s ability to challenge how the mortgage industry operates. The strategy aims to take advantage of flaws in the system, and presumes illegal or unethical behavior on the part of lenders.

Foreclosure defense is a new concept that continues to grow alongside the rising tide of foreclosure cases. While some courts accept foreclosure defense arguments, others find them specious and hand down decisions more beneficial to banks than to homeowners.

A growing number of victories by homeowners in state and federal courts have altered the foreclosure landscape dramatically, giving optimism to tens of thousands of other homeowners in similar situations. And because many of America’s large banks have acknowledged unorthodox, unaccepted or even illegal practices in the areas of mortgages, loan modifications and foreclosures, they inadvertently have given homeowners additional ammunition with which to fight.

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

A major strategy of foreclosure defense is to make a bank substantiate clear chains of title for a mortgage and a promissory note. If any link in either chain is questionable, it can nullify a lender’s ability to make a valid claim on a property.

The foreclosure process varies somewhat from state to state, depending on whether your state uses mortgages or deeds of trust for the purchase of real property. A mortgage or deed of trust outlines a transfer of an interest in a property; it is not, in itself, a promise to pay a debt. Instead, it contains language that gives the lender the right to take the property if the borrower breaches the terms of the promissory note.

If you signed a mortgage, it generally means you live in a state that conducts judicial foreclosures, meaning that a lender has to sue in court in order to get a judgment to foreclose. If you signed a deed of trust, you live in a state that conducts non-judicial foreclosures, which means that a lender does not have to go to court to initiate a foreclosure action.

In a judicial state, homeowners have the advantage because they can require that the lender produce proof and perfection of claim, at the initial court hearing. In a non-judicial state, the lender does not have to prove anything because the state’s civil code gives it the right to foreclose after a notice of default has been sent. So in non-judicial states, a homeowner must file a civil action against the lender to compel it to provide proof of claim.

Regardless of whether you signed a mortgage or a deed of trust, you also signed a promissory note — a promise to pay back a specified amount over a set period of time. The note goes directly to the lender and is held on its books as an asset for the amount of the promised repayment. The mortgage or deed of trust is a public record and, by law, must be recorded in a county or town office. Each time a promissory note is assigned, i.e. sold to another party, the note itself must be endorsed with the name of the note’s new owner. Each time a deed of trust or mortgage is assigned to another entity, that transaction must be recorded in the town or county records office.

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Here is where foreclosure defense can begin to chip away at a bank’s claim on your property. In order for a mortgage, deed of trust or promissory note to be valid, it must have what is known as “perfection” of the chain of title. In other words, there must be a clear, unambiguous record of ownership from the time you signed your papers at closing, to the present moment. Any lapse in the chain of title causes a “defect” in the instrument, making it invalid.

In reality, lapses occur frequently. As mortgages and deeds began to routinely be bought and sold, the sheer magnitude of those transfers made it difficult, costly and time-consuming for institutions to record every transaction in a county records office. But in order to have some method of record-keeping, the banks created the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), a privately held company that tracks the servicing rights and ownership of the nation’s mortgages. The MERS holds more than 66 million American mortgages in its database.

When a foreclosure is imminent, MERS appoints a party to foreclose, based on its records of who owns the mortgage or deed of trust. But some courts have rejected the notion that MERS has the legal authority to assign title to a particular party in the first place. A court can decide MERS has no “standing,” meaning that the court does not recognize its right to initiate foreclosure since MERS does not have any financial interest in either the property or the promissory note.

And since MERS has essentially bypassed the county record-keeping system, the perfection of chain of title cannot be independently verified. This is where a foreclosure defense can gain traction, by questioning the perfection of the chain of title and challenging MERS’ legal authority to assign title.

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Some courts may also challenge MERS’ ability to transfer the promissory note, since it likely has been sold to a different entity, or in most cases, securitized (pooled with other loans) and sold to an unknown number of entities. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Longan, it was ruled that where a promissory note goes, a deed of trust must follow. In other words, the deed and the note cannot be separated.

If your note has been securitized, it now belongs to someone other than the holder of your mortgage. This is known as bifurcation — the deed of trust points to one party, while the promissory note points to another. Thus, a foreclosure defense claims that since the relationship between the deed and the note has become defective, it renders the deed of trust unenforceable.

Your promissory note must also have a clear chain of title, according to the nation’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the body of regulations that governs these types of financial instruments. But over and over again, borrowers have been able to demonstrate that subsequent assignments of promissory notes have gone unendorsed.

In fact, it has been standard practice for banks to leave the assignment blank when loans are sold and/or securitized and, customarily, the courts have allowed blank assignment to be an acceptable form of proof of ownership. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank v. Ibenez ruled that blank assignment is not sufficient to claim perfection, it provided another way in which a foreclosure can be challenged.

In their most egregious attempts to remedy these glaring omissions, some banks have actually tried to reverse-engineer chains of title, using fraudulent means such as:

Robo-signing of documents.
False notary signatures.
Submission of questionable, inaccurate or patently counterfeit affidavits.

Exposure of these dishonest methods halted many foreclosures in their tracks and helped increase governmental scrutiny of banks’ foreclosure procedures.

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

Another option for a homeowner who wishes to expose a lender’s insufficient perfection of title is to file for bankruptcy. In a Chapter 7 filing, you can declare your home an “unsecured asset” and wait for the lender to object. This puts the burden of proof on the lender to show a valid chain of assignment. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can file an Adversary Proceeding, wherein you sue your lender to compel it to produce valid proof of claim. The Bankruptcy Code requires that your lender provide evidence of “perfected title.”

Another foreclosure defense argument explores the notion of whether the bank is a real party of interest. If it’s not, it doesn’t have the right to foreclose. For example, if your loan has been securitized, your original lender has already been paid. At that point, the debt was written off and the debt should be considered settled. In order to prove that your original lender has profited from the securitization of your mortgage, it is advised that you obtain a securitization audit. The audit is completed by a third-party researcher who tracks down your loan, and then provides you with a court-admissible document showing that your loan has been securitized.

A foreclosure defense can also argue that once a loan has been securitized, or converted to stock, it is no longer a loan and cannot be converted back into a loan. That means that your promissory note no longer exists, as such. And if that is true, then your mortgage or deed of trust is no longer securing anything. Instead of the bank insisting that you have breached the contract specified in the promissory note, foreclosure defense argues that the bank has actually destroyed that agreement itself. And if the agreement doesn’t exist, how can it be enforced? A corollary to this argument states that your loan is no longer enforceable because it is now owned by many shareholders and a promissory note is only enforceable in its whole entirety. How can thousands of people foreclose on your house?

While the foreclosure defense strategy is legal in nature, and can be handled differently by different courts, it should not be ignored when preparing a case.

The tactic of attacking a lender’s shoddy or illegal practices has proven to be the most successful strategy of foreclosure defense, since most courts are loathe to accept unlawful or unethical behavior, even from banks. If a homeowner can present clear instances of lost or missed paperwork, demonstrate that notes were misplaced or improperly endorsed, or prove that documents were forged, robo-signed, or reversed-engineered, the more likely a court will rule in his or her favor.

If you are considering a foreclosure defense, you have two options, you can either represent yourself in the Court as a Pro Se Litigant, (USING OUR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE PACKAGE), if you cannot afford to pay Attorneys Fees, as foreclosure proceeding can take years while you are living in your home WITHOUT PAYING ANY MORTGAGE. Or You may retain a Legal Counsel to Defend you. If you chose the second option, it is imperative that you retain the services of professional legal counsel. Regardless of how educated you are about the process, this is an area of law that requires a well-thought-out, competent presentation in a State or Federal court. Nonetheless, the Attorneys fees for foreclosure defense can accumulate over the years to thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars, that is why most homeowners, opt to represent themselves in the proceedings which can take anywhere between 1-7 years, while homeowners are living in their homes Mortgage-Free. The good news is that most foreclosure defense Attorneys equally use the same materials found in our foreclosure defense package to defend homeowner’s properties, and with these same materials, you can equally represent yourself as a Pro Se (Self Representing), litigant.

A successful foreclosure defense may prohibit or delay the foreclosure process or it simply may induce a lending institution to negotiate a loan modification that allows you to stay in your home — which, of course, was the goal in the first place. You can equally be awarded damages by the courts for mortgage law violations by the lenders, in addition to loan modification.

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 https://fightforeclosure.net/foreclosure-defense-package/ “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, Unjust Enrichment, 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 have received a Notice of Default “NOD”, take a deep breath, as this the time to start the FIGHT! and Protect your EQUITY!

If you are a homeowner already in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and needs to proceed with Adversary Proceeding to challenge the validity of Security Interest or Lien on your home, Our Adversary Proceeding package may be just what you need.

How Homeowners Can Find Who Owns Their Mortgage Loans

17 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Judicial States, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, RESPA, Securitization, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Fannie Mae, Finance, Freddie Mac, HAMP, homeowners, Loan servicing, MERS, mortgage, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Mortgage loan, Mortgage modification, Mortgage servicer, Promissory note, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, RESPA, Securitization

A mortgage loan is typically assigned several times during its term, and may be held by one entity but serviced by another. Different disclosure requirements apply depending upon whether information is sought about the ownership of the mortgage loan or its servicing. Knowing exactly who owns and services the mortgage is a critical first step to negotiating a binding workout or loan modification. The information is needed to send a notice of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act, to identify the proper party to name and serve in a lien avoidance proceeding, and to identify other potential parties in litigation. This information may also provide a defense to foreclosure or stay relief in bankruptcy if these proceedings are not initiated by a proper party.

1. Send a TILA § 1641(f)(2) Request to the Servicer

The Truth in Lending Act requires the loan servicer to tell the borrower who the actual holder of the mortgage really is.3 Upon written request from the borrower, the servicer must state the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation.

One problem with this provision’s enforcement had been the lack of a clear remedy for the servicer’s non-compliance. However, the Helping Families Save Their HomesAct of 20095 amends TILA to explicitly provide that violations may be remedied byTILA’s private right of action found in § 1640(a), which includes recovery of actualdamages, statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.6 The amendment adds the ownerdisclosure provision found in § 1641(f)(2) to the list of TILA requirements that give rise to a cause of action against the creditor if there is a failure to comply.

See NCLC Foreclosures (2d ed. 2007 and Supp.), § 4.3.4.

15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2). The provision should require disclosure to the borrower’s advocate with a properly signed release form. See NCLC Foreclosures, Appx. A, Form 3, infra.

If the servicer provides information about the master servicer, a follow-up requestshould be made to the master servicer to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation. Pub. L. No. 111-22, § 404 (May 20, 2009). See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).

1640(a) refers to “any creditor who fails to comply,” by specifically adding as an actionable requirement a disclosure provision which Congress knew is directed toservicers and therefore involves compliance by creditors through their servicers,

Congress chose to make creditors liable to borrowers for noncompliance by servicers.The TILA provision does not specify how long the servicer has to respond to the request. Perhaps because no parties were directly liable under § 1640(a) for violations of the disclosure requirement before the 2009 amendment, no case law had developed on what is a reasonable response time. In the future, courts may be guided by recent regulations issued by the Federal Reserve Board requiring servicers to provide payoff statements within a reasonable time after request by the borrower. In most circumstances, a reasonable response time is within five business days of receipt.

Applying this benchmark to § 1641(f)(2) requests would seem appropriate since surely no more time is involved in responding to a request for ownership information than preparing a payoff statement. Alternatively, a 30-day response period should be the outer limit for timeliness since that is the time period Congress used in § 1641(g).

2. Review Transfer of Ownership Notices

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 also added a new provision in TILA which requires that whenever ownership of a mortgage loan securing a consumer’s principal dwelling is transferred, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee must notify the borrower in writing, within 30 days after the loan is sold or assigned, of the following information:

• the new creditor’s identity, address, and telephone number;

• the date of transfer;

• location where the transfer is recorded;

• how the borrower may reach an agent or party with authority to act on

behalf of the new creditor; and

• any other relevant information regarding the new owner.9

The new law applies to any transfers made after the Act’s effective date, which was

May 20, 2009. The Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) recently

announced a program to implement the new law.

Reg Z § 226.36(c)(1(iii); NCLC Truth in Lending, § 9.9.3 (6th ed. 2007 and

2008 Supp.).

Official Staff Commentary § 226.36(c)(1)(iii)-1.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)(1)(A)–(E).

Under “MERS InvestorID,” notices will be automatically generated whenever a“Transfer of Beneficial Rights” occurs on the MERS system. A sample Transfer Noticeand “Training Bulletin” are available for download at http://www.mersinc.org/news. MERS is taking the position, based on the wording of the statute (which refers to “place where ownership of the debt is recorded”), that it can comply by disclosing only the location where the original security instrument is recorded because the note is not a “recordable Attorneys should request that clients provide copies of any ownership notices they have received based on this new law. Assuming that there has been compliance with the statute, the attorney may be able to piece together a chain of title as to ownership of the mortgage loan (for transfers after May 20, 2009) and verify whether any representations made in court pleadings or foreclosure documents are accurate. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirement gives rise to a private right of action against the creditor/new owner that failed to notify the borrower.

3. Send a “Qualified Written Request” under RESPA

Any written request for identification of the mortgage owner sent to the servicer will not only trigger rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f) discussed earlier, but will also be a “qualified written request” under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Under RESPA, a borrower may submit a “qualified written request” to request information concerning the servicing of the loan or to dispute account errors. Because the servicer acts as an agent for the mortgage owner in its relationship with the borrower, a request for information about the owner should satisfy the requirement that the request be related to loan servicing. The request may be sent by the borrower’s agent, and this has been construed to include a trustee in a bankruptcy case filed by the borrower. Details about how to send the request are covered in § 8.2.2 of NCLC Foreclosures. The servicer has 20 business days after receipt to acknowledge the request, and must comply within 60 business days of receipt. Damages, costs and attorneys fees are available for violations, as well as statutory damages up to $1,000 in the case of a pattern and practice of noncompliance.

4. Review the RESPA Transfer of Servicing Notices

Finding the loan servicer is generally easier because the borrower is likely getting regular correspondence from that entity. Still, the law requires that formal servicing transfer notices are to be provided to borrowers, and reviewing these can provide helpful information. RESPA provides that the originating lender must disclose at the time of loan application whether servicing of the loan may be assigned during the term of the mortgage. In addition, the borrower must be notified when loan servicing is transferred document.” If MERS members do not agree with this interpretation, they can opt out of MERS InvestorID and presumably send their own notice.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). See also NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.2.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A); In re Laskowski, 384 B.R. 518 (Bankr.N.D.Ind. 2008

(chapter 13 trustee, as agent of consumer debtor, and the debtor each have standing to send a qualified written request).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2).

12 U.S.C. § 2605(f).

12 U.S.C. § 2650(a). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.3.

after the loan is made. Failure of the servicer to comply with the servicing transfer requirements subjects the servicer to liability for actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.18 Unlike the TILA requirement discussed earlier, RESPA is limited to the transfer of servicing; it does not require notice of any transfers of ownership of the note and mortgage.

5. Go to Fannie and Freddie’s Web Portals

To facilitate several voluntary loan modification programs implemented by the U.S.Treasury, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow borrowers to contact them to determine if they own a loan. Borrowers and advocates can either call a toll-free number or enter the property’s street address, unit, city, state, and ZIP code on a website. The website information, however, sometimes refers to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as “owners” when in fact their participation may have been as the party that had initially purchased the loans on the secondary market and later arranged for their securitization and transfer to a trust entity which ultimately holds the loan.

6. Check the Local Registry of Deeds

Checking the local registry where deeds and assignments are recorded is another way to identify the actual owner. But do not rely solely on the registry of deeds to identify the obligation’s current holder of the obligation, as many assignments are not recorded. In fact, if MERS is named as the mortgagee, typically as “nominee” for the lender and its assigns, then mortgage assignments will not be recorded in the registry of deeds. A call to MERS is not helpful as MERS currently will only disclose the name of the servicer and not the owner. In addition, some assignments may be solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer, in which case the servicer may appear as the owner of the mortgage loan.

12 U.S.C. § 2650(b). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.3.

12 U.S.C. § 2650(f). See NCLC Foreclosures, § 8.2.6.

See, e.g., Daw v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 5 Fed.Appx. 504 (7th Cir. 2001).

See 27 NCLC REPORTS, Bankruptcy and Foreclosures Ed., Mar/Apr 2009.

For Fannie Mae call 1-800-7FANNIE (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST); Freddie Mac call 1-800-

FREDDIE (8 a.m. to 8 p.m. EST).

Fannie Mae Loan Lookup, at http://www.fanniemae.com/homeaffordable; Freddie Mac Self-

Service Lookup, at http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate.

See NCLC Foreclosures, § 4.3.4A.

The telephone number for the automated system is 888-679-6377. When calling MERS to obtain information on a loan, you must supply MERS with the MIN number or a Social Security number. The MIN number should appear on the face of the mortgage.

You may also search by property address or by other mortgage identification numbers by using MERS’s online search tool at http://www.mers-servicerid.org. 68700-001

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

What Homeowners Must Know About Reinstating their Mortgage Loan

18 Monday Jun 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage mediation, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

avoid foreclosure, Deed in lieu of foreclosure, foreclose, foreclosing on home, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, foreclosure defense, foreclosures, homeowners, mortgage lender, Mortgage loan, mortgage loan modification, mortgage loan modifications, mortgage loans, Mortgage modification, Mortgage servicer, Pro se legal representation in the United States, short sale, United States

Once you fall behind on your mortgage, the amount you’re behind is called the arrears.

In the past, we have discussed how you may have loan modification options available to you that let you stay in your home and resume making mortgage payments without having to pay your arrears all at once.

But sometimes homeowners would rather pay their arrears, get current on their mortgage loan and resume making their regular mortgage payments.

This is called reinstating your loan. Reinstating your loan means you pay the entire amount you’re behind (arrears) plus all related fees (such as interest and late fees) to bring your loan current. After you reinstate, your loan will appear as paid to date in the lender’s records and you will resume making your original mortgage payments.

If you have fallen behind on your mortgage payments and want to reinstate your loan, your first step is to determine whether the lender has initiated the foreclosure process.

Reinstating before the foreclosure process has started

If you’re not in the foreclosure process yet, you want to cure the default on the loan. You need to ask your lender to give you a reinstatement quote. This document can be issued 30 days in advance of your payment date. For example, on May 1 you can order a reinstatement quote good through June 1 so you know how much will be due in 30 days.

If you pay the amount listed on the reinstatement quote, the default will be cured and you can resume making regular mortgage payments. The lender will then be unable to start foreclosure.

Make sure you pay the full amount listed on the reinstatement quote

Simply adding up missed mortgage payments and sending that amount may not be the actual amount due. Based on the terms you signed in your original note, the lender may add late fees for missed payments. If you don’t pull a reinstatement quote and send only what you believe is owed, the lender may deem this a partial payment. They will likely keep the partial payment but refuse to show the loan as fully up to date. This could lead to foreclosure.

Don’t accept any verbal reinstatement payoff amount, whether on the phone or in person. Make the lender give you the quote in writing. Verbal reinstatement amounts may be inaccurate and they may change. They are also impossible to verify later. If you send payment based on a verbal quote, the lender could change their mind and you would have no way to prove what they originally told you.

Reinstating after the foreclosure process has started

If you have fallen behind on your mortgage payments and want to pay your arrears but your loan has entered the foreclosure process, rather than talk to your lender, work with the Trustee. The Trustee is the party who issued your Notice of Trustee’s Sale (NOTS). Their contact information should be listed in the NOTS.

Once a lender starts foreclosure and hires a Trustee, the Trustee is in charge of the foreclosure. They are responsible for documenting and holding all reinstatement amounts and quotes.

Things to know and things you should do:

Legal fees paid to the Trustee by the lender may be added to your total reinstatement amount. So, if you decide to reinstate the loan you may see additional legal fees added to the total amount due.
Make sure you receive your reinstatement quote directly from the Trustee, not the lender. At this point in the process, to ensure that you’re making a full payment, the Trustee is the only one who has that number.
Make the request in writing. Include your name, loan number, and Trustee Sale number found on your NOTS. Write “Please send me a reinstatement quote good through (Date) at (my contact information).”

Fax the request to the fax number provided on the NOTS and to your lender. Call the Trustee to make sure they received the fax and continue to follow up until they send you the quote.
In the state of Washington, you’re allowed to reinstate your loan up to 11 days before your foreclosure sale date. If you believe reinstatement is the right move for you, make sure you request the quote and gather the funds so you can send payment before that 11-day mark.
Ask your Trustee how they would like to receive payment. Most Trustees want a cashier’s check made out to the Trustee but payment processes are different for each Trustee. Have this conversation with them before you make payment.

How does reinstatement affect foreclosure?

If you fully reinstate before the 11-day deadline, the Trustee will cancel the foreclosure of your home and withdraw from the case.

You will resume making monthly mortgage payments outlined in your original loan.

You have to track your foreclosure date to make sure the sale actually is canceled. Get written confirmation from the Trustee that they have canceled the sale.

Are the fees attached to the reinstatement quotes negotiable?

Sometimes. It is important to review all late fees and attorney’s fees attached to the reinstatement quote. Some Trustees and Lenders will take advantage of a reinstatement situation by tacking on fees in excess of work performed. There is little regulation on these fees, so it is important to review the fees carefully.

If you see something that looks excessive, request a full accounting of each fee. The Trustee should be able to provide you a breakdown of how they arrived at the reported fees. Request a breakdown for excessive late fees sent by the lender to make sure they only reflect legal late fees for missed mortgage payments.

Are there any exceptions to the 11-day requirement to reinstate?

If you believe that you may be able to reinstate your loan, but not before the 11-day deadline, reach out to the Trustee and tell them your situation.

If you can prove that you fully intend to reinstate and have the ability to do so, the Trustee or lender may provide you more time in order to reinstate the loan. Reinstatement is generally good for lenders. They want you to pay them back and get current. Many times, lenders agree to postpone foreclosure in order to allow you to reinstate, but you have to demonstrate your ability to reinstate in a persuasive way.

We recommend putting together a package including:

A signed and dated letter stating that you intend to reinstate the loan
- Include how you plan to come up with the funds
- Give a date for when you’ll have the funds
- Ask for a foreclosure postponement of a certain time (e.g. 15 days, 30 days, etc.). Asking for a general, indefinite postponement likely won’t work.
- Do everything you can to indicate that you are serious about wanting to reinstate
Proof of funding: Demonstrate how you will come up with the funds. For example, if the funds are in a retirement account, send the retirement fund statement showing that the money is there. If you are borrowing the money, have the people you’re borrowing from sign and notarize a letter stating that they will be lending you money. Include the amount borrowed and the source.

Fax the package to the lender and the Trustee. Call to make sure they received the fax. While you’re on the phone, find out who is looking at your request and see if you can email them directly. It is not enough to simply fax the package, you have to push both the lender and the Trustee to pay attention to your request.

Is a partial payment ever acceptable?

It may be an option for you to offer a partial payment of the full reinstatement amount in order to get a postponement that will give you time to gather the full funds. Lenders may agree to take a portion of money in exchange for foreclosure postponement.

Be careful with this option. Unless you are absolutely, 100% certain you will be able to fully reinstate, you shouldn’t send money or you may lose it. Never send money without an agreement in writing that the lender will postpone in exchange for a lump sum received.

Because you’re in default, the lender will keep the money you paid regardless of whether you’re able to fully reinstate. Don’t do this unless you know will be able to come up with the rest of the money.

Modification options instead of reinstatement

If you’re barely making it through the month in your current financial situation, reinstating the loan may not be the best solution for you. If the reasons why you defaulted are still part of your life, it may be better for you to pursue an alternative like a loan modification or a short sale so you can get to a more affordable housing situation.

Some homeowners think reinstatement is the only way to stay in their home. That’s not always true.

Don’t spend thousands of dollars to get current on a loan you may not be able to maintain. Call us to learn about all your options to tailor the best plan to fit your situation.

If you think you want to reinstate, keep it as your last option. After all, you can reinstate all the way up until 11 days before the foreclosure sale. Other options may allow you to stay in your home and avoid having to pay a large lump sum.

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

What Homeowners Must Know About Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

09 Wednesday May 2018

Posted by BNG in Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Non-Judicial States, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

“You’re eligible to join our lawsuit”

On average, complaints that allege some type of attorney involvement have produced greater losses per homeowner than all other complaints. While attorneys can be involved in any type of foreclosure rescue fraud, they are uniquely capable of tricking homeowners into believing they can get involved in fake mass joinder or other lawsuit against a lender. The lawsuit schemes can prove to be even more painful for homeowners because they often involve two parts: first a fee for a “forensic audit” to see if the homeowner is eligible to join the suit, then another fee to join the suit.

Most promise very impressive results, like the homeowner who was told she could “join a class action lawsuit against her lender. Once this was settled she was guaranteed $75,000.” The final selling point for many of these lawsuits is the assurances made to homeowners that nothing can happen to their homes as long as they are part of the suit. Some attorneys advise homeowners to stop paying their mortgage and instead pay monthly retainer fees to them. Month after month, homeowners pay the fee, believing the attorney is fighting for them. In the worst cases, the homeowner doesn’t realize the attorney is actually providing no service at all until a foreclosure notice arrives.

One senior citizen from Williamstown, New Jersey, was contacted by a group of attorneys who guaranteed him a loan modification for just over four thousand dollars. After they allegedly reviewed his documents and made “headway” with the bank regarding a loan modification, they informed him that he was eligible to join a lawsuit against his lender. The suit included over twenty thousand homeowners and they assured him that the lender would settle. At that point the homeowner began making monthly retainer payments of just over a thousand dollars, for eleven months, for a suit that never happened. On top of all of that, the attorneys advised him to stop making his mortgage payments.

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

How Homeowners Can Avoid Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Scams

25 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by BNG in Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage fraud, Mortgage mediation, Non-Judicial States, Scam Artists, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

avoid foreclosure, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Crisis, foreclosure defense, Foreclosure Rescue Fraud, fraud prevention, HAMP, homeowners, Loan Modification, loan modification specialists, Making Home Affordable, Mortgage Coupon, Scam Artists

The most devastating foreclosure rescue fraud scams are those that not only promise a modification, but also trick homeowners into believing the lender has agreed to the terms. The party then instructs the homeowner to pay the “new” modified mortgage payments to them, and they will forward the payment to the lender. In reality, the third party takes the payments and the money never reaches the lender. Homeowners are often blindsided by foreclosure notices after many months of believing they are paying the “new” payments to the lender. The scammers often use copies of government logos and have names that are similar to real government programs.

“Your modification is approved! Send us your new payments”
Operation asserts the homeowner has been approved for a modification then steals the homeowner’s “new” mortgage payments.

In one heartbreaking example, a woman from Lindenhurst, New York, received a flyer in the mail in early 2013 with the header “NOTICE OF HUD RELIEF.” Believing the flyer came from the government, she called the number on the flyer, and explained that she had tried working with her lender, but had no success. The third party told her that the lender was not being cooperative because they really just wanted to foreclose on her.

After sending the third party personal financial information, the homeowner quickly received a call back with some good news: they told her she was qualified for “HAMP through Making Home Affordable.” The homeowner was told she now had a mortgage that was a thousand dollars less than her current one, but this was a lie. Then the party told her there was one other thing she had to do before paying the new mortgage payment – pay a “reinstatement fee” of $6,000 that her lender required. Believing it was the final hurdle to reach relief, she sent in the $6,000. Then in March, April and May 2013, she made her new “trial payments” to the third party. They encouraged the homeowner to let them know when she sent the check so they could contact her lender with a tracking number.

Each month the homeowner received a “Mortgage Coupon” with what appeared to be various government logos on it, including the Making Home Affordable and Treasury logos. The homeowner stayed in close contact with the third party, diligently sending the checks.

In May 2013, the homeowner received a call from her lender, telling her she owed almost $30,000. She explained that she had received a loan modification and had already paid the reinstatement fee along with three mortgage payments. The lender representative told the homeowner that she may have gotten caught in a scam. Frantically, the homeowner called her main contact at the operation to which she had been sending her checks. The phone number was disconnected.
After losing almost $12,000, the homeowner is now facing foreclosure.

STATE LAWS

Ensure that Homeowners Are Covered Under State Laws Targeting Foreclosure Rescue Fraud: Many states have passed new laws to address foreclosure rescue scamming. However, some of these laws defined “homeowners” that the law was designed to protect too narrowly. For example, some state laws limit coverage to homeowners who are in default or foreclosure, and fail to reach many homeowners who are defrauded seeking to refinance their mortgage or are seeking mortgage relief because loss of job or unexpected medical costs. It is therefore important that state laws targeting foreclosure rescue fraud define homeowners broadly to cover fraud at any stage of the process.

As the foreclosure crisis grew, foreclosure rescue fraud – scams designed to capitalize on homeowners facing foreclosure by extracting thousands of dollars in exchange for empty promises of assistance – exploded and increased the pain of these homeowners. The proliferation of this type of fraud is not surprising. Homeowners with financial difficulties desperately need to find help to keep their homes and are vulnerable to scam artists posing as loan modification specialists, for example. Scam operators blanket television, radio, newspapers, and the internet with advertisements in English and Spanish, and also rely on street flyers, signs, billboards, and direct mail solicitation.

This saturation marketing, often filled with lies and exaggerations, plays on the trust of distressed homeowners. Scammers use high-pressure sales tactics and false guarantees of success to attract homeowners and to extract large upfront cash payments from homeowners, and then typically do little or no work to obtain the relief promised, essentially abandoning these homeowners. The homeowners not only lose the money they paid to the scam operation, but fall deeper into default and lose valuable time that could have been spent negotiating directly with their mortgage servicer or by going to free a HUD-approved housing counseling agency with true expertise in assisting homeowners in trying to save their homes.

As the foreclosure crisis was peaking, these scams replaced predatory lending as a major problem in the housing finance industry and scams resulted in what was known as the “second wave” of the foreclosure crisis. Indeed, many predatory lending operations morphed into foreclosure rescue scam entities.

“We volunteer all our hours with no payment.”

Alleged “Non-profits” Referring Homeowners to “Law Groups”

Attorney involvement in scams is growing and appears to be an effective means of ensnaring victims, but some homeowners still approach attorneys with skepticism. Attorneys, or someone pretending to be affiliated with an attorney, attempt to ease this skepticism by involving a “non-profit.” Anyone involved in preventing foreclosure or foreclosure rescue fraud knows the best resource for homeowners is a FREE, HUD – approved housing counseling agency.

The problem is that not every organization who claims to fit that description actually does. Some “non-profits” operate as lead generation agencies, gaining the trust of vulnerable homeowners. A search for “.org” in the Database produces over 1400 complaint hits. Homeowners meet with these “non-profits” and things appear to be in order. They aren’t asking for any money, the people seem very nice, and they begin to look over various mortgage documents, free of charge. Providing what appears to be a free service, the “non-profit” can make the homeowner feel at ease and also invested in the process. Once the homeowner is invested, the next level of the scam begins.

One homeowner from Rosedale, New York, began working with one of these “non-profits” in early 2013. She had received a flyer in the mail with the headline, “Economic Stimulus Mortgage Notification” that read, in part: “You are hereby notified that the property at (her address) has been pre-selected for a special program by the Government Insured Institutions. In addition, this property is pre-qualified for an Economic Advantage Payment or Principal Reduction Program, designed to bring your house payments current for less than you owe or your principle balance down. There are no restrictions on equity, credit ratings, or mortgage delinquencies.” The flyer said to contact “Your National non-profit representative” because this is the “last attempt to assist you with your financial situation.”

The homeowner was in need of a modification, so she called the “non-profit” listed on the top of the flyer. After working with the “non-profit” for a while, they told her that they did “all that they could,” and she needed to talk to “(Name withheld) Law Group.” This “Law Group” advertised that they “fight the bank.” They assured her that nothing could happen to her home as long as they were defending her, saying “(her lender) will not take her case until 2016,” giving her some much needed breathing room. After paying four thousand dollars to the “Law Group” and following weeks of empty promises, she was blindsided by a letter telling her that her mortgage was put into foreclosure just a few months after she began working with the “non-profit.”

To keep skeptical homeowners on the hook, the “non-profit” will stay involved throughout the process, assuring the vulnerable homeowner everything is fine. The “Law Group” extracts numerous fees from the homeowner, often saying, “the bank can’t do anything as long as we represent you.” Often in the end, the “non-profit” was started by the same attorney (or non-attorney) who started the “Law Group.” The homeowner loses thousands of dollars and is left wondering, if a “non-profit” will scam them, is there anyone they can trust?

“You’re eligible to join our lawsuit”
Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

The final selling point for many of these lawsuits is the assurances made to homeowners that nothing can happen to their homes as long as they are part of the suit. Some attorneys advise homeowners to stop paying their mortgage and instead pay monthly retainer fees to them. Month after month, homeowners pay the fee, believing the attorney is fighting for them. In the worst cases, the homeowner doesn’t realize the attorney is actually providing no service at all until a foreclosure notice arrives.

Attorneys Engaged in Foreclosure Rescue Fraud
Results in Higher Homeowner Losses

These “Law Groups” or “Law Networks” claim to include hundreds of lawyers from around the country and claim that they will connect homeowners to lawyers in their home state.

The Domino Effect of Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

The average dollar figure a homeowner loses in Attorney involved Scam is around $3600, and $2850 on non-Attorney Scams. This dollar figure does not take into account the potential domino effect of foreclosure and homelessness these foreclosure rescue scams can have.

Homeowners may lose over $3,200 in cash payments to a scammer, but then can end up losing hundreds of thousands of dollars more because their homes fall into foreclosure as a direct result of the scam.

At Reno Nevada Foreclosure Prevention Event: One story was particularly memorable.

It involved a homeowner named Bill, and his Dad. After the Lawyers’ Committee’s presentation, Bill’s father, who is in his 80’s, came to the Lawyers’ Committee’s table and asked that we speak to his son, who has medical issues and has difficulty walking. Bill opened his rolling filing cabinet, where he kept his mortgage documents meticulously categorized, and pulled out a large stack of papers from the section labeled “Name Withheld Law Center.”

Bill described his experience as follows: Towards the end of 2009, he received a flyer in the mail with the subject line, “RE: Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.” This “Modification PROGRAM” said he may be eligible for the “Governmental Economic Stimulus Act of 2009.” The flyer contained Bill’s name, address, and exact loan amount. There was a place for him provide his email address and phone number so the group responsible for the flyer could contact him.

After receiving the flyer, Bill began talking to the “Name Withheld Law Center” associated with it. He pulled out the contract that was sent to him, which contained a recognized attorney’s name because several state Attorneys General had obtained cease and desist orders against that attorney. The attorney doesn’t appear to have ever been licensed in Nevada, and while he had been licensed in California, his license was suspended in early 2013 for misconduct in three loan modification cases.

Bill paid just under two thousand dollars for a loan modification that he never received.

Bill’s Dad sat behind him and watched closely as Bill spoke about his experience with the “Name Withheld Law Group,” and about his life in general. Bill’s Dad’s eyes would well up from time to time.

This story is so moving because it accurately describes the effects of the foreclosure crisis and foreclosure rescue frauds on struggling homeowners. The vast majority of people looking for help to modify their mortgages don’t have an exploding rate mortgage. They, like Bill, have a normal 30 year fixed mortgage that they could afford pre-recession. Bill bought his home for around $280,000 in 2005, putting down a full 20%, which now is worth somewhere between $130,000 and $160,000. When he bought the home, like many Americans, he couldn’t foresee the worst recession since the Great Depression and the simultaneous housing collapse.

These homeowners became prime targets for foreclosure rescue scammers, having been blindsided by the recession and believing the guarantees of success by those who promised to save their homes.

Military Scams

Fake Military Discounts in Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

“We have a discount for military members & their families”

With more than three years of data in the Database – including over thirty-eight thousand complaints and over eighty-four million dollars in total reported losses – sadly there is no shortage of disturbing stories. From the dying cancer patient who was scammed out of thousands of dollars while he was trying to make sure his widow could afford the mortgage when he was gone, to the single woman who took in her sister’s four children after she passed away who was scammed into believing she was part of a fake lawsuit, then threatened by the same attorneys who scammed her after she complained. One type of troubling scam appearing over the past few years is the “Military Discount” targeted to active military service members and their families.

One man, a senior citizen from Fort Worth, Texas, had hit a rough patch when he was solicited by a third party. At that point, he was one month behind on his mortgage payments and was working hard to keep up. The company guaranteed him a loan modification for $1,600. He was hesitant to pay so much money when he was already struggling to stay current on his mortgage. Sensing his hesitation with the original price, the third party asked if he, or anyone in his family, was currently serving the country. After he explained that his daughter was currently serving the country in Iraq, the third party thanked him for his daughter’s service and told him that he was eligible for a military discount of $300. Lowering the price just enough to make it bearable for him, he paid the fee. Months went by with no results and no refund. The damage was not done there. The company advised him that he needed to stop making his mortgage payments in order to get the loan modification, so he did. He went from being just one month behind on his mortgage when he started working with this operation, to his home being sold in foreclosure.

State laws targeting foreclosure rescue fraud should define covered homeowners broadly, as those who seek foreclosure relief services can easily be defrauded before an actual foreclosure or mortgage payment default, thereby excluding them from the coverage of otherwise applicable consumer protection laws. Homeowners who are not yet in foreclosure and who have not fallen behind on mortgage payments should be encompassed in laws regulating third-party services in this area.

Some state and federal laws prohibiting foreclosure rescue fraud directly or indirectly (including through prohibitions on deceptive business practices) are only enforceable by government entities.

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

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

26 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Bankruptcy, Banks and Lenders, Case Laws, Case Study, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Securitization, State Court, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bank forecloses, bankruptcy court, Foreclosure, homeowners, Ibanez Case, Loan, Massachusetts, MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Pro se legal representation in the United States, US Bank, wrongful foreclosure

Many homeowners who found themselves in wrongful foreclosure situation may have a valid defense, against the perpetrators of these crimes.

How much does it cost to get justice, when a bank forecloses on your house illegally? Thousands of ex-homeowners don’t pursue their rights to a financial settlement because they assume they couldn’t pay the legal fees.

In fact, it costs less than you fear. Consumer lawyers take a few cases at no charge. More likely, you’ll pay fees — upfront or on a monthly plan — tied to the lawyer’s estimate of the time it will take and your ability to pay. If they win your case, they’ll collect from the financial institution, too.

Before readers attack the “greedy lawyers” for defending “deadbeat” clients who couldn’t repay their mortgage loans, let me quote from a groundbreaking decision of 2011 by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The court reversed two foreclosures because the banks — Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, acting as trustees for investors — couldn’t prove that they actually owned the mortgages. Judge Robert J. Cordy excoriated them for their “utter carelessness.” The fact that the borrowers owed the money was “not the point,” he wrote. The right to deprive people of their property is a powerful one and banks have to prove they have the legal standing to do so.

American law cannot allow property seizures based on backdated, incomplete, or fraudulent documentation, no matter what the circumstances are. Otherwise, no one’s home is safe. Courts enforce private property rights through the cases brought before them. In other words, lawyers.

The Massachusetts case began not with consumers, but with the banks themselves. They asked the courts to affirm that the foreclosures were valid so they could get title insurance. That pulled the borrowers — Antonio Ibanez and Mark and Tammy LaRace — into the fray. When the horrified courts looked at how the foreclosures had gone down, they said, “no way,” and gave the former owners their property back.

Ibanez, a special ed teacher, bought the home for investment in 2005 and defaulted in 2007 on a $103,500 loan, according to the court papers. Even since, the house has been boarded up. Ibanez filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, so he now has title to the home and no obligation on the debt. The mortgage investors will take the loss.

The LaRaces borrowed $103,200 to buy their home in 2005 and also defaulted in 2007. They had an offer on their home, but the servicer foreclosed anyway. (During the trial, the foreclosing law firm admitted that servicers are graded on how quickly they can liquidate a mortgage.)

The LaRaces have moved back into their long-unattended home, but first they had to clean up mold, fix plumbing, and make other repairs. They would gladly resume payments on the mortgage, their lawyer Glenn Russell says. But the trustee bank doesn’t own the loan. The investors don’t own it because the mortgage was never transferred properly. The original lender, Option One, no longer exists. So whom do they pay?

This important case opens the door to thousands of foreclosure do-overs in Massachusetts at the time, and continuing and equally influenced courts in other states, as well. But there hasn’t been a rush by lawyers to get involved, probably because the field is complex and not especially remunerative. No class actions have been certified, as at that time or shortly thereafter, so the cases proceeded one by one. The financial trail can be hard to track (the Massachusetts documents were unwound by mortgage-fraud specialist Marie McDonnell). The lawyer — often, a sole practitioner — is up against the awesome resources of major financial institutions.

Neither Ibanez nor the LaRaces were charged for their lawyer’s services. Collier had file a claim for wrongful foreclosure and was paid from any settlement. Russell did the same. At the time, Russell also thinks the LaRaces are owed something for the cost of repairing their home.

Very few cases start as pro bono, however. Lawyers who defend consumers have bills to pay, just as the banks’ corporate attorneys do. You may opt to fight it Pro Se using the package from our website, or if you want to fight an unfair foreclosure, you might be offered one of several arrangements:

An upfront fee. “Many of my clients were formerly very successful individuals,” Russell says. On average, the value of the homes of the people who contact him is “somewhat north of $500,000.” He suggests a fee based on their means.

Monthly payments. If you’re not making monthly mortgage payments, some portion of that money could be applied to legal expenses. Collier says he puts the payments into escrow and retains them if he gets the house back (he says he always does, in predatory lending cases).

Bankruptcy payment plans. The clients of North Carolina bankruptcy attorney Max Gardner are usually in a Chapter 13 monthly repayment plan. Each state sets the maximum attorney’s fee, payable as part of the plan.

Mostly, the attorneys get paid by suing the financial institutions, who settle claims or suffer court judgements due to their own illegal activity. People who beat up on consumer lawyers scream that they bring frivolous cases just for the fees. But consumer lawyers only get paid if their case is good, so they’re pretty rigorous about whom they choose to represent. “I was called crazy for practicing in this area of law, as in ‘I would be broke’ by not getting enough fees,” Russell says. “Three years later, I am still here and still living my motto of helping people first.”

Most homeowners are successful fighting there case Pro Se using the package we offer for fighting Foreclosure, as your interest is at stake, and you have the most to lose, not Attorneys. They gets paid whether you win or lose. However, homeowners equally have options when fighting wrongful foreclosure.

If you think you have a case, your toughest challenge isn’t fees, it’s finding a lawyer with the expertise to press your claim successfully, Gardner says. If you don’t have a personal reference for a qualified lawyer, the best place to look is the website of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Next best: the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. In either case, ask if the lawyer has won other securitization, mortgage servicing, and foreclosure cases. “They have to know what documents to ask for,” Gardner says. That’s what wins.

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

What Homeowners Must Know About Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

19 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage Servicing, Non-Judicial States, Pro Se Litigation, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adjustable rate mortgage loan, Borrower, borrowers, credit reports, Financial reports, hardship, homeowners, Loan Modification, mortgage loan modifications, Mortgage note, refinance a loan, Refinance Fraud, Refinancing, servicer

Concerns with mortgage loan modifications do not always involve fraud. Each state has provisions and requirements for a senior lien holder to modify a loan and retain their lien position.

A typical fraudulent issue involving loan modifications is as follows:

Borrower submits false income information and/or false credit reports to persuade a financial institution to modify or refinance a loan on more favorable terms.

With respect to any mortgage loan, a loan modification is a revision to the contractual payment terms of the related mortgage note, agreed to by the servicer and borrower, including, without limitation, the following:

1. Capitalization of any amounts owed by adding such amount to the outstanding principal balance.
2. Extension of the maturity.
3. Change in amortization schedule.
4. Reduction or other revision to the mortgage note interest rate.
5. Extension of the fixed-rate payment period of any adjustable rate mortgage loan.
6. Reduction or other revision to the note interest rate index, gross margin, initial or periodic interest rate cap, or maximum or minimum rate of any adjustable rate mortgage loan.
7. Forgiveness of any amount of interest and/or principal owed by the related borrower.
8. Forgiveness of any principal and/or interest advances that are reimbursed to the servicer from the securitization trust.
9. Forgiveness of any escrow advances of taxes and insurance and/or any other servicing advances that are reimbursed to the servicer from the securitization trust.
10. Forbearance of principal whereby the servicer “moves” a certain interest free portion of the principal to the “back-end” of the loan, lowering the amortizing balance and the monthly payment.

Refinancing is the process of paying off an existing loan by taking a new loan and using the same property as security. A homeowner may refinance for the following legitimate reasons:
• In a declining interest rate environment a refinance generally will lower monthly payments.
• In a rising interest rate environment a refinance to a fixed rate loan from an adjustable rate loan will generally allow the borrower to lock in the lower rate for the life of the loan.
• In a period of rising home prices the refinance allows the borrower to withdraw equity.

Examples

o Two years after the origination of a mortgage loan, a borrower contacted the lender, claiming a need to modify the loan. In an attempt to deceive the lender into modifying the loan, the borrower stopped making loan payments. The borrower’s original loan application indicated that the borrower earned $7,500 per month; however, the borrower subsequently claimed income of only $1,200 per month. While evaluating the need for the modification, the bank reviewed the borrower’s credit report and determined that the customer’s supposed annual income of $14,400, was insufficient in comparison to the reported $40,000 per year servicing other debt, which was current. The bank stopped the modification process, as the borrower had intentionally understated income in an attempt to defraud the financial institution.

o A borrower contacted the lender claiming a reduction in income and trouble with making loan payments. The borrower provided the lender with a copy of his most recent tax return, which showed an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $45,000, down from the previous year’s $96,897. The borrower signed Form 4506-T, authorizing the lender to access tax returns filed with the IRS. In reviewing the tax information obtained from the IRS, the lender found that the borrower had recently amended the most recent return, lowering the AGI from $105,670 to $45,000. In this scenario, the borrower had purposely amended the return to reflect a lower AGI, possibly with the intent of amending it a second time to reflect the true amount of income.

o A borrower requests a loan modification for a property that he claims to occupy. Based on the various facts provided to the lender, it appears that the borrower is eligible for a modification. When underwriting the modification, the lender verifies the borrower’s income with the IRS. During the verification process, the lender recognizes two potential problems with the information provided. The address on the tax return is different than the address of the house collateralizing the loan, and the return reflects rental income from real property. After additional investigation, the lender concludes that the customer was trying to modify the loan on rental property and not on the primary residence.

Best Practices
• Underwrite all modifications. The financial institution should ensure that modification files include:
o Documentation of Hardship.
o Borrowers’ willingness and ability to continue to pay debt and retain property.
o Independent verification of information (employment, income, occupancy) provided.
o New credit report.
o Analysis of sustainability of performance post-modification.
o Referral to reputable credit counseling service.
• Establish legal department protocol for review of modification agreement (different states have different laws and language).
• Establish strong post-modification loan performance reports.
• Review Uniform Retail Classification and Account Management Policy
• Ensure proper accounting for delinquencies, trouble debt restructuring, charge-offs, and the allowance for loan and lease losses.

Red Flags
A red flag is an indicator that calls for further scrutiny. One red flag by itself may not be significant; however, multiple red flags may indicate an operating environment that is conducive to fraud.
• Borrower states that the property is his primary residence and is therefore owner-occupied but the mailing address and telephone number are not for the subject property (e.g., property is located in North Carolina; mailing address and telephone number are in New York).
• Vague and/or unrealistic hardship (“the national economy”).
• No documented resolution of hardship.
• No or limited financial analysis in file.
• No employment/income verification.
• Credit Report inconsistent with borrower’s stated hardship.
• Financial reports that reflect low delinquencies that are inconsistent with local economic conditions or the bank’s loan portfolio composition.

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

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud Schemes

11 Sunday Mar 2018

Posted by BNG in Affirmative Defenses, Banks and Lenders, Federal Court, Foreclosure Crisis, Foreclosure Defense, Fraud, Judicial States, Landlord and Tenant, Legal Research, Litigation Strategies, Loan Modification, MERS, Mortgage Laws, Mortgage mediation, Non-Judicial States, Pleadings, Pro Se Litigation, Scam Artists, Title Companies, Trial Strategies, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Appraiser, Asset Rental, Borrower, Builder Bailout, Buy and Bail, Buyer, Chunking, Closing/Settlement Agent, Double Selling, Equity Skimming, Fake Down Payment, Fictitious Loan, Fraudulent Appraisal, Fraudulent Documentation, Fraudulent Use of Shell Company, Identify Theft, Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud, Loan Servicer, Mortgage Servicing Fraud, Originator, Phantom Sale, Processor, Property Flip Fraud, Real Estate Agent, Reverse Mortgage Fraud, Seller, Short Sale Fraud, Straw/Nominee Borrower, Title Agent, Underwriter, Warehouse Lender

Mortgage fraud has continued to increase since the 2005. Declining economic conditions, liberal underwriting standards, and declining housing values contributed to the increased level of fraud. Market participants are perpetrating mortgage fraud by modifying old schemes, such as property flip, builder-bailout, and short sale fraud, as well as employing newer schemes, such as buy and bail, reverse mortgage fraud, loan modification, refinance fraud, and mortgage servicing fraud.

This Post defines schemes as the big picture or secret plan of action used to perpetrate a fraud. There are a variety of “schemes” by which mortgage fraud can take place. These schemes can involve individuals inside the financial institution or third parties. Various combinations of these schemes may be implemented in a single fraud. The descriptions provided below are examples of traditional and emerging schemes that are used to facilitate mortgage fraud.

Builder Bailout
This scheme is used when a builder, who has unsold units in a tract, subdivision, or condominium complex, employs various fraudulent schemes to sell the remaining properties.

Buy and Bail
This scheme typically involves a borrower who is current on a mortgage loan, but the value of the house has fallen below the amount owed. The borrower continues to make loan payments, while applying for a purchase money mortgage loan on a similar house that cost less due to the decline in market value. After obtaining the new property, the borrower “walks” or “bails” on the first loan.

Chunking
Chunking occurs when a third party convinces an uninformed borrower to invest in a property (or properties), with no money down and with the third party acting as the borrower’s agent. The third party is also typically the owner of the property or part of a larger group organizing the scheme. Without the borrower’s knowledge, the third party submits loan applications to multiple financial institutions for various properties. The third party retains the loan proceeds, leaving the borrower with multiple loans that cannot be repaid. The financial institutions are forced to foreclose on the properties.

Double Selling
Double selling occurs when a mortgage loan originator accepts a legitimate application and documentation from a buyer, reproduces or copies the loan file, and sends the loan package to separate warehouse lenders to each fund the loan.

Equity Skimming
Equity skimming is the use of a fraudulent appraisal that over-values a property, creating phantom equity, which is subsequently stripped out through various schemes.

Fictitious Loan
A fictitious loan is the fabrication of loan documents or use of a real person’s information to apply for a loan which the applicant typically has no intention of paying. A fictitious loan can be perpetrated by an insider of the financial institution or by external parties such as loan originators, real estate agents, title companies, and/or appraisers.

Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud
This scheme occurs when a borrower submits false income information and/or false credit reports to persuade the financial institution to modify or refinance the loan on more favorable terms.

Mortgage Servicing Fraud
This fraud is perpetrated by the loan servicer and generally involves the diversion or misuse of loan payments, proceeds from loan prepayments, and/or escrow funds for the benefit of the service provider.

Phantom Sale
This scheme generally involves an individual or individuals who falsely transfer title to a property or properties and fraudulently obtain funds via mortgage loans or sales to third parties.

Property Flip Fraud
A fraudulent property flip is a scheme in which individuals, businesses, and/or straw borrowers, buy and sell properties among themselves to artificially inflate the value of the property.

Reverse Mortgage Fraud
Reverse Mortgage Fraud involves a scheme using a reverse mortgage loan to defraud a financial institution by stripping legitimate or fictitious equity from the collateral property.

Short Sale Fraud
Fraud occurs in a short sale when a borrower purposely withholds mortgage payments, forcing the loan into default, so that an accomplice can submit a “straw” short-sale offer at a purchase price less than the borrower’s loan balance. Sometimes the borrower is truly having financial difficulty and is approached by a fraudster to commit the scheme. In all cases, a fraud is committed if the financial institution is misled into approving the short-sale offer, when the price is not reasonable and/or when conflicts of interest are not properly disclosed.

Two additional fraud schemes, which are briefly addressed below, are debt elimination and foreclosure rescue schemes. While these schemes are typically not perpetrated directly on financial institutions, and therefore not expanded upon to the same degree as the above-mentioned schemes, the end result of the scheme can have a negative impact on the financial institution.

COMMON MECHANISMS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES

This Post Paper defines mechanism as the process by which fraud is perpetrated. A single mortgage fraud scheme can often include one or more mechanisms and may involve collusion between two or more individuals working in unison to implement a fraud.

The following is a list of common mechanisms used to perpetrate mortgage fraud schemes:

Asset Rental
Cash or other assets are temporarily placed in the borrower’s account/possession in order to qualify for a mortgage loan. The borrower usually pays a “rental” fee for the temporary “use” of the assets.

Fake Down Payment
In order to meet loan-to-value requirements, a fake down payment through fictitious, forged, falsified, or altered documents is used to mislead the lender.

Fraudulent Appraisal
Appraisal fraud can occur when an appraiser, for various reasons, falsifies information on an appraisal or falsely provides an inaccurate valuation on the appraisal with the intent to mislead a third party.

Fraudulent Documentation
Fraudulent documentation consists of any forged, falsified, incomplete, or altered document that the financial institution relied upon in making a credit decision.

Fraudulent Use of Shell Company
A business entity that typically has no physical presence, has nominal assets, and generates little or no income is a shell company. Shell companies in themselves are not illegal and may be formed by individuals or business for legitimate purposes. However, due to lack of transparency regarding beneficial ownership, ease of formation, and inconsistent reporting requirements from state to state, shell companies have become a preferred vehicle for financial fraud schemes.

Identify Theft
Identity theft can be defined as assuming the use of another person’s personal information (e.g., name, SSN, credit card number, etc.) without the person’s knowledge and the fraudulent use of such knowledge to obtain credit.

Straw/Nominee Borrower
An individual used to serve as a cover for a questionable loan transaction.

COMMON PARTICIPANTS
Various individuals participate in mortgage fraud schemes. The following list consists of common participants in such schemes and each is linked to the glossary:

Appraiser – One who is expected to perform valuation services competently and in a manner that is independent, impartial, and objective.

Processor – The processor is an individual who assembles all the necessary documents to be included in the loan package.

Borrower – One who receives funds in the form of a loan with the obligation of repaying the loan in full with interest. The borrower may be purchasing property, refinancing an existing mortgage loan, or borrowing against the equity of the property for other purposes.

Real Estate Agent – An individual or firm that receives a commission for representing the buyer or seller, in a RE purchase transaction.

Buyer – A buyer is a person who is acquiring property.

Seller – Person offering to sell a piece of real estate.

Closing/Settlement Agent – An individual or company that oversees the consummation of a mortgage transaction at which the note and other legal documents are signed and the loan proceeds are disbursed. Title companies, attorneys, settlement agents, and escrow agents can perform this service. Local RE law may dictate the party conducting the closing.

Title Agent – The title agent is a person or firm that is authorized on behalf of a title insurer to conduct a title search and issue a title insurance report or title insurance policy.

Loan Servicer – A loan servicer is a public or private entity or individual engaged to collect and process payments on mortgage loans.

Underwriter – The credit decision-making process which can be automated, manual or a combination of both. In an automated process, application information is entered into a decision-making model that makes a credit determination based on pre-determined criteria. In a manual process an individual underwriter, usually an employee of the financial institution, makes the credit decision after evaluating all of the information in the loan package, including the credit report, appraisal, and verification of deposit, income, and employment. Financial institutions often use a combination of both, with the automated decision representing one element of the overall credit decision. In each case, the decision may include stipulations or conditions that must be met before the loan can close.

Originator – The individual or entity that gathers application data from the borrower. Alternatively, a person or entity, such as a loan officer, broker, or correspondent, who assists a borrower with the loan application.

Warehouse Lender – A short-term lender for mortgage bankers. Using mortgage loans as collateral, the warehouse lender provides interim financing until the loans are sold to a permanent investor.

CONCLUSION
Mortgage fraud continues to result in significant losses for financial institutions, as well as, the Homeowners. It is imperative that homeowners understand the nature of the various schemes and recognize red flags related to mortgage fraud. This knowledge and use of best practices will help with the prevention of mortgage fraud, and financial losses to the homeowner.

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

How Homeowners Can Effectively Handle the Mortgage Loan Modification Challenges

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by BNG in Banks and Lenders, Judicial States, Loan Modification, Non-Judicial States, Your Legal Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bank, lenders, load modification, mortgage, Mortgage broker, mortgage lender, Mortgage loan, mortgage loan modification, mortgage loans, Mortgage servicer

For the past few years, homeowners in foreclosure situations have discovered the ugly protocol involving mortgage loan modification. These series of repeated process between the homeowner and the alleged lender can sometimes lead to frustrations, stress and emotional distress. This post is designed to help homeowners cope with the frustrations of mortgage loan modification protocol.

1) Before agreeing to any more loan applications, write to your lender. Ask them to stipulate to the following statements in an affidavit form:
“Please stipulate and warrant that you are the owner of the obligation, or have the authority from the owner of the obligation to modify my loan.
If you can not or will not stipulate and warrant that you have the authority to modify my loan within 30 days, then you fully admit that you never had the authority to modify my loan. You acted not in good faith and are practicing fraud and deceit.

This is an admission that will be used in all future litigation against your company. You can not represent that you have the ability and authority to modify my loan while hiding the fact that you actually do not have such authority.”

BE SURE TO ASK FOR THE SPECIFIC NAME OF THE PERSON MAKING THE DECISION FOR YOUR LOAN MOD. You can get a deposition from this person if you move in to litigation.

2) Get a Securitization Audit.
If you get a third party expert witness to testify that your loan has been securitized, then present the audit to your servicer. Ask them pointedly:
“It seems that my loan has been securitized. Please see the enclosed securitization audit. If my loan has been securitized, then you no longer own my promissory note. If this is the case, then I am very confused. Please explain to me how you have the authority to modify my loan.
Please stipulate and warrant that you are the owner of the obligation, or have the authority from the owner of the obligation to modify my loan.
If you can not or will not stipulate and warrant that you have the authority to modify my loan within 30 days, then you fully admit that you never had the authority to modify my loan. You acted not in good faith and are practicing fraud and deceit.

3) Sue Your “Lender”
If you can gather enough evidence to prove that:
a) Your servicer has no authority to modify your loan, yet represent that they do.
b) They have acted not in good faith…and have continued to deny your loan mod, time and time again…especially with contradictory statements like “you make too much money” followed by “you make too little money”.
c) Find out from your securitization auditor that you qualify for HAMP but no actual application with HAMP was done with your loan.
d) You were put into a trial payment program…which you pay on time consistently…and are either foreclosed upon, or denied anyway for good measure, then you have a justifiable cause of action.

The title of your action would be asking for a “Permanent Injunction”. Consult your attorney. Basically, a permanent injunction is such that your bank can not foreclose on your home until such times as they offer you a sustainable loan modification. The basis for this injunction is because they represent to you that they have the authority to modify the loan, and go through the motions of giving you a loan modification application.

The principle we want to use here is to prove that the “lender” is not acting in good faith. We are going to make them eat their words. In other words, if they represent that they can do a loan modification, but in fact, they can not…then they are guilty of misrepresentation. Be sure to consult the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act under misrepresentation as another claim in your civil action.

The strategy here is, by suing your “lender”, you are now costing them big money…to the tune of $10,000 to $25,000 just to defend your action against them. When it starts to hurt them…then they will be more likely to come to the table to deal with you more fairly. Currently, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for them to give you a loan mod.

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, Unjust Enrichment, 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.

FightForeclosure.net

~ Your "Pro Se" Foreclosure Fight Solution!

Category Archives: Loan Modification

What Borrowers Must Know About Voiding Liens in a Mortgage

What Homeowners Should Know About Foreclosure Defense

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

How Homeowners Can Find Who Owns Their Mortgage Loans

What Homeowners Must Know About Reinstating their Mortgage Loan

Reinstating before the foreclosure process has started

What Homeowners Must Know About Fake Mass Joinder & Other Lawsuits

How Homeowners Can Avoid Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Scams

How Homeowners Can Use Ibanez Case to Fight a Wrongful Foreclosure

What Homeowners Must Know About Loan Modification and Refinance Fraud

What Homeowners Must Know About Mortgage Fraud Schemes

How Homeowners Can Effectively Handle the Mortgage Loan Modification Challenges

Share this:

Like this:

Foreclosure Defense Varies by State

Foreclosure Defense and Chain of Title

Promissory Notes are Key to Foreclosure Defense

Other Foreclosure Defense Strategies

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Reinstating before the foreclosure process has started

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: