Modification Muddle

There is a great deal of conflict and confusion in the world of foreclosure defense about the prospect of modification. It is obvious that approvals are random only to create the impression that an entire system devoted to foreclosing on as many homes as possible is purportedly attempting to work with homeowners.

We all know that we are dealing with entities who have no right, title or interest to the loans or the servicing or the administration of them. Yet we are presented with a crazy hodgepodge of demands for paperwork so that the unauthorized servicer can “consider” and “get approval” from the “investor.”

If the terms are favorable to the homeowners, many homeowners are advised by me and others to accept the modification even though we know that we are not settling with anyone who has the right or authority to bring the claim, much less settle it. But the process of settlement/modification brings with it some potential opportunities to drill home your primary defense narrative.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===========================

Tens of thousands of homeowners have reported to us that they are in conflict with their own attorneys about how to proceed — litigation or modification. This article is meant to convey the complexity of strategic legal decisions. Your attorney has not been bought off by the other side. Suggesting settlement is not a betrayal. It is called doing the job of a lawyer. The justice system runs on money. If you want all out war, then you must pay for it. If you can’t or won’t pay for it, then you must accept the probability of achieving less than your main goal.

Unless you are wiling to spend large amounts of money on fees such that the attorney is being paid to do all the research, all the analysis and all the strategic planning required to litigate, then you must accept the consequences of limited strategies in place of strategies that are designed to win the case. But modification represents a backdoor to beating your opposition using the same defense narrative as you are presently using in litigation.

We should not be annoyed with local counsel. We defer to local counsel always. This is not a contest. If local counsel deems it best that the homeowner settle then it should at least be pursued, but in the end it is the homeowner who decides what to accept.

The findings in the TERA report can be used as a reason to demand that the named Trustee of the named Trust acknowledge a settlement and the authority of whoever is negotiating the settlement.
*
When the intermediary “servicers” refuse to present any signature from any officer of the purported “Trustee” of a purported “Trust” that owns the subject debt, the homeowner can go to court. This time the homeowner is armed with inequitable conduct by purported agents of the purported Plaintiff or foreclosing party.
*
In court, the homeowner would say the purported “servicer” has proposed a settlement/modification that the homeowner has already accepted; but now the “servicer” refuses to have the Plaintiff (foreclosing party) execute any document memorializing the settlement/modification. Instead they are requiring acceptance of a signature from a person of unknown authority on behalf of a self-proclaimed servicer of unknown authority.
*
Reports from forensic experts show that none of the parties have any right, title or interest in the debt or servicing; however homeowner is willing to accept the risks of dealing with an unauthorized entity, as long as the named Trustee executes the settlement on behalf of the Plaintiff Trust.
*
A close examination of the proposed modification document will usually show that the creditor is being subtly changed. Payments are now owed to the servicer and there is no mention that the servicer is accepting those payments on behalf of the named creditor who is named as the foreclosing party. At best the creditor is being changed from the foreclosing trust to unknown. At worst the debt is being joined with the note and mortgage and changed to being presumptively owned by parties who, to the detriment of the owners of the debt, have never paid for ownership.
*
The defending homeowner would be saying that the intermediary with whom she has been corresponding is acting in bad faith and/or without authority. He/She would be seeking relief in the form of a court order requiring an officer of the named Trustee Bank, as trustee for the named Trustee appearing as the Plaintiff and foreclosing party to either sign the deal or reject it if the current servicer had no authority to offer it.
*
This is akin to cases in which there is a settlement and the attorney executes documentation or a pleading; the court most often rejects the “acceptance” by the attorney even though he/she is an officer of the court. The court, especially in foreclosures, will almost always require the signature of the homeowner. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
*
The purpose of going through all that is to force the other side to offer a better deal or back away. I can virtually guarantee that the “Trustee” for the “REMIC Trust” will NOT sign a document in which they admit to being a player. The way it is set up now, the “Trustee’s” name is falsely used and the bank named as Trustee can claim plausible deniability in any given case in the event that the situation explodes and there is liability for false claims. In all likelihood the Trustee doesn’t even have a retainer agreement with the law firm that is falsely reporting that they are representing a nonexistent client Trust.
*
Using this strategy drives the opposition to the wall. They know that the “Trustee” has no authority or interest in the litigation. They know the Trust is empty and most likely nonexistent. They know that without the subject loan being entrusted to a trust, no amount of writing can authorize the administration of the loan on behalf of the trust. They know there is potential liability for sanctions and punitive damages that could reach into the millions, but more importantly reach the press where homeowners will get the idea that maybe they can and ought to win.
*
In my experience, the end result is usually a vast reduction in the amount demanded that is so steep that the homeowner feels constrained to accept it in exchange for accepting the risk that the parties with whom he/she is doing business have no right, title or interest in the loan.
*
If the opposition were to produce a newly fabricated document the homeowner’s position strengthens. First the homeowner can seek to confirm the execution of the document by named “Trustee, on behalf of the named ‘Trust'”. Second the existence of a newly executed document may be used to argue that there was no privity or authorization before.

Listen now to the recorded The Neil Garfield Show: Setting your case up for Litigation, Modification or Settlement.

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Log-in to listen to archived show.

This episode will discuss setting up your case for litigation, modification or settlement.  California attorney Charles Marshall will discuss settlement framework (writ large and small), and the numerous misunderstandings regarding how settlement should or even can work.

The overwhelming majority of civil cases will settle well before reaching the trial stage of a lawsuit, nationwide. Whether we’re talking about a divorce, a car accident lawsuit, or foreclosure case parties often choose to settle their case rather than leave their respective fates in the hands of an unpredictable jury. But is settlement always more beneficial?

Settlement Basics

“Settlement” is a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge’s ruling). Usually it means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff’s signing a release of the defendant’s liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.

Benefits of Settling a Case:

  • Expense.
  • Stress.
  • Privacy.
  • Predictability.
  • Finality.

With foreclosure lawsuits a homeowner often has a personal or profound sense of right and wrong, and decides to make an important point that impacts more than the parties in the case. For cases challenging the constitutionality of a law or some other perceived fundamental unfairness, settling also doesn’t create precedent and won’t affect public policy.

If one or both parties aren’t motivated to settle, or aren’t coming to the negotiating table with a remotely realistic offer, then resolution of the lawsuit before trial may not be possible.  This is often the case in foreclosure disputes- by the time the lender is prepared to settle, the homeowner wants vengence for the harm they have sustained (justifiably).

Please contact Attorney Charles Marshall at:

California Attorney Charles Marshall, Esq.

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

This program is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Register for Consultation here: https://live.vcita.com/site/lendinglies

The End of Make Home Affordable aka the Modification Hell Act

The End of MHA

The Making Home Affordable (MHA) program did what it intended to do- it Greased the Runways so unsuspecting homeowners operating in good faith would be forced into default. The final Program Performance Report Through The Fourth Quarter of 2016, includes the last results as all MHA programs ended on December 31.  The report details the “improvements” made since 2009 when MHA was implemented and assesses the pathetic quality of certain servicers.  Although delinquencies and foreclosures have dropped moderately since its inception, the oversight of servicers provided by MHA programs brought little  improvement because of this policy that was created by the Fed to benefit the banks.

According to the report, since 2009, delinquencies have dropped from 6.1 million to 2.7 million. Over 3 million homeowners were underwater as of December 31, a drop from 10.2 million in 2009. And as of December 31, foreclosures starts are at 59.7 thousand, a difference of slightly over 76 percent of 2009’s 250.6 thousand.

MHA violated millions of homeowners while assisting only a pathetic 2.8 million homeowners during its time.  MHA was designed to implement five guiding principles:

  • Improving accessibility to foreclosure alternative programs for homeowners experiencing hardship
  • Providing payment relief that meets the needs of homeowners based on their hardship
  • Becoming sustainable through solutions designed to resolve delinquency and improve effectiveness long-term
  • Being transparent by ensuring that the processes are clear and understandable by all parties
  • Holding itself accountable by ensuring the appropriate level of oversight

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) failed on all accounts to deliver.  Launched in Spring 2009, began a total of 2,511,344 trial loan modifications and 1,683,112 permanent modifications.  Many modification worthy homeowners were denied modifications due to the sabotage by servicers who stood to make significantly more money if they could engineer a foreclosure by deliberately providing disinformation to the vulnerable homeowner.  MHA’s Q4 results note that homeowners who remain in HAMP without defaulting are less likely to default (who came up with this brilliant conclusion?).

Many homeowners in delinquency who were not eligible for HAMP assistance found alternative solutions. 58 percent of those not eligible obtained alternative modification or otherwise resolved their delinquency and yet the homeowners who received modifications, received a modification from a servicer who had no authority to modify in the first place.

In addition to offering programs such as HAMP, MHA has compiled data on servicers so in theory, they may better address the needs of homeowners (right). The MHA Servicer Assessment results for Q4 2016 show which major servicers require improvement (all of them), and whether the needed improvement is slight, or substantial. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Ocwen, Select Portfolio Servicing, and Wells Fargo were reported by MHA as only requiring minor improvement, and CitiMortgage is reported as requiring moderate improvement. However, MHA reports the need for substantial improvement at Nationstar Mortgage. MHA’s results found a 4 percent rate of income calculation errors within Nationstar mortgage, bringing the servicer’s score down.

The Hardest Hit Fund dealt with state-by-state problems in the housing crisis, rather than the nationwide programs from MHA. HHF programs interact with MHA programs and have assisted more than 292,000 homeowners as of December 31. HHF programs did not end on December 31 but have been extended through 2020.

Read the full report here and weep.

MNUCHIN EXPENDABLE: REVELATIONS ABOUT ILLEGAL ONEWEST ACTIVITIES PREVIEW WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATION AS TREASURY SECRETARY

Mnuchin is a highly paid gopher. He has made his money not by his business acumen but by his willingness to do anything for money. That included putting himself on the front line of one piece of the greatest economic crime in human history.

Nominating him for Treasury Secretary is a direct slap in the face of tens of millions of Americans who suffered grievous losses as a proximate result of illegal activities by the Wall Street banks. He will only do what his bank clients tell him to do. He will only say what they want him to say.

Listen to the Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

From http://yubanet.com/california/memo-shows-evidence-of-illegal-foreclosure-practices-at-onewest-bank-while-steven-mnuchin-was-ceo/

Memo Shows Evidence of Illegal Foreclosure Practices at OneWest Bank While Steven Mnuchin was CEO

CA Attorney General Staff Cited Evidence Suggesting “Widespread Misconduct”; Groups Call for Senate Investigation Prior to Confirmation Hearings

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2016 – A 2013 memo written by attorneys in the Consumer Law Section from the California Attorney General’s office is raising new concerns about the track record of OneWest Bank, and the ethics of its former CEO, Steve Mnuchin, who has been nominated to be Treasury Secretary by President Elect Donald Trump. David Dayen first reported on the memo earlier today in an article in the Intercept.

The memo is based on a preliminary investigation by staff at the Attorney General’s office and was triggered by an earlier settlement by the bank with its banking regulator, “together with consumer complaints and the large volume of foreclosures conducted by OneWest.”

The memo focused on a number of fraudulent practices that OneWest was alleged to have engaged in, including:

1) Backdated foreclosure notices of default and other documents and had them notarized in order to “paper over misrepresentations, including cases the attorneys identified where bank staff had backdated documents to dates prior to OneWest’s existence.  In the case of the notices of default, the Attorney General staff asserts that if OneWest had corrected these errors, this would have delayed the foreclosure process.  In addition, OneWest filed these foreclosure notices with county recorders throughout the State which could subject OneWest to a felony charge under state law.

2) OneWest made and directed unlawful credit bids at foreclosure sales.  According to the Attorney General staff, unlawful credit bids may “freeze out other potential bidders (which could include a borrower or his family).”

3) Due to the unlawful credit bidding OneWest claimed an exemption from the applicable city and county transfer taxes and no tax was paid. [EDITOR’S NOTE: QUI TAM ANYONE?]

4)  Performed other acts in the foreclosure process without valid legal authority; and

5)   OneWest Trustees, acting on behalf of OneWest, failed to provide due process to families by speeding up the foreclosure process and timeline.

Impact on Homeowners: The memos of the author explain what the bank’s alleged practices meant for homeowners facing foreclosure:

“As reflected in the examples cited above and appended hereto, in many instances, OneWest’s false filings and unauthorized conduct in the course of the foreclosure process harmed homeowners by denying them timely and important information about their foreclosures and potentially shortening the amount of time they had available to find a way to become current on their mortgage obligations.”

Consumer advocates expressed outrage and urged a full investigation prior to any votes on Mr. Mnuchin’s nomination later this month.

“Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire, and the American people deserve a full explanation of these serious charges of fraud. Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest Bank need to turn over all of the evidence they previously obstructed so that their banking regulators can conduct a thorough investigation into these serious charges prior to any hearings about Mr. Mnuchin serving as our next Treasury Secretary.  If Mr. Mnuchin’s bank wasn’t engaged in illegal behavior, why did they try and obstruct the Attorney General’s staff?” asks Paulina Gonzalez, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

The authors of the memo recommended that the Attorney General authorize a civil enforcement action against the bank, which did not happen. In citing challenges with filing the case, the authors of the memo cite concerns about federal bank regulators pre-empting their authority. OneWest and Wells Fargo have both raised pre-emption as defenses in legal cases related to the banks not complying with California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights law. The attorney general had previously filed amicus briefs arguing against OneWest’s position that it was not subject to the Homeowner Bill of Rights.

Additional Context: Senators are still missing key information about Mr. Mnuchin, OneWest Bank, and Financial Freedom:

As part of its earlier merger with CIT Group, consumer advocates had asked for more information about OneWest’s track record which the bank refused to provide, including information about:

1)      Total number of national foreclosures conducted by OneWest Bank and Financial Freedom (reverse mortgages) after Mr. Mnuchin and his group of investors bought the failed IndyMac, First Federal, and La Jolla Banks.

2)      HUD OIG Investigation: CIT Group, which acquired OneWest Bank in 2015, disclosed to investors that it had received subpoenas from the Office of the Inspector General at HUD related to Financial Freedom’s servicing of reverse mortgage loans. The investigation appears to be ongoing, and likely covers a timespan when Mr. Mnuchin was at the helm of OneWest.

3)      Modification and foreclosure data: While a spokesperson for Mr. Mnuchin suggested to the Washington Post that OneWest had made “over 101,000 modification offers,” advocates question how many of those modifications provided substantial enough payment relief that a homeowner could retain the home, and how many modified loans subsequently went into default, especially if the original modification didn’t provide a sustainable solution for the homeowner. Because 2/3 of OneWest foreclosures in California occurred in majority minority communities, advocates also suggest the bank should provide data about the extent to which homeowners of color received sustainable modifications, data which the bank likely already provided to the Treasury Dept.

4)      Settlements and Court Cases: During the past six years, OneWest Bank and its subsidiary, Financial Freedom, have lost multiple lawsuits and/or agreed to settlements with homeowners for illegal lending, servicing, and foreclosure practices.  However, the bank has never provided a comprehensive picture of these lawsuits and settlements which could help senators better understand Mr. Mnuchin’s leadership at the bank.

Example OneWest Settlement: OneWest Bank agreed to pay Greg and Irene Rigali, from San Luis Obispo, California a seven figure settlement after the bank foreclosed on the homeowners at the same time the homeowners were attempting to obtain a modification, a practice known as “dual tracking.” For more, see: CalCoastNews: “OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case.”

The California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC) has been advocating for fair and equal access to credit for all California communities since 1986. Over its 30 years, CRC has grown into the largest state community reinvestment coalition in the country with a membership of 300 nonprofit organizations working for the economic vitality of low-income communities and communities of color. Among our members are a diverse set of organizations including nonprofit housing counselors, consumer advocates, community organizers, legal service providers, affordable housing developers, small business technical assistance providers, and more. www.calreinvest.org

9th Circuit Uses Yvanova Reversing Trial Court

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see 9th Circuit Quotes Yvanova13-17297

This is the stuff that  makes lay people crazy.

Plaintiff Newman filed a lawsuit in California to stop a foreclosure claiming BONY didn’t have the right to foreclose. The trial court dismissed his case because he supposedly didn’t have standing to raise that issue. Then he filed an appeal. During his appeal, the Yvanova decision was released.

So the 9th Federal Circuit applied Yvanova to the pending appeal and reversed the trial court, adding that there could be an action, as Newman had brought, to hold parties responsible for handling of a modification request. That should be a no-brainer but the courts keep getting twisted up in the idea that the banks need to be protected when it is the homeowners who need protection.

Of course for good measure the decision is announced as not to be used for precedent — but it is difficult to see how it could not be precedent.

The bottom line, I think, is that the Courts are very reluctantly coming around to the view that they will allow those actions or defenses that they must allow while they allow wide latitude to pretender lenders. It’s another step toward equality under the law but we are a still quite some distance to a level playing field.

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

The trend over the last decade is giving rise to a new fraudulent industry. Posing as the creditor and even suing upon the debt is cloaked in presumptions that the fabricated documents are true, putting the burden on the average citizen to disprove a nonexistent fact. And accepting a modification application as part of a larger scheme to force the homeowner into foreclosure was and might still be OK, because servicers supposedly are under no duty to do anything — not withstanding Dodd Frank and other statutes and regulations.

Schedule A Consult Now! or call 202-838-6345

The Strategic Warfare of Mortgage “Servicing”

By William Hudson
You can choose your sexual orientation and even your ethnicity but you can’t change your loan servicer. Mortage “servicing” is the ultimate misnomer. Modern loan servicing has nothing to do with service but instead provides a “disservice” in order to boost profits or engineer a default if at all possible. Being forced to contract with a sketchy loan servicer is like being forced to stay married to a spouse who lies, cheats and steals all your money.

 
The servicer’s job is to collect payments and manage the day to day operations of the loan, but servicers have taken on the new role of “default engineer” and “disinformation agent”. The servicers have found a new way of increasing profits and it is at the expense of a customer who has no choice in regards to who services their mortgage.

 
It is likely that the servicing rights to your loan were sold to either  the lowest bidder, or Pirates-R-Us Loan Servicing who purchased the note at a fire sale for pennies on the dollar with the knowledge that your loan had some major defect. It is even possible that your loan servicer is not a servicer at all but is pretending that they are forwarding your payments to the true owner when instead they are keeping your monthly payments for their own enrichment (and there is no creditor).

 
The typical tools servicers use to create a deliberate default include:
• providing disinformation or conflicting information to the homeowner
• failing to follow through with agreements (modifications or repayment)
• misapplying funds/refusing to take payments
• weeks spent trying to correct an issue (phone transferitis followed by disconnect)
• failure to answer QWR or failure to provide requested answers
• failure to acknowledge rescission
• backdating denial letters so homeowners don’t have sufficient time to challenge the              modification  denial
• forced-place insurance
• assign servicing rights to new servicer
• dual-tracking while modification is under consideration or borrower is in compliance
• revoking modification when homeowner is compliant (no opportunity to appeal)
• bankruptcy payment issues (misapplication of payments pre and post-bankruptcy)
• fabricating document to create the appearance of holder status
• misrepresenting status of relationship to loan
• Fabrication, forgery and other tactics to “perfect” the appearance of holder status

 
All of these activities serve to confuse the homeowner and require significant amounts of time and frustration to resolve as days, weeks and sometimes months are spent on trying to correct the situation (during work hours).   On a regular basis Servicers now participate in calculated fraud in order to create a default. The unsuspecting homeowner can be lulled by their servicer into practices that will increase the chances of foreclosure.

 
Over the past several months, the Lending Lies team has seen a disturbing trend of servicers taking advantage of people who are elderly, obviously mentally incapacitated, and economically vulnerable. Servicers are now aware of who the best victims are and who to pursue with impunity. The elderly who are on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable, single mothers who are burdened by work and raising children on their own appear to be targets, and we have seen more and more mature single women with few assets except for their homes being given incorrect information to deliberately force them into arrears (many of these women acquired real estate through divorce or a spouse’s death- and are told they have no survivor rights and the bank refuses to accept payment). These people lack the financial resources to obtain legal assistance, and often are so beaten-down emotionally they have no ability to fight back.

 
The servicer’s current weapon of choice continues to be the loan modification offer, when the bank has no intention of granting one. During the loan modification process, paper work will be destroyed, customer service reps will claim to not have received paperwork, and the homeowner will be caught in an endless phone transfer loop (followed by an abrupt disconnect of the call in which the homeowner will be forced to start all over). After months of this nearly futile run-around the bank will claim the homeowner doesn’t qualify for a modification- but will then fail to provide a reason for the modification denial or an opportunity to appeal the servicer’s decision (last week Ocwen was sanctioned by the National Mortgage Settlement for this metric violation). Another tactic is to dual-track the customer (proceed with foreclosure while homeowner is in negotiations for a modification).

 
Unfortunately almost all homeowners are at the mercy of the party who acquires the servicing rights to their Note- and if the homeowner has the misfortunate of their loan being acquired by Ocwen, Nationwide, Bank of America, JPMorgan-Chase, CitiMortgage or Bank of America- the homeowner is almost assured that if they miss one payment during the life of their loan or have some other issue- there will be hell to pay and the bank will make it as difficult as possible to correct the issue.

 

 

Without effective counsel, the homeowner is literally at the servicer’s mercy.
Part of the servicer’s modus operandi is emotional warfare. First of all, mortgage issues are complex and most homeowners have no comprehension of what is going on except for what they are told by low-level employees at the banks that are literally practicing law without a license when speaking to homeowners. By keeping the victim confused, on edge, unable to receive concise answers and other gaslighting techniques- they can exponentially increase default odds in their favor. Most homeowners will follow the directions of their loan servicers without question- and are taken advantage by their naiveté and willingness to comply with the servicer’s demands. It is unconscionable that a loan servicer with a conflict of interest is able to advise vulnerable homeowners about saving their home when the servicer has very clear goals of foreclosure.

 
Over the past nine years, servicers have learned how to “perfect” their default model to ensure foreclosures occur. Now that it is well known that the servicers forge signatures, falsify notarizations, and fabricate documents, the banks have now reverted to “Plan B”. If paperwork they forged and altered over the past six years is a known liability, lenders are now resorting to “lost note” strategies so they can try to start over with a “clean” slate. Once they have convinced the court the note was lost and claim plausible deniability they can use a lost note affidavit to try and correct any earlier issues or oversights that occurred when sloppy fabrication and forgeries were used. The banks can then recreate their foreclosure “storyline”  in order to “perfect” their standing. Don’t be fooled by this tactic.

 
The homeowner’s chance of saving their homes are compromised when their own servicer behaves in predatory ways. Servicers are well aware of how to create a default and who to best target for their crime. The National Mortgage Settlement has proven impotent to stop loan servicers from continuing with their deceptive tactics. Society’s most vulnerable are victimized and have no hope of fighting back against these abusive servicer crime-syndicates with deep pockets, political allies and the courts in their corner. Welcome to the new America.

Relief After Judgment Might Void the Sale

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

Article by Hudson Cook

see http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d48dbdf7-2e5a-438d-97cd-98b59fbd062f

In the maelstrom of musical chairs characterizing most foreclosures, there has been a phenomenon that is not discussed very much. The Judgment of foreclosure has been entered but the parties agree to reinstatement (or possibly even modification) before the sale. Most courts seem to be saying that the foreclosure sale under those circumstances is void, although the Mississippi court described in the above referenced article did state that the purchaser at auction did have standing to challenge the reinstatement or more specifically to ratify his or her purchase of the property.

The ruling seems to make sense from the standpoint of the main parties to the litigation but it does pose problems for those who thought they purchased the property and went to some time and expense to make the purchase. On balance the courts seem to lean heavily in the direction of home retention under these circumstances.

This is just one of a myriad of examples where a pro se litigant might miss an opportunity for home retention. It is quite common for homeowners to receive such offers after judgment and before sale. And it is also getting increasingly common where some settlement is reached for reinstatement and modification. But the question remains as to whether the new arrangement is binding or valid if the offer is from a servicer for a trust that does not own the debt, note or mortgage.

This is to be distinguished from situations where the homeowner attacks the judgment or the wrongful foreclosure based upon fraud like a void assignment or some other element. Courts are much less inclined to vacate their own judgment based upon such allegations, although we have seen instances where they have done so.

%d bloggers like this: