True Costs Of Foreclosure, Property Abandonment Extend Across Neighborhoods And Communities

CLEVELAND, Jan. 17, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — A groundbreaking analysis of the true costs associated with the nation’s housing crisis quantifies for the first time the substantial and numerous impacts foreclosures and vacant and abandoned properties have on homeowners and their communities.

Even based on conservative estimates, the typical foreclosed home imposes costs of more than $170,000, according to a study commissioned by Community Blight Solutions and its Founder & Chairman, Robert Klein. Click here to review the full report.

“This is the first paper that utilizes a variety of economic data and academic studies to evaluate the costs associated with foreclosures and vacant and abandoned properties on people and their communities,” Klein said. “I am proud of this effort and I hope that those people and organizations dedicated to fighting community blight use this analysis and data to improve our neighborhoods and reduce the costs associated with blight.”

Of the $170,000 in costs imposed by each foreclosed home, approximately $85,000 is directly attributable to a property being vacant and the condition in which that vacant house is kept, according to the study, conducted by Aaron Klein, Former United States Treasury Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy (Aaron Klein is not related to Robert Klein.)

In his newly-released paper, Understanding the True Costs of Abandoned Properties: How Maintenance Can Make a Difference, Aaron Klein examines three main areas in which foreclosures and vacant and abandoned properties adversely impact homeowners and their communities: property values, crime and increased burden on city resources. Among the findings Aaron Klein cites:

  • The foreclosure of a home will cause a loss of value of at least $130,000 for the home and its neighborhood.
  • Over half the total cost of a foreclosure’s impact on neighboring properties comes from the fact that the property is abandoned.
  • Vacant properties lead to increases in violent crime with substantial costs: $14,000 per vacant property per year in increased crime, translating into $795 million nationwide for all vacant properties.
  • The impact of vacancy on crime increases as the property stays vacant for longer periods, likely plateauing at between 12 and 18 months.
  • Vacant buildings are major fire hazards; vacant residential buildings account for one of every 14 residential building fires in America.

Fortunately, there are common sense, practical and affordable remedies that can help reduce the costs associated with vacancy and blight, Aaron Klein writes. He concludes that how well a vacant home is secured can have a substantial impact on the total costs associated with that status.

In a second study and paper to be released in February 2017, Klein will examine the problems associated with the decades-old practice of boarding vacant properties with plywood, which is easily vandalized, and compare it to superior methods such as polycarbonate or clearboarding, which resembles glass but is virtually unbreakable.

About Community Blight Solutions
Community Blight Solutions is focused on understanding, solving and eliminating the problems associated with the blight that is plaguing communities nationwide. Community Blight Solutions works closely with mortgage servicers, local government officials, legislators and policymakers at the Federal and State level, first responders and other groups to advocate for updates and changes to policy and legislation and an increase in awareness of the issues contributing to community blight. For more information, go to

About Robert Klein
Robert Klein is a successful entrepreneur and over the past 25 years, he has earned a reputation as a pioneer and innovator in the property preservation industry and strong advocate for eliminating blight in communities across the country. Klein is the Founder and Chairman of Safeguard Properties, Community Blight Solutions and SecureView, all based in Cleveland. Klein is a frequent speaker at field service industry conferences.

Senators want to hear from OneWest foreclosure victims

Twenty-five U.S. Senators signed a letter to Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) demanding that he allow victims of financial crisis profiteering to testify during the Treasury Secretary-designee’s Steven Mnuchin’s confirmation hearing.

The hearing for Mnuchin, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick as Treasury secretary, is scheduled for Thursday, the day before Trump is inaugurated.

“If confirmed to serve as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for administering loan modification and foreclosure prevention programs established following the 2008 crisis.  And as the Chairman of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for helping spot and stop the next financial crisis – rather than profiting from it,” the lawmakers wrote.

“His bank’s treatment of families seeking to avoid foreclosure is critical to assessing his fitness to serve as the nation’s top economic policy official,” the senators said.

Mnuchin’s bank, OneWest, put thousands of families into foreclosure and seized their homes during his six-year reign as chairman following the 2008 financial collapse leading to Mnuchin and his investment team pocketing nearly $1.5 billion in profits.

One woman faced foreclosure proceedings initiated by Mnuchin’s bank on her home due to a shortfall in payments of less than one dollar.

“Before deciding whether Mr. Mnuchin should serve as the country’s top economic official, the Committee should hear from some of these families and other Americans who have had first-hand experience with Mr. Mnuchin or the businesses he has led,” the letter said.

The senators stressed the importance of the committee doing a thorough review of Mnuchin’s character and business practices before deciding if he should serve as the country’s top economic official.

Mnuchin is likely to face severe grilling from Democrats over his OneWest Bank tenure.

The letter was signed by U.S. Sens. Menendez, Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Maizie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H).

The text of the letter is as follows and can be downloaded here:

January 13, 2017


The Honorable Orrin Hatch


Senate Finance Committee

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510


Dear Chairman Hatch:


We ask that the Finance Committee’s hearing on the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to serve as Secretary of the Treasury include witnesses who can provide context on Mr. Mnuchin’s character and business practices.  As you know, Mr. Mnuchin led the bank OneWest for six years in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, during which time the bank foreclosed on thousands of families and threw them out of their homes.  Before deciding whether Mr. Mnuchin should serve as the country’s top economic official, the Committee should hear from some of these families and other Americans who have had first-hand experience with Mr. Mnuchin or the businesses he has led.        

The Finance Committee has an obligation to hear from these witnesses.  The Constitution authorizes the President to appoint officers of the United States “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”  Consistent with that constitutional mandate, Senate Finance Committee Rule 11 states that,“[i]n considering a nomination, the committee may conduct an investigation or review of the nominee’s experience, qualifications, and suitability, to serve in the position to which he or she has been nominated.” 

Mr. Mnuchin’s tenure at OneWest – and his bank’s treatment of thousands of working families struggling to recover from the financial crisis – bear directly on his qualifications and suitability to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.  In the wake of the crisis, Mr. Mnuchin led a team of investors in purchasing a failed bank, which they rebranded as OneWest.  Under Mr. Mnuchin’s leadership, OneWest was known as a “foreclosure machine.”[1]  The bank foreclosed on more than 36,000 homeowners, including the Schaffers – an elderly California couple who lost their home of nearly 50 years even though they had qualified for a government-assisted loan modification[2] – and a 90-year-old woman in Florida after a payment error led to a 27-cent shortfall on her account.[3]  The Federal Reserve fined OneWest for foreclosure abuses during Mr. Mnuchin’s tenure.[4]  Yet within six years, Mr. Mnuchin and the rest of his investor group sold OneWest and pocketed nearly $1.5 billion in profits.[5]         

If confirmed to serve as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for administering loan modification and foreclosure prevention programs established following the 2008 crisis.  And as the Chairman of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, Mr. Mnuchin would be responsible for helping spot and stop the next financial crisis – rather than profiting from it.  His bank’s treatment of families seeking to avoid foreclosure is critical to assessing his fitness to serve as the nation’s top economic policy official.

To fulfill the Senate’s constitutional duty, the Finance Committee should hear testimony from a broad range of individuals familiar with Mr. Mnuchin and his business practices.  We hope you will work with us to ensure that Mr. Mnuchin’s nomination hearing before the Finance Committee includes these voices.


What Difference Does It Make?

It is in court that the “loan contract” is actually created even though it is a defective illusion. In truth and at law, placing the name of the originator on the note and/or mortgage was an act of deceit.

In a singular sweep of making public policy as opposed to following it, the Courts have been hell bent on letting strangers achieve massive windfalls through the illegal and improper use of state laws on foreclosure while ignoring Federal laws on TILA rescission, FDCPA and RESPA. The courts have a clear bias based upon the policy of allowing the financial industry to prosper while at the same time deeming individual consumers and homeowners worthy of sacrifice for the greater good.

This is evident in the ever popular questions from the bench — “what difference does it make, you got the loan, didn’t you.”

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
In response to the question posed above most lawyers and pro se litigants readily admit they received “the loan.” The admission is wrong in most cases, but it gives the judge great clarity on what he/she must do next.


Having established that there was a loan and that the homeowner received it as admitted by the the lawyer or pro se litigant, there is no longer any question that the note and mortgage are void instruments as are the assignments, endorsements and powers of attorney that are proffered in evidence by complete strangers to the transaction.


The purpose of this article is to suggest that a different answer than “Yes, but” should be employed. In discussions with our senior forensic analyst, Dan Edstrom, he suggested an alternative answer that I think has merit and which avoids the deadly “Yes, but” answer.


We start from the presumption that the originator did not fund any transaction with the homeowner and in most cases didn’t have anything to with underwriting. The originator’s job was to sell financial products that were dubbed “loans.” “The loan” does not exist. Period.


Then we can assume that the first defect in the documents of the purported loan is that the the originator who unfortunately appears on the note as payee and on the mortgage (or deed of trust) as mortgagee or beneficiary was NOT the “lender.”


Hence placement of the name of the originator had no more foundation to it than placing the name of a closing agent or title agent or an attorney.


None of them are lenders or creditors. They are all vendors paid a fee for doing what they did.  And neither is the “originator” (a term with various inconsistent meanings).


Admission to the existence of “the loan” contract is an admission contrary to (a) the truth and (b) your defense. Once you have admitted that you received the loan you are implicitly admitting that you were party to a valid loan contract, consisting of the defective note and mortgage.


As a matter of law that means that you have admitted the note and mortgage were not void or even voidable but instead you have presented a closed cage in which the Judge has no choice but to proceed on “the law of the case,” to wit: the assumption that there was a valid loan, that the originator made the loan, and that the note and mortgage are valid instruments that are both evidence of the loan and instruments that set forth the duties of the homeowner who has admitted to being a borrower under that “loan contract.”


So it is in court that the “loan contract” is actually created even though it is a defective illusion. In truth and at law, placing the name of the originator on the note and/or mortgage was an act of deceit.


In MERS cases, being the “nominee” of the “lender”(who was incorrectly described as the lender), means nothing. And THAT is why when my deposition was taken in Phoenix AZ for 6 straight days by 16 banks (9am-5pm) I told them what I have consistently maintained for the past 10 years: “You might just as well have placed the name of Donald Duck or some other fictional character on the note and mortgage.”


ALL of the named players were in fact fictional characters for purposes of being represented in a nonexistent transaction (between the originator/”lender” and the homeowner/”borrower.”) Hence the term “pretender lender.” And the actions undertaken after the homeowner was induced (a) to avoid lawyers and (b) to sign the note and mortgage as though the originator had in fact loaned them money were all lies. Hence the title of this blog “Livinglies.”

Bottom Line: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE! Don’t admit anything. Don’t admit that the loan was assigned (say instead that a party executed a document entitled “assignment” which contained no warranties of title or interest.

Here is what Dan Edstrom wrote:

What difference does it make?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

What difference does it make, you got the loan didn’t you?

No, I did not get a loan, no I did not authorize “the loan,” no I did not mean to enter into a contract with anyone other than the party who was lending me money and no I did not receive money from the party claiming to be a lender. [Editor’s note: fraud in the inducement and fraud in the execution — or best, a mistake].

Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 365 P.3d 845, 62 Cal. 4th 919, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (2016). laid this out (without an in depth review) when the court said (emphasis added):

Nor is it correct that the borrower has no cognizable interest in the identity of the party enforcing his or her debt. Though the borrower is not entitled to 938*938 object to an assignment of the promissory note, he or she is obligated to pay the debt, or suffer loss of the security, only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt. (See Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 292 [party claiming under an assignment must prove fact of assignment].) The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.

Here is more, much more:

Identification of Parties

The following is from: Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1989).

If an essential element of the contract is reserved for the future agreement of both parties, there is generally no legal obligation created until such an agreement is entered into. Transamerica Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Union Bank, 426 F.2d 273, 274 (9th Cir.1970); Ablett v. Clauson, 43 Cal.2d 280, 272 P.2d 753, 756 (1954); 1 Witkin Summary of California Law, Contracts §§ 142, 156 (9th ed. 1987). It is essential not only that the parties to the contract exist, but that it is possible to identify them. Cal.Civ.Code § 1558. See San Francisco Hotel Co. v. Baior, 189 Cal.App.2d 206, 11 Cal.Rptr. 32, 36 (1961) (names of seller and buyer are essential factors in considering whether contract is sufficiently certain to be specifically enforced); Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 141 P.2d 433, 437 (1943) (contract for sale of land must identify the parties to the transaction); Losson v. Blodgett, 1 Cal.App.2d 13, 36 P.2d 147, 149 (1934) (valid real property lease must contain names of parties).

And looking further at what Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal. App. 2d 575, 141 P.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1943) actually says:

“There is a settled rule of law that a note or memorandum of a contract for a sale of land must identify by name or description the parties to the transaction, a seller and a buyer.” (Citing cases.)9

The statute of frauds, section 1624 of the Civil Code, provides that the following contracts are invalid unless the same or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by his agent:

“… 4. An agreement … for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; …” In 23 Cal.Jur. page 433, section 13, it is said: “Matters as to Which Certainty Required.–The requirement of certainty as to the agreement made in order that it may be specifically enforced extends not only to its subject matter and purpose, but to the parties, to the consideration and even to the place and time of performance, where these are essential.” (Citing Breckenridge v. Crocker, 78 Cal. 529 [21 P. 179].) In that case it was held that when a contract of sale of real estate is evidenced by three telegrams, one from the agent of the owner of the property communicating a verbal offer, without naming the proposed purchaser; and second, from the owner to his agent, telling him to accept the offer; and a third from the agent addressed to the proposed purchaser by name, simply notifying him of the contents of the telegram from the owner, but not otherwise indicating who the purchaser was, the contract is too uncertain as to the purchaser to be enforced, or to sustain an action for damages for its breach. In that case it was held that the judgment granting a nonsuit was proper.(e.s.)

[2] The general rule stated in 25 Cal.Jur. page 506, section 34, is that

“a contract for the purchase and sale of real property must be mutual and reciprocal in its obligations. Otherwise, it is not obligatory upon either party. Hence, an agreement to convey property to another upon his making payment at a certain time of a named amount, without a reciprocal agreement of the latter to purchase and pay the amount specified, is unenforceable.” (See, also, 25 Cal.Jur. p. 503, sec. 32, and cases cited.)

This brings up many issues between a so called promissory note, which may or may not be a negotiable instrument, and a security instrument, which appears to be a transfer of an interest in real property.

The first question is: how can an endorsement in blank without an assignment EVER transfer an interest in real property? How can the security interest be enforced from a party that has not been identified?

– We know what the Supreme Court said in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 21 L. Ed. 313, 1873 U.S.L.E.X.I.S. 1157 (1873), but does that take the above into account? Does it need to? Does it conflict?

And then we have the issues of who advanced the money to fund the alleged loan closing, who are the parties to table funding, and what security interests or encumbrances were authorized by the homeowner PRIOR to delivery of the signed note and security instrument?

And further, the parties must exist and be identifiable. It is NOT ok if they existed in the past but do not exist now (at the time of the agreement or contract or assignment).

So the originator goes into bankruptcy and is dissolved, and then a year or more later they (somehow) record an assignment to another entity.

