No firm deserves sanctions more!
via Axsmith Law Blog
No firm deserves sanctions more!
via Axsmith Law Blog
How many times do we have to read this same story? Telling someone that they have to stop paying to access a federal program, encouraging them to believe that they are going to get a loan modification, when your bank has already decided that no one is going to get this kind of deal, and then foreclosing on them when they fall for the bait – is this they way banks are supposed to make money?
I’ve been arguing the same thing, – that there was much more to the mortgage crisis than robosigning. So, give this a read. I like skepticism and intelligence. This article has both.
For about seven months now, I have argued over and over again that lying to the courts with false affidavits and actions amounting to fraud were prosecutable. I have used the word, crimes, and I meant it.
Why is it that if one of my students breaks the law by stealing a few dollars that he will go to jail and these banks can commit these acts and reap huge profits without fear of prosecution?
I want these law-breakers, these greedy well placed fraudsters, to go to jail, to do the perp walk, to pay enormous fines, and to serve as a warning to every Armani clad crook haunting the board rooms of our great investments banks.
My thanks to “Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge.”
A family seizes their home back from the banks.
It’s pitiful that Americans have to take justice into their own hands.
An attorney discusses widespread fraud and attorney participation.
This is devastating to the banks.
There are few assaults upon our dignity as crushing as the theft of all of our possessions. It is not so much the large items like refrigerators and televisions that are missed. Humans attach value to the strangest things. Instead of the microwave they lament the loss of their wedding pictures. When logic would dictate the loss of the computer should be the first cause of regret, they think of the old worn chair that has sat in the living room for years. Considering the great value placed upon personal privacy and possessions, would it not seem logical and prudent that those entrusted with the safety of the public should investigate and seek to punish the guilty. But the investigators would only need a mirror to discover the perpetrator of this crime, law enforcement itself.
It seems unfair that the bank never has to worry about these mistakes in judgment. It seems unfair that the bank, should use so many public resources to serve its interests.
The victim is asking $500,000 dollars in damages.
That seems fair, first, to recompense her for damages and second, to discourage the sheriff and his deputies from any more random home raids.
Across the country, struggling homeowners are increasingly tripped up by mortgage lenders that press ahead with foreclosures regardless of any effort they make to provide borrowers with relief on unaffordable mortgages.
Amid the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, mortgage companies have established a dual-track approach toward troubled homeowners, negotiating with them over loan modifications while trying to seize their homes.
Top government officials have been urging lenders to redouble their efforts at modifying burdensome loans and have barred lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are seeking to rework their mortgages under a federal program. Mortgage companies, however, have continued to pursue this two-track strategy, with a widening toll especially on those homeowners who have been trying to resolve their mortgage difficulties before they snowball, according to federal and state officials and consumer advocates.
During the last month, several major lenders have temporarily halted thousands of foreclosure cases amid reports that fraudulent court documents and improper procedures have been used to evict people from their homes. But disarray within the mortgage industry goes much further. And the foreclosure pause has done little to address the common industry practice of taking homes from people who’d been led to believe they could save them.
“It’s still happening everywhere,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has tried to bar the dual-track process in his state, one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. “It’s one of the largest complaints I get. . . . The lenders need to make a choice. What do they want: a foreclosure or a loan modification?”
The banks are playing it both ways. They foreclose on you when you are delinquent on payments and they foreclose on you when you get your payments modified with them since you’re not paying the full amount. Confused? Think how you would feel after reaching an agreement with the bank to lower your payments and your house is auctioned!
Take a look at the case of Mr. Roberts.
In Centreville, Woodrow Roberts III said he enrolled last October in a loan modification program with Bank of America. At the time, he was still current on his $3,000-a-month payments but wanted some relief until he could find a second job. The bank agreed to trim the monthly payment by $600 for a three-month trial period and consider Roberts for a permanent modification, he recalled.
After three months, he said, he heard nothing from the bank. “I called in every week to see the status of my loan,” Roberts said. “After a year of phone calls and no real information, I received a letter in the mail.” It said he had been rejected for a modification and that he owed more than $8,800 – the total he’d thought his payments had been reduced over the course of the year plus fees. If he didn’t pay, the letter warned, his home would be sold at a foreclosure auction Nov. 12.
“If I knew this type of program could risk everything, I would have never entered into this program,” Roberts said. He explained he can’t afford to pay the sum demanded all at once and hasn’t been allowed to spread it out over time.
In response to a reporter’s question about the case, Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said Roberts was turned down for a permanent loan modification under the federal program because his income was too high to qualify. But she said the bank is now reviewing whether he is eligible for alternative relief.
Sounds like he had a deal to me. But he didn’t. The deals only work one way. If the bank wants to go with the deal, it’s fine. If they don’t, your home is auctioned and they don’t feel obligated to talk to you about it.
Here’s some more -
The Mortgage Bankers Association said lenders often file initial foreclosure paperwork as they work to modify a loan. John Mechem, an MBA spokesman, said they want to make sure that if the modification effort fails, they can promptly move forward with the foreclosure, which can take up to three years to complete depending on the state. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration impose deadlines for filings on loans these agencies guarantee or own, he said.
But Phillip Robinson, a lawyer at the nonprofit law firm Civil Justice Inc. in Baltimore said, “Attorneys and housing counselors here and all over the country complain every day about this kind of thing.”
I don’t understand. I thought if you called and talked to someone at a bank, a loan office, etc., and they said they would take the payment late, they would take a buyout, they would accept a lower payment over a longer time, etc, etc, that we had a deal.
Apparently not. If you’re negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and they agree to modify it, you need to get it in writing. What’s the catch? I don’t see why they should let you have any such evidence of their intent. When they can decide to foreclose or not regardless of the arrangements they have made with you, why should they put anything on paper?
If you have a mortgage, and you have made arrangements with a bank, have a backup plan in case foreclosure is pushed through anyway.