I recently saw a book review/ interview in which the author stated that Mortgage Backed Securities have been around since Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, was involved in one of the first mortgage backed securities. I was also reviewing HUD regulations and loan modifications and ran across modification programs in the early 1990's. Apparently, Mortgage Backed Securities have been around forever and are not necessarily the root of all evil.
At some point Mortgage Backed Securities became prevelant and dominated the finance of real estate transactions. Talking heads spoke of a housing bubble and the eventual bursting of the bubble. Those involved in Mortgage Backed Securities eventually invented financial products to protect themselves against the risk of the bubble bursting. Real Estate transactions began ocurring at a more rapid pace and less credit worthy individuals became involved in these transactions.
As more information becomes available, more time is spent writing and talking about how we got here and who is to blame. If they are not casting blame, the articles discuss extreme measures that should be taken by Homeowners against Banks or Politicians. All of this adds to the collective "noise" that has allowed the Banks to continue to do wrong. The Banks' wrong was not the MBS or the financial items used to diminish the Banks' risks. The Banks' wrong which continues today is failing to take responsibility for their losses. When they were making money the Banks did not do things "by the book", "did not crosss their T's and dot their I's". Now the Banks are attempting to avoid the results of these failures.
Robo-signing is really just the result of Banks trying to recreate or create numerous transactions that should have been done years ago. The banks created Trusts to hold mortgages and sold an interest in these trusts as certificates. However, these Trusts required the notes and mortgages to be transferred to the Trust within a very limited period of time. If these transfers did not occur within these strict time periods, then the assets were not properly transferred to the Trust. If the assets were not transferred to the Trust, then the Trustee can not bring suit on the note or foreclose upon the mortgage. Further, the Trust or Trustee can not subsequently transfer the note or mortgage to an investor or a Government Sponsored Entity; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.
I strongly believe that Homeowners must engage counsel at an early stage. As soon as the complaint is filed a Homeowner should contact an attorney. Attorneys that do not regularly defend foreclosures should refer Homeowners to those attorney that do. In the last week I have filed a number of pleadings throughout Ohio, in which I argue that the Plaintiff Trust does not possess the Note or Mortgage, and that the Trustee can not seek to enforce a note or mortgage that is not an asset of the trust. I have relied upon the following authority to make this argument:
1. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement will set forth the governing law as the law of teh State of New York.
2. The New York Law of Estates, Powers, and Trusts, NY EPT LAW 7-2.4
*** any act of the Trustee in contravention of the Trust is void ***
3. I then provide provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which provide the manner in which the note and mortgage are to be transferred from the Originator to the Sponsor, to the Depositor, and then to the Trustee,
4. I then cite cases Horace vs. LaSalle Bank NA; Hendricks vs. US Bank NA; and Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. vs. Williams for the proposition that a Plaintiff that fails to comply with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement can not bring suit.
These pleadings are currently pending in four different county courts of common pleas and a court of appeals. I will post the results as they occur.
Should any attorney have additional authority or would like to discussthe matter in greater detail, please contact my office
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Dual Tracking -- In Ohio It is Expected
I recently read a post regarding the California Act that will prohibit Banks from "dual tracking" foreclosure cases. This term of art that is developing describes the situation in which the Bank continues to work with the Homeowner to modify the mortgage while also proceeding with the foreclosure action. In Ohio, or at least in the cases I have seen, the Courts expect the Banks to continue to contact the Homeowners. The Courts will actually inform the Homeowners to keep in constant contact with the Bank and the law firm representing the Plaintiff in the foreclosure, because the Banks never tell the attorneys anything. Motions for default are denied or at least continued when a homeowner comes to Court the day of the hearing and says (1) I am working with the Bank and have made the final trial payment on my modification, (2) the Bank told me I did not need to appear, but I thought I should. If the Homeowner did not appear default judgment would have probably issued.
Several of my more recent clients have stated that (1) they were told that a modification would resolve the foreclosure, (2) they did not need to appear at Court, (3) they were eventually denied the loan modification only to find out that the Court granted judgment in favor of the Bank. In addition, those clients who have contacted my office as soon as they are served with the complaint, state that they are contacted by the Bank repeatedly until the answer is filed. This could be the Bank ethically deciding not to contact a party who is represented by counsel, but it is starting to feel more like the Bank contacts homeowners trying to lull them to sleep until a default judgment is rendered against the Homeowner.
It would appear that this is simply another step in the well conceived foreclosure process by the banks. Convince the Homeowners and the Public in general that everything is the fault of "irresponsible homeowners". Dual track the process so the embarrassed Homeowner is lead to believe that he/she can quietly fix the problem through a loan modification without going to Court. Obtain default judgment and deny the loan modification. I reecntly suggested on a Mandelman Matters comment that an effort should be made to quantify the number of Homeowners who were convinced that they did not have to file a responsive pleading in the Court based upon their communications with the Bank.
In a number of motions for relief from judgment I have been developing the idea that Ohio Courts already use a balancing test when determining excusable neglect under 60(B)(1), by finding the neglect more excusable based upon the strength of the defense. The standard for relief from judgment should also be lessened when there is eviednce presented that the Homeowner was contacted by the Bank and encouraged to participate in a loan modification instead of defending the foreclosure action.
An additional concern is that Banks are using the delay in bringing a property to Sheriff's Sale to their advantage. Homeowners seem to be given a false sense of security with the knowledge that the Sheriff's Sale may not occur for some time. The Homeowner believes that they have time to modify the loan. However, as the time from the decree of foreclosure goes beyond one year, the Homeowner faces a much more difficult task in obtaining relief from judgment. Several grounds for relief under Civil Rule 60(B) must be raised within one year. Homeowners repeatedly send in their financial papers, wait 6 weeks for a response, and repeat. A year goes by pretty quickly waiting for repeated responses. The loan modification is denied; Sheriff's Sale is approaching rapidly, and the Homeowner has lost several grounds for relief as a result of more than a year passing.
Homeowners need to aggressively defend the Foreclosure Complaint from the beginning. A concentrated effort needs to be made to advise these Homeowners.
The complaint and summons in Ohio now advise Homeowners of resources available from the Ohio Attorney General's Office. However, the Homeowner is not cautioned that these groups are not attorneys, cannot represent the Homeowner in Court, and can only assist with the loan modification process. Dual tracking and the Banks' overall strategy seem to be inadvertently assisted by referring Homeowners to these resources.
Several of my more recent clients have stated that (1) they were told that a modification would resolve the foreclosure, (2) they did not need to appear at Court, (3) they were eventually denied the loan modification only to find out that the Court granted judgment in favor of the Bank. In addition, those clients who have contacted my office as soon as they are served with the complaint, state that they are contacted by the Bank repeatedly until the answer is filed. This could be the Bank ethically deciding not to contact a party who is represented by counsel, but it is starting to feel more like the Bank contacts homeowners trying to lull them to sleep until a default judgment is rendered against the Homeowner.
It would appear that this is simply another step in the well conceived foreclosure process by the banks. Convince the Homeowners and the Public in general that everything is the fault of "irresponsible homeowners". Dual track the process so the embarrassed Homeowner is lead to believe that he/she can quietly fix the problem through a loan modification without going to Court. Obtain default judgment and deny the loan modification. I reecntly suggested on a Mandelman Matters comment that an effort should be made to quantify the number of Homeowners who were convinced that they did not have to file a responsive pleading in the Court based upon their communications with the Bank.
In a number of motions for relief from judgment I have been developing the idea that Ohio Courts already use a balancing test when determining excusable neglect under 60(B)(1), by finding the neglect more excusable based upon the strength of the defense. The standard for relief from judgment should also be lessened when there is eviednce presented that the Homeowner was contacted by the Bank and encouraged to participate in a loan modification instead of defending the foreclosure action.
An additional concern is that Banks are using the delay in bringing a property to Sheriff's Sale to their advantage. Homeowners seem to be given a false sense of security with the knowledge that the Sheriff's Sale may not occur for some time. The Homeowner believes that they have time to modify the loan. However, as the time from the decree of foreclosure goes beyond one year, the Homeowner faces a much more difficult task in obtaining relief from judgment. Several grounds for relief under Civil Rule 60(B) must be raised within one year. Homeowners repeatedly send in their financial papers, wait 6 weeks for a response, and repeat. A year goes by pretty quickly waiting for repeated responses. The loan modification is denied; Sheriff's Sale is approaching rapidly, and the Homeowner has lost several grounds for relief as a result of more than a year passing.
Homeowners need to aggressively defend the Foreclosure Complaint from the beginning. A concentrated effort needs to be made to advise these Homeowners.
The complaint and summons in Ohio now advise Homeowners of resources available from the Ohio Attorney General's Office. However, the Homeowner is not cautioned that these groups are not attorneys, cannot represent the Homeowner in Court, and can only assist with the loan modification process. Dual tracking and the Banks' overall strategy seem to be inadvertently assisted by referring Homeowners to these resources.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Reply Brief filed in the Ohio Supreme Court
Today, I filed a reply brief in Ohio Supreme Court Case No.:2011-1362 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. vs. Duane Schwartzwald. The Ohio Supreme Court certified a conflict and asked the parties to brief the issue:
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the lack of standing or a real party in interest defect can be cured by the assignment of the mortgage prior to judgment.
An amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ohio Homeowners and Ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com. You can review the brief by going to the Ohio Supreme Court's website or clicking on the link below http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/698840.pdf
In the Amicus Brief, I demonstrated that foreclosures require both an interest in the promissory note and an interest in the mortgage, and that the lack of one of these required interests could not be "cured" after the complaint was filed. Civil Rule 17A has some application, but Civil Rule 17A should not be perverted the way the Foreclosure Plaintiffs attempt to use it. I made clear and concise points and filed the brief in order to assist the Court.
The reply brief I filed may be found here:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/702641.pdf
The reply brief is very different. Essentially I wrote to accuse the Appellee Bank of filing a brief that was intended to distract the Court's attention and avoid addressing the issue. Appellee Schwartzwald filed a reply brief that addressed the issues and arguments raised by Appellee Bank. Schwartzwald's brief may be found, here:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/702618.pdf
I think the reply brief is well written and well argued, but I was left with the feeling that the Bank successfully distracted and avoided the issue. The Bank's brief spent so much time setting up straw figures and knocking them down that I was left feeling like the scarecrow after the flying monkeys were done. In the final analysis, the issue that the Court wanted addressed was given two short paragraphs by the Appellee.
This is yet another example of how Banks, their attorneys, and the Main Stream Media have decided that the best way to address the issue is to make as much noise as possible without saying anything. How many calls have attorneys received from people asking whether they will be helped by the recent National Foreclosure Settlement? How many Homeowners, currently in various stages of foreclosure, are clinging to the hope that the overtly publicized resolution will actually impact their current situation?
Bottom line is this: There has been no settlement, there is no written agreement, the parties have not agreed, and the Courts have not approved anything.
But the main objective was achieved. In all that noise, and just for an instant, people took their eyes off the ball.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the lack of standing or a real party in interest defect can be cured by the assignment of the mortgage prior to judgment.
An amicus brief was filed on behalf of Ohio Homeowners and Ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com. You can review the brief by going to the Ohio Supreme Court's website or clicking on the link below http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/698840.pdf
In the Amicus Brief, I demonstrated that foreclosures require both an interest in the promissory note and an interest in the mortgage, and that the lack of one of these required interests could not be "cured" after the complaint was filed. Civil Rule 17A has some application, but Civil Rule 17A should not be perverted the way the Foreclosure Plaintiffs attempt to use it. I made clear and concise points and filed the brief in order to assist the Court.
The reply brief I filed may be found here:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/702641.pdf
The reply brief is very different. Essentially I wrote to accuse the Appellee Bank of filing a brief that was intended to distract the Court's attention and avoid addressing the issue. Appellee Schwartzwald filed a reply brief that addressed the issues and arguments raised by Appellee Bank. Schwartzwald's brief may be found, here:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/702618.pdf
I think the reply brief is well written and well argued, but I was left with the feeling that the Bank successfully distracted and avoided the issue. The Bank's brief spent so much time setting up straw figures and knocking them down that I was left feeling like the scarecrow after the flying monkeys were done. In the final analysis, the issue that the Court wanted addressed was given two short paragraphs by the Appellee.
This is yet another example of how Banks, their attorneys, and the Main Stream Media have decided that the best way to address the issue is to make as much noise as possible without saying anything. How many calls have attorneys received from people asking whether they will be helped by the recent National Foreclosure Settlement? How many Homeowners, currently in various stages of foreclosure, are clinging to the hope that the overtly publicized resolution will actually impact their current situation?
Bottom line is this: There has been no settlement, there is no written agreement, the parties have not agreed, and the Courts have not approved anything.
But the main objective was achieved. In all that noise, and just for an instant, people took their eyes off the ball.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
National Mortgage Settlement: The Consumer Relief Framework
The Media has recently released that the Attorney Generals for various States have entered into a settlement with Five Major Banks regarding fraudulent practices. The final version of the settlement has not been drafted, let alone agreed upon. In addition, "settlement" at least implies that actual litigation was filed, and as such a Court may have to actually approve the settlement. Following suit with the entire process of mortgage securitization and the foreclosure filings, the Banks consider the Courts and the Legal System only as an afterthought and only when required.
Even though nothing has been finalized, agreed upon, or approved, a number of organizations have already started the rhetoric of "moral hazard" and "irresponsible borrowers". I have reviewed only the Draft of the Consumer Relief Framework, but even that reinforced my initial belief that this is another attempt to funnel money to the Banks in the name of assisting Homeowners. (In prior relief efforts the Federal Government has announced huge sums to assist Homeowners. Homeowners line up to apply for funds, and for a limited few that meet the eligibility requirements, the Government sends money to the Banks on behalf of the eligible Homeowner, of course. This time the Government did not even attempt the facade. The Governement and the Banks will just trade credits.)
Immediately, the Consumer Relief Framework talks in terms of "Servicers". Anyone who has had an issue with their mortgage should agonize over having to discuss the matter with a servicer. The Consumer Relief Framework then states:
"Programmatic exceptions to the crediting requirements listed below may be granted by the Monitoring Committee on a case-by-case basis."
The above is quoted not because of any earth-shattering revelation, but simply as an example of language of the agreement. With langaugae such as the above, it should be simple to see that little if anything will be accomplished for the Homeowner.
The Consumer Relief Framework then talks in terms of "HAMP", "31%", "debt to income levels", and "Loan to Value indices". HAMP has been a failure, but it will again give the general public the impression that the Government is doing something to help. The Courthouse Halls will be filled with comments of "I wish I could get my loan modified like that."
How is it that principle reductions, which have been rejected by Ed Demarco and the FHFA as being harmful to the American Taxpayer, are now acceptable? Suddenly, when the Banks have to come up with cash or credits, a principle reduction makes perfect sense. Second, the Banks have never pursued deficiency judgments in Ohio. Instead, the Homeowner receives a 1099 based upon the forgiveness of debt (which the IRS waives base upon a hardship). However, now the Banks can obtain a credit for the potential deficiency that was forgiven. I believe a majority of the credit set forth in the Consumer Relief Framework will be based upon deficiency judgments that were in past never pursued. The Banks will now have even less incentive to prevent a foreclosure. Instead of a loan modification, involving a principle reduction, the Banks will cram through even more foreclosures. But now in the name of the Consumer Refief Framework the Banks will pursue deficiency judgments in order to get credit towards their settlement.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/GeneralFrameworkSettlementAgreementFeb2012B.pdf
Even though nothing has been finalized, agreed upon, or approved, a number of organizations have already started the rhetoric of "moral hazard" and "irresponsible borrowers". I have reviewed only the Draft of the Consumer Relief Framework, but even that reinforced my initial belief that this is another attempt to funnel money to the Banks in the name of assisting Homeowners. (In prior relief efforts the Federal Government has announced huge sums to assist Homeowners. Homeowners line up to apply for funds, and for a limited few that meet the eligibility requirements, the Government sends money to the Banks on behalf of the eligible Homeowner, of course. This time the Government did not even attempt the facade. The Governement and the Banks will just trade credits.)
Immediately, the Consumer Relief Framework talks in terms of "Servicers". Anyone who has had an issue with their mortgage should agonize over having to discuss the matter with a servicer. The Consumer Relief Framework then states:
"Programmatic exceptions to the crediting requirements listed below may be granted by the Monitoring Committee on a case-by-case basis."
The above is quoted not because of any earth-shattering revelation, but simply as an example of language of the agreement. With langaugae such as the above, it should be simple to see that little if anything will be accomplished for the Homeowner.
The Consumer Relief Framework then talks in terms of "HAMP", "31%", "debt to income levels", and "Loan to Value indices". HAMP has been a failure, but it will again give the general public the impression that the Government is doing something to help. The Courthouse Halls will be filled with comments of "I wish I could get my loan modified like that."
How is it that principle reductions, which have been rejected by Ed Demarco and the FHFA as being harmful to the American Taxpayer, are now acceptable? Suddenly, when the Banks have to come up with cash or credits, a principle reduction makes perfect sense. Second, the Banks have never pursued deficiency judgments in Ohio. Instead, the Homeowner receives a 1099 based upon the forgiveness of debt (which the IRS waives base upon a hardship). However, now the Banks can obtain a credit for the potential deficiency that was forgiven. I believe a majority of the credit set forth in the Consumer Relief Framework will be based upon deficiency judgments that were in past never pursued. The Banks will now have even less incentive to prevent a foreclosure. Instead of a loan modification, involving a principle reduction, the Banks will cram through even more foreclosures. But now in the name of the Consumer Refief Framework the Banks will pursue deficiency judgments in order to get credit towards their settlement.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/GeneralFrameworkSettlementAgreementFeb2012B.pdf
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
A Brief Explanation of Robo-Signing
I have noticed that the more I argue on behalf of Homeowners facing foreclosure the less it becomes about the law. I have always tried to be a reasonable attorney when it came to settlement and civil litigation. I believe that I have developed a reputation as being a reasonable and practical litigator. However, recently I have been asked by Magistrates,by Judges in Chambers,and by Appellate Panels essentially "does it really matter?"
Rules of Civil Procedure appear to be unimportant; Rules of Evidence are not practical. A new legal maxim prevails: "When was the last time this person made his mortgage payment?" I read an interview of a local Judge in an Alumni Newsletter, and his comments provided an insight into his beliefs "people bought more than they could afford." Where did the judicial system gain this perspective? Not from some wrongful corrupt or illegal process, but from the constant drip of the information that the Lenders have put out for consumption. Look at the most recent article making the rounds in the popular periodicals http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/02/07/mortgage-settlement-talks-look-like-tobacco-ii/
The article basically argues that Lenders have not done anything wrong. Robo-signing?; is this a bad thing? Since most people do not truly understand the concept the word seems to have no moral implication. Let's face it: if you have a newborn you know all about newborns, a parent of a toddler knows all about toddlers, if your kid plays soccer you know "offsides", a parent of a hockey player knows "icing". Unless you have been involved in a foreclosure, robo-signing is a foreign word that has no real meaning to you.
Robo-signing: some one with no training or understanding of accounting, lending practices or the law swears under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury that they have personally reviewed the records related to the Homeowner's mortgage and from that personal review they can say that the Plaintiff holds, or owns, or has possession of the promissory note; that the Plaintiff has an interest in the mortgage, that the entire balance of the note has been properly accelerated according to the terms of the note, and when the credits and debits from the last several years have been applied to the Homeowner's account I calculated the amount to be this specific number. Never mind that I have not looked at any record, have not been sworn, have no personal knowledge of the information contained in this affidavit, and my employer told me to sign so many of these affidavits before lunch. I also forgot: that is not my name and whatever a notary public is there isn't one watching me sign this document.
But the article was correct: the Homeowner did miss a payment. Due process; civil procedure, justice, equal protection under the law.... simply bothersome concepts that are clogging the Courts.
Rules of Civil Procedure appear to be unimportant; Rules of Evidence are not practical. A new legal maxim prevails: "When was the last time this person made his mortgage payment?" I read an interview of a local Judge in an Alumni Newsletter, and his comments provided an insight into his beliefs "people bought more than they could afford." Where did the judicial system gain this perspective? Not from some wrongful corrupt or illegal process, but from the constant drip of the information that the Lenders have put out for consumption. Look at the most recent article making the rounds in the popular periodicals http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/02/07/mortgage-settlement-talks-look-like-tobacco-ii/
The article basically argues that Lenders have not done anything wrong. Robo-signing?; is this a bad thing? Since most people do not truly understand the concept the word seems to have no moral implication. Let's face it: if you have a newborn you know all about newborns, a parent of a toddler knows all about toddlers, if your kid plays soccer you know "offsides", a parent of a hockey player knows "icing". Unless you have been involved in a foreclosure, robo-signing is a foreign word that has no real meaning to you.
Robo-signing: some one with no training or understanding of accounting, lending practices or the law swears under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury that they have personally reviewed the records related to the Homeowner's mortgage and from that personal review they can say that the Plaintiff holds, or owns, or has possession of the promissory note; that the Plaintiff has an interest in the mortgage, that the entire balance of the note has been properly accelerated according to the terms of the note, and when the credits and debits from the last several years have been applied to the Homeowner's account I calculated the amount to be this specific number. Never mind that I have not looked at any record, have not been sworn, have no personal knowledge of the information contained in this affidavit, and my employer told me to sign so many of these affidavits before lunch. I also forgot: that is not my name and whatever a notary public is there isn't one watching me sign this document.
But the article was correct: the Homeowner did miss a payment. Due process; civil procedure, justice, equal protection under the law.... simply bothersome concepts that are clogging the Courts.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Once Again National Media Outlets Blame the Homeowner
CNN Money published an article that states that many homeowners are staying in their homes without paying. The overall tone of the article is that Homeowners facing foreclosure have taken advantage of technicalities to stay in their homes for free. Once again the Media blames the Homeowners.
I find it amazing how such things as the burden of proof, evidence, and due process are called "technicalities" when Homeowners require Banks to follow these essential rules. Maybe it is because Homeowners are not well organized, do not have Lobbyist, or do not own many of the National Media outlets.
The majority of Homeowners are willing and able to pay their monthly mortgage payments that they have missed. The Banks however will not accept these payments. Instead the Banks demand fees and expenses that have not been earned or incurred. Only if the Homeowner is willing to pay the missed monthly payments, plus interest, and additional fees and expenses (that often are several times greater than the actual missed payments) will the Bank accept the Homeowner's money. No national media outlet has ever mentioned the fact that many Homeowners had payments returned to them. many Homeowners were told that they had to enter into a Loan Modification program before payments would be accepted. No national media ever mentions that the modification programs appear to purposely delay the application for many months. During this time additional expenses and fees, which have neither been earned by the Banks or incurred by the Banks, are added to the amount alleged to be due.
So long as 90% or more of all foreclosures go undefended or Homeowners attempt to defend the foreclosure complaints themselves, the Foreclosure Crisis will continue. These national Media Outlets will continue to write articles reminding everyone that it is the Homeowner's fault. This will keep the majority of Homeowners facing foreclosure quiet. Those Homeowners who are willing to fight will be ridiculed.
People do not talk about their financial struggles. While you are rotely reciting the talking points of "they just want a free house", or "I wish someone would make my mortgage payments for me", someone within listening distance is probably quietly suffering through a foreclosure of their own. These issues are not mere "technicalities", and Banks should be required to prove their complaints. By forcing the Banks to prove their ase Homeowners facing foreclosure can begin to negotiate on a level playing field.
If you find yourself facing foreclosure do not quietly suffer contact an attorney to defend your rights.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delaying-foreclosure-borrowers-keep-homes-102300544.html
I find it amazing how such things as the burden of proof, evidence, and due process are called "technicalities" when Homeowners require Banks to follow these essential rules. Maybe it is because Homeowners are not well organized, do not have Lobbyist, or do not own many of the National Media outlets.
The majority of Homeowners are willing and able to pay their monthly mortgage payments that they have missed. The Banks however will not accept these payments. Instead the Banks demand fees and expenses that have not been earned or incurred. Only if the Homeowner is willing to pay the missed monthly payments, plus interest, and additional fees and expenses (that often are several times greater than the actual missed payments) will the Bank accept the Homeowner's money. No national media outlet has ever mentioned the fact that many Homeowners had payments returned to them. many Homeowners were told that they had to enter into a Loan Modification program before payments would be accepted. No national media ever mentions that the modification programs appear to purposely delay the application for many months. During this time additional expenses and fees, which have neither been earned by the Banks or incurred by the Banks, are added to the amount alleged to be due.
So long as 90% or more of all foreclosures go undefended or Homeowners attempt to defend the foreclosure complaints themselves, the Foreclosure Crisis will continue. These national Media Outlets will continue to write articles reminding everyone that it is the Homeowner's fault. This will keep the majority of Homeowners facing foreclosure quiet. Those Homeowners who are willing to fight will be ridiculed.
People do not talk about their financial struggles. While you are rotely reciting the talking points of "they just want a free house", or "I wish someone would make my mortgage payments for me", someone within listening distance is probably quietly suffering through a foreclosure of their own. These issues are not mere "technicalities", and Banks should be required to prove their complaints. By forcing the Banks to prove their ase Homeowners facing foreclosure can begin to negotiate on a level playing field.
If you find yourself facing foreclosure do not quietly suffer contact an attorney to defend your rights.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delaying-foreclosure-borrowers-keep-homes-102300544.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)