And in many cases the assignment from the originator comes after the originator already executed an assignment to one or more parties previously.

What really happens to a security interest when a company is dissolved or shutdown and they haven’t assigned it to another party or released the security interest? (and this is an interest in real property where the release or assignment has to be in writing).

What really happens if it is a person and they die? And then a year later the deceased assigns the security interest to somebody else?

In CA. the procedure for real property transactions is to comply with CA. Civ. Code 1096, which provides the following:

  1. Civ. Code 1096

Any person in whom the title of real estate is vested, who shall afterwards, from any cause, have his or her name changed, must, in any conveyance of said real estate so held, set forth the name in which he or she derived title to said real estate. Any conveyance, though recorded as provided by law, which does not comply with the foregoing provision shall not impart constructive notice of the contents thereof to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers, but such conveyance is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof.

See: Puccetti v. Girola, 20 Cal. 2d 574, 128 P.2d 13 (1942).

All of Prince’s property (real and personal) went into probate after he died. When they finally sell his real property, it won’t (or shouldn’t) be from Prince to John Doe, it should be something like Jerry Brown, executor of the estate of Prince to John Doe.

Foreclosure Action 101: What to do first when you know nothing about Foreclosure Defense

So you just received that dreaded letter in the mail announcing that a loan servicer who likely never loaned you a dime is going to foreclose on your home.  Your adrenaline rockets through your veins, you go into Fight or Flight mode and at some point you say, “Holy sh*t- what do I do now?”

Hopefully by the time you get the letter you have already done some research starting with a trip to the county record’s office (or online) and examined and purchased certified copies of the documents filed in the county records.  Typically you will find a copy of your Mortgage or Deed of Trust, followed by subsequent filings called Assignments.  The Assignments show a transfer of ownership.  There may be Notices of Default filed in the records as well as Quit Claim deeds or Probate documents.

Once you have these documents you should examine every bit of information contained on those documents or hire a company specializing Chain of Title assessments.  The Lending Lies team can conduct an affordable Chain of Title assessment to determine any breaks in title, robosigning or ownership issues that cloud title.   To date, the Lending Lies team has not found one Chain of Title without significant issues clouding title and evidence that ownership is in question.

We also highly recommend investigator Bill Paatalo of the BP Investigative Agency if the homeowner requires a more in-depth report on securitization and trust issues in addition to Chain of Title issues. For more information about Bill Paatalo please go to:  He also has an excellent blog on his site with information about fraudulent foreclosures.

Please be careful who you hire to conduct a Chain of Title assessment.  There are companies out there professing to be affiliated with Neil Garfield who may attempt to lure unsuspecting homeowners into Chain of Title assessments and Quiet Title packages that are not proven.

If you decide to do the assessment yourself you will need to google every entity claiming ownership, alleged dates assigned, and evidence of robosigning.  You are looking for evidence of fraud.  Was the company in business when the assignment was made?  Are Fannie, Freddie or MERS involved?  Is the signor a known robosigner who did not work for the company they signed for?  Could the notary have actually been present when the assignment was done?  Is there evidence of the document being photoshopped?  We recommend that every homeowner facing foreclosure conduct a thorough Chain of Title assessment so that they can identify possible issues early on and be better prepared to present their case to an attorney.

In the past many homeowners would file a lawsuit hoping their attorney would find the breaks in the Chain of Title or other issues affecting ownership somewhere down the line.  The attorney and homeowner would hope to get this information in discovery- but were often stonewalled.  However, waiting until years to obtain information in discovery is not a pro-active method of attack.

For example, it is much better to know that the entity that transferred your loan was not in business, that the assignment was signed by a known robosigner, and that the trust had already been dissolved years before the assignment- or some other issue early on before filing suit.  The bank already knows what they did fraudulently and how to cover their tracks before they set foot in court.  Shouldn’t you have some idea of where the fraud exists in regards to your own loan?  By knowing information about the entities claiming ownership of your loan and their weaknesses you have more leverage from the onset.

The next thing you should do, if you haven’t already, is to send a Qualified Written Request and a Debt Validation letter to your servicer.  Examples can be found on Livinglies or if you prefer, a Lending Lies paralegal can help customize a targeted letter for mailing.  Instead of a general Qualified Written Request, the Lending Lies team will request specific information- that the servicer can’t likely provide. The benefit of this service is having Neil Garfield and his paralegal tailor the letters specifically to the findings in your Chain of Title assessment so the servicer is accountable and must answer the questions in your request.

The more information you can receive from your loan servicer, the more apt they are to make errors and provide conflicting information that can help you demonstrate the servicer’s lack of standing.  Typically the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing at most servicer’s organizations.  Many homeowners who send Qualified Written requests and Debt Validation letters will often not receive the information requested but on occasion receive information that raises further issues.  The servicer’s failure to properly respond sets up the servicer for fines and damages under the Fair Debt Collection laws.

Armed with a Chain of Title Assessment, a Qualified Written Request, and Debt Validation information, a homeowner facing foreclosure will have a better understanding of what occurred over the course of their loan.  Armed with this information, it is much easier to get an attorney interested opposed to calling an attorney and stating, “my servicer is foreclosing on me illegally” without any evidence to support your claims.

At Lending Lies we routinely speak to people who have been litigating a foreclosure issue for years and still don’t know the basic facts of their case.  Before contacting an attorney to defend against foreclosure you should have the following items before proceeding:

  1. One-page Overview of Case with 3 to 5 primary issues you have targeted as wrongful
  2. Brief Timeline
  3. Targeted Qualifed Written Request results
  4. Targeted Debt Validation letter results
  5. Chain of Title results
  6. Forensic Audit if issues with Chain of Title are identified (we recommend that homeowners contact: Bill Paatalo at

On average, an attorney will assess the merits of your case in less than two minutes.  If you can get his or her attention immediately you have a much better chance of the attorney agreeing to represent you.  The attorney, like the court, wants hard evidence that substantiates your claims.  The attorney will also appreciate a client who is focused, organized and doesn’t go off on tangents that waste valuable time.

In conclusion, don’t wait to start building your case after you retain an attorney.  Conduct your due-diligence on the entities claiming they own your loan, research who and when they obtained the rights, investigate the parties on your documents and all entities including the signers, trust and if those parties are licensed to conduct business in your state.  If you keep digging- you are more likely than not to find issues that support that the servicer attempting to foreclose has no standing to do so.

For consultations with Neil Garfield or paralegal assistance, please contact Lending Lies at:

(202) 838-6345 or

Investigator Bill Paatalo can be contacted at:   (406) 328-4075 or

This article is not legal advice and does not represent an attorney/client relationship but is strictly for informational purposes.






Don’t Hold your Breath: New York’s Cuomo will make Reverse Mortgage reform a priority — really?

Gov. Cuomo and state lawmakers are finally making reverse-mortgage foreclosure reform a priority this year — following continuing coverage of a crisis by The Post.

Last week, the governor announced plans to provide reverse-mortgage holders the right to a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference with their lender, overseen by the court, just as traditional mortgage borrowers have, and to update regulations to prevent reverse-mortgage foreclosures.

The governor announced these measures amid a raft of new proposals in his State of the State speeches. His reverse-mortgage proposals have similar intent as legislation introduced last year by Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein and state Sen. Jeff Klein in the wake of a July report by The Post about a dramatic spike in foreclosures on reverse mortgages — risky home-equity loans made to senior citizens.

“Attention has been focused, by The Post particularly, highlighting some tragic situations individuals found themselves in, and it has really bumped the problem of reverse-mortgages to one of the top agenda items as we go into the legislative session,” Weinstein said.

Reverse-mortgage loans were created to allow seniors to tap equity in their homes without selling, but have turned into a nightmare for legions of New Yorkers, including Howard Beach homeowner Frederick Feil. Last July, The Post covered Feil’s struggles with his lender, Finance of America Reverse, and servicer, Reverse Mortgage Solutions, to allow him to catch up on payments missed due to illness, and keep his home.

After the story, Finance of America Reverse worked out a deal with Feil and his attorney at JASA Legal Services for the Elderly. His loan has been reinstated and he is up-to-date on property tax payments, but Feil says he’s still in foreclosure hell because Reverse Mortgage Services has not officially discontinued the foreclosure.

“You get nervous wondering what’s going on, is it settled or not? Until I get complete paperwork in my hand … the mortgage company is still driving me nuts,” Feil said.

A spokeswoman for Finance of America Reverse said she expects the necessary paperwork to be completed “in the very near future.” Reverse Mortgage Solutions did not respond to a request for comment.

Klein is drafting other bills aimed at better regulating marketing and origination of reverse mortgages, and improving default procedures. Both he and Weinstein are working on legislation to provide seniors with clear, comprehensive information before they take out reverse mortgages.

With the governor’s support, stronger protections for reverse-mortgage holders — which failed to pass last year — are likely to finally become law. But it’s unclear who will underwrite free legal services like the ones JASA provides once money from the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement — a major source of nonprofit foreclosure-prevention and assistance funds — runs out this fall.

While legislative efforts heat up, the New York State Department of Finance continues its probe of Reverse Mortgage Solutions and Champion’s reverse-mortgage operations in New York state, launched after The Post’s story last July.

Lawsuit Seeking Disgorgement Might Not Be Barred by Statute of limitations

What is apparent here is that the Courts are coming to terms with the possibility that those relying upon a statute of limitation as a defense to various claims might NOT be protected by an otherwise applicable statute of limitations.

The premise enunciated in a decision that seeks affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court, is that disgorgement is not monetary damages or a penalty. It is an equitable finding that a party has been unjustly enriched and therefore has no present right to hold onto ill-gotten gains. The decision could result in elimination of the statute of limitations as a defense for the banks.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
This is a potential thrust to the heart of the bank strategy to create a vacuum, fill it with illusory claims on behalf of complete strangers to the transactions, and walk away with a free house after submitting an utterly fraudulent “credit bid.”.
The SEC is asking the Supreme Court to affirm the Tenth Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Kokesh, which held that “disgorgement is not a penalty under [28 U.S.C.] § 2462 because it is remedial” and, therefore, is not subject to the five-year federal statute of limitations in § 2462. see
A favorable SCOTUS decision would have the effect of recasting the suits for damages as instead suits for disgorgement because neither the servicers nor anyone they represent had any right to collect or enforce the putative loan by an undisclosed and probably unknown creditor. This would have the same ultimate effect as TILA rescission which the courts have steadfastly resisted despite the clear language of 15 USC §1635 and SCOTUS in Jesinoski v Countrywide.

The Neil Garfield Show: Standing and Tender in Foreclosure with California Attorneys Patricia Rodriguez and Charles Marshall


Live at 6 pm

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Los Angeles Attorney Patricia Rodriguez returns again to discuss CA SB 900 (known as California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights), current law, pre litigation planning, wrongful foreclosure, rescission, and nonjudicial resolutions like short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and obtaining additional time/money in the property.  Click here for more information: CA SB 900

San Diego Attorney Charles Marshall will co-host the show this evening.

Pre-litigation and litigation concerns include:

1.) Wrongful foreclosure

2.) California’s  Homeowner Bill of Rights (SB 900)

3.) Rescission

Possible resolutions may include short sales, short pays, large cash for keys settlements, loan modifications, and additional time/money in the property.

Attorney Patricia Rodriguez

Foreclosure Defense


Call: 626-888-5206

1492 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 120
Pasadena, CA 91105


Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone 619.807.2628

%d bloggers like this: