Posts Tagged ‘loan modification’
Posted on June 5th, 2013 by Mark Stopa
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued this written opinion today reversing a Final Judgment of Foreclosure. This decision is yet another case which makes it clear that foreclosure plaintiffs must comply with the “notice and cure” provisions in paragraph 22 of most mortgages before accelerating the balance due and before filing suit.
That’s old news for those in the industry. The fight is now beyond that stage for many of us, who are regularly arguing whether a paragraph 22 letter, even if sent, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 22. Plaintiffs like to argue that “substantial compliance” is all that is necessary, while defendants argue the standard is higher.
What I find interesting about this opinion is that it’s yet another case where a Florida appellate court had the chance to explain that a foreclosure plaintiff need only “substantially comply” with the paragraph 22 obligations yet declined to do so. Likewise, this is another case where a Florida appellate court could have ruled that prejudice was a factor in the analysis, i.e. that the homeowner could only complain about the paragraph 22 letter if he/she had the ability to cure the default, yet did not adopt that analysis.
Here’s a cut and paste of the language I find interesting:
The letter attached to the Complaint was a notice that acceleration had already occurred and was dated only six days prior to the filing of the Complaint. It did not advise of the default, provide an opportunity to cure, or provide thirty days in which to do so. The letter attached to the Complaint did not satisfy section 22’s requirements.
The Fourth District could have said the letter did not “substantially comply.” Nope. Instead, it said the letter “did not satisfy section 22′s requirements.” Big difference. After all, satisfying Paragraph 22 and “substantially complying” aren’t the same thing, and when the appellate courts keep using terms like “satisfy,” that sure sounds like the defendants are correct in their analysis of this issue.
Mark Stopa
Posted in Main | 1 Comment »
Posted on November 22nd, 2010 by Mark Stopa
Foreclosure defense attorneys Mark Stopa and Matt Weidner appeared today, live, on The Dylan Ratigan Show.
Here is a link to the show. 
Even with the plethora of media reports in recent months, most Florda homeowners do not defend their foreclosure cases. That’s an absolute shame. I really hope stories like this help homeowners realize they can’t give up – loan modifications are going to happen on a widespread basis only if homeowners fight, stand up to the banks, and advocate for change.
Mark Stopa
Posted in Main | No Comments »
Posted on November 8th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
The New York Times did a story over the weekend about how Florida foreclosure attorneys are charging homeowners facing foreclosure. I’ve read the article and, with respect to my colleagues, I’m disturbed. According to the article, Roy Oppenheim charges $500/month to his clients (every month the case is pending, no matter how little activity takes place in the case each month). Ice Legal charges a retainer, monthly fees, and a contingent fee. Peter Ticktin charges monthly fees plus a 40% contingent fee. As I see it, instead of trying to make their services as affordable as possible, these lawyers are trying to figure out how much they can get away with billing. I’m also troubled at the ethical quagmires created by these fee arrangements.
To illustrate my concerns, let’s take one of the examples in the article. If a client of the Ticktin lawyers gets the principal on his/her mortgage reduced from $500,000 to $200,000 (be it by modification, settlement, court order, or the like), then that homeowner owes the Ticktins $120,000 ($300,000 x 40% = $120,000). Perhaps worse yet, that $120,000 is secured by a mortgage on the client’s home. Hence, the $500,000 mortgage is reduced to $200,000, but there is now a second mortgage, payable to Ticktin, in the amount of $120,000, so the homeowner still owes $320,000.
Respectfully, isn’t it our job as foreclosure defense and bankruptcy attorneys to help homeowners avoid foreclosure? To try to reduce their debt? I realize this is a business, but I can’t help but feel that these fees are excessive. As I see it, why should Ticktin, Ice Legal, Stopa Law Firm, or any foreclosure defense attorney get a windfall if we’ve helped a client and obtained a principal reduction? Striving for favorable results is our job – it’s why we get paid. Sometimes favorable outcomes happen, sometimes they don’t, but either way, we shouldn’t get a windfall, particularly at the expense of our clients.
I’d be less disturbed about foreclosure lawyers charging a contingent fee if it was the lawyers’ only way of billing. For instance, if a lawyer somehow eliminates a mortgage from a client’s home, and hasn’t collected any fees, a contingent fee seems reasonable to me. In that scenario, the client now has a free and clear house and the lawyer helped obtain that result without getting paid, so a contingent fee seems fair. Unfortunately, there are two fatal problems with this line of thinking. First, it’s clear that these lawyers are charging more than just a contingent fee – they’re charging retainers and monthly fees, too. When the foreclosure defense attorneys are already getting a monthly fee, the contingent fee strikes me as excessive. My concerns are heightened in that regard because I find the $500 monthly fee excessive on its own. Bear in mind, in foreclosure cases, there are often many months of inactivity, where the lawyer does little or no work. As I see it, why should a lawyer keep collecting $500/month when he/she isn’t doing any work? I strongly believe the fees a foreclosure lawyer collects should bear some reasonable relationship to the work being performed.
Second, I agree with Margery Gallant, who opines in the article that the elimination of a mortgage and client owning a home free and clear is generally not “realistic.” There are undoubtedly exceptions, but the typical homeowner cannot expect that he/she can march into court and convince a judge to eliminate a mortgage and give the homeowner a free home. Don’t get me wrong – I’m always on the lookout for fact patterns that could lend themselves to this result. For the typical Floridian, though, this is not a realistic goal (especially with the climate in the judiciary being what it is). As such, I’m left wondering just what these foreclosure defense attorneys have to do to earn their contingent fee.
For example, suppose the foreclosure lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, meaning the bank can re-file a separate suit and seek foreclosure. Should a foreclosure defense attorney be able to collect a contingent fee in that scenario? I’d argue “no,” unless the fee was very low. After all, the fees obtained should be commensurate with the results obtained, and a dismissal without prejudice does not lend itself to a $50,000 or $100,000 contingency. Unfortunately, I’ve seen contingent fee agreements that require such a payment even upon a dismissal without prejudice. As I see it, that’s grossly excessive.
Also, I strongly believe these fee arrangements are rife with conflicts. To illustrate, Tom Ice says he “doesn’t ever want to have a client say ‘I’m not taking the deal because I can’t afford to pay you.” Yet isn’t this the very dynamic that these contingent fees create? Using the example above, if the homeowner is offered a $300,000 reduction, doesn’t he/she have to think about whether he/she can pay the $120,000 mortgage to Ticktin before accepting the offer? If so, who is going to counsel the homeowner about that? Ticktin? How does that conversation go? “I’m glad you’ve been offered the $300,000 reduction – just be sure you can pay the $120,000 fee to me.”
Mr. Ticktin says he “would never enforce the mortgage and foreclose.” If that’s true, though, then why have this fee agreement in the first place? Clearly, these lawyers want to leave open the possibility of foreclosing on their clients’ homes, as otherwise they wouldn’t be including such language in their fee agreements.
Also, many homeowners facing foreclosure are candidates for bankruptcy. Using the same example, above, are the Ticktin lawyers going to give conflict-free advice to a client about bankruptcy if Ticktin has a second mortgage on the client’s home? How can they? Ticktin and the homeowner are directly adverse – the homeowner wants to eliminate the mortgage, which could happen via bankruptcy, whereas Ticktin wants to enforce it, which a bankruptcy would preclude. Undoubtedly, Ticktin’s representation to that client about the benefits of bankruptcy are impacted by its own interests in keeping the mortgage intact.
The more I study these fee agreements with other foreclosure defense attorneys, the more comfortable I feel with the fees being charged by Stopa Law Firm.
Mark Stopa
Posted in Main | 11 Comments »
Posted on October 23rd, 2010 by Mark Stopa
With foreclosure-related stories dominating national headlines on a daily basis, many lawyers, judges, and reporters have gotten knee-deep, if not neck-deep, in the foreclosure crisis. Sometimes, we’re so immersed in the battle, so deep in the forest, it’s easy to forget that many Floridians are unaware of the basics when it comes to foreclosure defense. Let’s take a step back, dispel some myths, and re-visit the basics:
1. As a Florida homeowner, you don’t need to leave your home unless and until the bank *wins* a foreclosure lawsuit. As such, even if you’re hopelessly behind on your mortgage, you don’t have to leave your home. Even if the bank writes you a default letter and sends it by certified mail, files suit against you, and threatens you on the phone, you don’t have to leave your home. You don’t need to leave your home unless and until the bank wins a foreclosure lawsuit against you.
To put it differently, there’s a reason I chose the name of this website – www.stayinmyhome.com.
Repeat after me: “I have the right to ‘stay in my home’ unless and until the bank wins a foreclosure lawsuit against me.”
2. As a Florida homeowner, you are entitled to have a foreclosure defense attorney represent you until the conclusion of your foreclosure lawsuit. In my view, my job as a foreclosure defense attorney is quite simple – to do whatever I can, within the law and consistent with my ethical obligations as an attorney, to try to prevent banks from winning foreclosure lawsuits against my clients. In any given case, my hope is that I can do a good enough job that the bank will offer my client a reasonable settlement offer and/or loan modifications that it otherwise would not offer. I’ve said this when I started practicing foreclosure defense and I still believe it – if you give up, you’re going to get foreclosed, but if you fight your foreclosure case, you at least give yourself a chance to avoid foreclosure.
3. Many non-lawyers think it’s easy for a bank to win a foreclosure lawsuit. That’s not necessarily so. When foreclosure defense attorneys such as myself force lawyers to prove their entitlement to foreclose in court, banks sometimes struggle to meet their burden of proof. Every case is different, and there’s no way to know for sure how any particular case will play out in court. That said, it’s possible the bank’s lawsuit will get dismissed. It’s possible, once you retain a competent and reputable foreclosure defense attorney, that the bank will be hesitant to go to court altogether. It’s possible the court will deny the bank’s motion for summary judgment and force the bank to prove its entitlement to foreclosure at trial (which would extend the duration of the foreclosure lawsuit and, hence, your time in your home). The court process, candidly, can be a bit uncertain. In my view, though, uncertainty is better than giving up and accepting foreclosure on your home.
As we’ve seen with the huge, national stories in recent weeks, nobody knows for sure what the future will bring. If you give up, foreclosure is all but set in stone. But if you defend your foreclosure lawsuit, you just may be able to stay in your home, perhaps for a long time, or even avoid foreclosure altogether.
Posted in Main | 1 Comment »
Posted on October 21st, 2010 by Mark Stopa
The foreclosure crisis has spawned a myriad of headline-grabbing, national stories. Foreclosure fraud. Robo-signers. Strategic default. Many brilliant Americans are trying to figure out how to solve the problem. Finding the solution begins with understanding the problem.
As a foreclosure defense attorney on the “front lines” of the crisis every day, I believe the problem is much simpler than people realize. Homeowners and bankers are in a Tug-of-War. On one side of the rope, homeowners are pulling, trying to get loan modifications. On the other side, bankers are pulling, trying to finalize foreclosures.
Homeowners vs. Bankers
(I have homeowners on the left because they’re clearly the underdogs, struggling with inferior resources. The bankers are on the right due to their vast resources, aided by the bailout from the government.)
Everything we’ve seen in the foreclosure crisis falls under the umbrella of this Tug-of-War. In my view, it started with the bail-out of the banks, so let’s start there.
1. In 2008, with our nation’s economy in the toilet, the government bailed out the banks, intending to spur lending and stimulate the economy. But the bankers don’t modify loans.
Government Bails Out Bankers ==> No Loan Modifications.
2. The lack of loan modifications spawned more defaults by homeowners and unprecedented increases in the volume of foreclosures.
No Modifications ==> More Defaults & More Foreclosures
3. Faced with higher volume, bankers instituted questionable procedures to cut corners. Robo-signers. Foreclosure fraud (or, at minimum, neglect).
No Modifications ==> More Foreclosures ==> Bankers Cut Corners
4. Without modifications, and facing foreclosure, homeowners fight back, hiring foreclosure defense attorneys (particularly in states like Florida, which require judicial oversight).
No Modifications ==> Homeowners fight back, Hire Lawyers
5 Foreclosure defense attorneys help homeowners, uncover fraud.
No Modifications ==> Homeowners Hire Lawyers ==> Bankers’ Fraud Exposed
6. As this whole process continues, the real estate market and economy as a whole continue to stagnate. The ongoing Tug-of-War is being played in quicksand – both sides are pulling, and everyone is sinking.
More and more Americans wonder why they should pay they should pay their mortgage when a house down the street is selling for 40% of the mortgage. It’s the advent of strategic default.
No Modifications ==> Strategic Default
7. Not wanting everyone to default, bankers still refuse modifications. (This is one of the big perversities of the system. Bankers will never admit it, but the single biggest reason they won’t modify loans is they don’t want to incentivize all of the homeowners who are current on their loans to go into default.)
No Modifications ==> Strategic Default ==> No Modifications
8. Meanwhile, in states with judicial oversight of foreclosures, like Florida, judges see their caseloads quadruple, essentially overnight, prompting unprecedented procedural changes, and, in many circles, skepticism in the judiciary (due to the increasing perception that courts have enabled the foreclosure fraud).
No Modifications ==> Higher Volume ==> Strain on Judiciary
Now we sit, in October, 2010, with terms like robo-signer, moratorium, and foreclosure-gate a part of daily conversation. The Tug-of-War is now more intense than ever. Public debate rages about which side is right – the bankers or the homeowners, each side growing larger in number and getting more entrenched in their respective positions. Meanwhile, high-ranking officials try to solve the problem, struggling to come up with a solution.
Respectfully, the solution is simple. AMERICANS NEED LOAN MODIFICATIONS. Let me shout it from the rooftops:
AMERICANS NEED LOAN MODIFICATIONS
I’ve blogged on this website repeatedly about the problems with the loan modification process. If the government has any intention of fixing the mess, and the economy as a whole, it must find a way to force banks to modify loans. A few suggestions:
1. Every time a bank forecloses, impose a tax. A stiff one. Make the tax pro rata based on the value of the property. “You want to foreclose, bank. Fine. Pay $25,000. Or $50,000.” If bankers won’t modify loans, incentivize them to do so by hitting ‘em where it hurts – the wallet.
2. Reduce the principal on every owner-occupied property to its present value. I made this suggestion on this blog weeks ago, before Foreclosure-Gate became a national phenomenon. Yes, it’s a drastic suggestion, but this would drastically reduce strategic defaults, eliminate the backlog in our courts, and make mortgages affordable again. The bankers got bailed out (and didn’t help homeowners at all) – it’s time to bail out the people. Bankers may argue this is unfair, but I’d counter that this would stabilize housing prices, spur home sales, and get homeowners to start borrowing again.
3. Require judicial oversight of foreclosures in every state. If it’s harder for banks to foreclose, it will give them incentive to work out loan modifications.
4. Require banks to attempt modifications as a condition precedent to foreclosure. More importantly, make the banks prove that they complied with these conditions, to a judge, even in uncontested cases, before they can begin a foreclosure suit.
Until some such actions are taken, the Tug-of-War will continue. So if you’re a homeowner facing foreclosure, unable to get a loan modification, you really have little choice but to retain a competent foreclosure defense attorney, fight your foreclosure, and see what happens in the court system. At worst, you’ll be able to stay in your home a bit longer, and, hopefully, get back on your feet.
Posted in Main | 2 Comments »
Posted on October 21st, 2010 by Mark Stopa
Indiana’s Attorney General has filed suit against ten companies who took advantage of homeowners in financial distress, i.e. foreclosure rescue scams. Given the nature of my practice, I’ve encountered many homeowners with horror stories about foreclosure rescue scams. ”They promised me a loan modification, took $2,500, and I never heard from them again.”
Unfortunately, there is sometimes no way to know for sure if the company with whom you are dealing is a “scam” until after the fact. That said, here are some warning signs that the company with whom you are dealing may not be on the “up and up”:
1. An out of state company. I have received inquiries from from homeowners facing foreclosure from all over the country. My response is always the same. “Unfortunately, I can only represent homeowners with properties in Florida.” Is that to say it’s impossible for an out-of-state company, or even an out-of-state lawyer, to help you? Not necessarily. That said, how is someone going to handle a foreclosure lawsuit from out of state?
2. A non-lawyer. If you’re sued for foreclosure, there are only two types of people who can defend the foreclosure lawsuit – (1) the defendant/homeowner; and (2) a lawyer. A non-lawyer cannot defend a foreclosure case; to do so would constitute the unlicensed practice of law.
3. A guarantee. The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar preclude lawyers from guaranteeing a result to a client (in any case, including foreclosure cases). Even if the Rules did not so require, I’d never give a client a guarantee. Unfortunately, there’s no way to know, for sure, what the bank is going to be willing to do in the future. Likewise, there’s no way to know, for sure, how a judge will rule. If you’re being given a guarantee, chances are pretty good that it’s a scam.
4. Up-front payments. This one is tough, because most lawyers charge up-front fees. So don’t view this as a determining factor in and of itself, but consider it in conjunction with the others. In other words, if an out of town, non-lawyer is guaranteeing you a loan modification and requiring you to pay up front, chances are excellent that it’s a scam.
5. The company instructs you not to communicate with your bank. It’s hard for me to envision a scenario where I’d tell a client who is seeking a loan modification or some other resolution in lieu of a foreclosure not to talk to the bank. If that’s what you’re being told, chances are good that your “foreclosure rescue” company doesn’t want you to talk to your bank to catch on to the fact that they aren’t doing anything.
6. The company is not filing papers in response to your foreclosure lawsuit. As I’ve blogged repeatedly, meaningful loan modifications are few and far between, especially prior to a foreclosure lawsuit being filed. If the “foreclosure rescue” company you’ve retained is not going to defend your foreclosure case, chances are they aren’t going to help you.
Posted in Main | No Comments »
Posted on October 20th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
Just as I was finishing my last blog about loan modifications, I received a comment on this blog from a homeowner. The homeowner’s story moved me, so much so that I felt compelled to post it (with her permission), below. As you read it, ask yourself “Does this sound like a deadbeat? Or does this sound like an honest, honorable, hard-working American who is trying to do right for her family and meet her financial obligations?”
What particularly irks me about this situation is that she was induced to default by a scam operation out of California that promised a loan modification but never delivered.
Dear Sir, I am writing to you as my last hope to save my home. My husband lost his job here in Tampa Fl. and had to move to Houston in order to keep his job at a lower rate. On March 8, 2010, we paid $2,500, up front, to a California company called National Relief Group to get a loan modification. They told us it would take 120 days to complete, not to contact our lender, and to stop paying our mortgage in order to get our home modified. Its been now 8 months and still no answer and we are now $14,000.00 behind including late fees and penalties. Since then my husband was cheating on me and left me right after life support and took off. I filed for divorce and got granted the house. However I was to refinance the house in my name and the kids. Since my divorce, my credit was ruined being so lengthy almost 18 months and costly. As the months went by I got a letter from the Attorneys for Bank of America. They filed a suit for foreclosure, I panic because that was not our intention. I want to keep my home – I just needed assistance to lower the modification in order to keep paying the house. I called the company that was supposed to modify the loan and for months they kept saying it was in negotiation process, and we kept getting deeper in the hole with no promises it would go through. So I called Bank of America. I was told that if I wanted to keep my house, I would have to come up with $14,000. I told them to please work with me by doing a repayment plan for the back paid fees and penalties, or to put the back pay towards the end of the loan and I would continue to pay the mortgage, as I do not want to lose my house. The lady I spoke to from BOA was rude, obnoxious and uncaring to my plea. She said to ask my family, friends, etc. to help bring my mortgage up to date in order to keep it from foreclosure. She also informed me that I would have to come up with $10,000 and they would do a six month plan which would take me from $1234 a month to $2700 a month. I told her I could not afford that payment and she told me that was the only way I could keep my house from foreclosure and she also said I would have to come up with the money soon because they move fast on foreclosures, within 30 to 60 days. I cried to her, I pleaded to her that this was not my fault, why I was in this position and it would be a win-win situation to keep the house out of foreclosure if I’m willing to pay my mortgage every month but I could not come up with the back payments thru no fault of my own, all we were trying to do was to get help by modifying the loan to make it affordable to us since my now ex had lost his job in Tampa.
Needless to say that I sat there in shock and confused as to how a person wants to keep their home and can find noone to help them. I recently got another letter from the court advising that the attorneys for BOA are also not only doing the foreclosure but also seeking attorney’s fees as well. This is insane. I am a disabled woman on a fixed income now receiving alimony, my sons have moved back into my home and between the 3 of us we can pay the mortgage. However, I am so disgusted that the banks will not work with me, I can’t refinance, I can’t seem to get any help from anyone in keeping my home. Its all I have left. I am turning to you for help, guidance and direction as to what I can do so I don’t lose my home. I am able to make my monthly mortgage payments, however I cannot cough up, nor do I have family left and/or friends who can help me with this kind of back pay. Something has to be done as I am not one to walk away from my responsibilities without giving my all. I am not a loser or a low life as people are calling us that now, just a disabled woman trying to keep a roof over her head.
Anything you can do to help us would be greatly appreciated as I feel you are my last hope. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 727-XXX-XXXX.
Sadly, this story is not unusual. In fact, I hear stories like this every single day. Contrary to what many Americans think, most homeowners aren’t “deadbeats.” Most of my clients aren’t “taking advantage of the system.” These homeowners are good people who are trying to do the right thing. Can the banks say the same?
Posted in Main | 3 Comments »
Posted on September 30th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
I’ve seen a ton of horror stories in recent weeks with loan modifications, but this one takes the cake. As a matter of routine,
Banks are telling homeowners they’re being considered for a loan modification, and their lawsuit is “on hold,” even though the banks’ lawyers are moving the foreclosure lawsuit forward, full speed ahead.
What particularly frustrates me about these situations, aside from the fact that banks are lying to homeowners time and time again, is that homeowners are pinning all of their hopes into a loan modification process that is an absolute scam. It’s not just that the lawsuits are still going forward – the loan modification process itself is a joke! As I’ve said before, hoping a temporary modification evolves into a permanent one is like waiting for Santa Claus to come down the chimney on Christmas Eve.
To illustrate, take a look at this Temporary Loan Modification that came into my office today from a potential client. It requires the homeowner to make monthly payments in October, November, and December of more than $1,800/month. What does the homeowner get in exchange? Read the second page – absolutely nothing. Wells Fargo has ”no obligation to enter into any further agreement.” Hence, it has no obligation to approve a permanent modification, even if the homeowner makes all of the payments. In fact, page two specifically says “the loan must be brought current or an arrangement to satisfy the arrearage must be executed.” That means the homeowner has to pay up once the three-month period is over. Even worse, “the lender, at its option, may institute foreclosure proceedings according to the terms of the note and security instrument without regard to this agreement.” Yes, incredibly
Wells Fargo is giving itself the right to foreclose even while this agreement is in place!!!
In other words:
The foreclosure case against this homeowner can proceed, even if the homeowner is paying!!
The document is titled “Forbearance Agreement,” but if Wells Fargo isn’t agreeing to halt the foreclosure, even temporarily (i.e. “forbear”), then what’s the point? All this agreement does is put more money into the bank’s pocket – the end result of foreclosure is still the same.
To illustrate, and this is the most sickening part of all:
Even after entering this “forbearance agreement,” and making the first payment, Wells Fargo still sold this home at a foreclosure sale!
The homeowner paid the October payment early, in mid September, and Wells Fargo kept the check, but it still proceeded with the sale! Think about that for a minute.
This homeowner entered a temporary modification agreement, paid what she agreed to pay, and her home was still sold at a foreclosure sale!
Now for the legal stuff. Let’s say I represented this client, filed a motion to vacate the judgment and cancel the sale, and the judge agreed with me. Even if I “won” and got the Final Judgment vacated, this agreement was only good through the end of the year. Hence, even if this client “won” in court, come January, Wells Fargo could still set another hearing on a motion for summary judgment of foreclosure, and short of defeating summary judgment, there’s nothing this homeowner could do about it!
I sincerely hope this example illustrates an important point; typically:
Temporary loan modifications are a SCAM
Usually, as we saw here, banks enter temporary loan modification agreements as a way to induce homeowners to make more payments, even as the foreclosure lawsuit proceeds full speed ahead. I’m convinced banks do this without any intention of entering permanent, meaningful modifications (as homeowners want), but as a way to collect more money prior to a foreclosure being entered. If you disagree, let me ask you:
How did this agreement help this homeowner?
She paid more money and still got foreclosed!
This brings me to the final, most important point of all.
If your bank is proposing a temporary loan modification or forbearance agreement, make sure you bring it to a competent foreclosure defense attorney. And do not, under any circumstances, let the bank convince you that your case is “on hold.”
If a bank tells you your foreclosure lawsuit is “on hold,” tell them “Good, send me a letter saying so.” When the bank refuses, that should be a wake-up call for you. Chances are, YOUR CASE IS NOT ON HOLD!! (Even if the bank agrees, and gives you proof in writing, I’d still be careful – I’ve seen instances where the bank put it in writing and still proceeded with the foreclosure suit.) To sum it up:
Temporary Loan Modifications are a SCAM!
They put more money into the banks’ pockets and don’t keep homeowners in their homes.
Posted in Main | 3 Comments »
Posted on August 3rd, 2010 by Mark Stopa
There’s no sense in belaboring the point any longer. For me, the solution to the foreclosure crisis is clear:
Reduce the principal on every mortgage on every owner-occupied home in America such that the mortgage is no greater than the home’s present value.
Is this a radical solution? Absolutely. But let me ask you this: who would it harm? Banks? Please. The banks got bailed out – with OUR tax dollars. The bailout has enabled banks to recover, so much so that they’re now earning record profits, while mainstream America continues to suffer.
When do the American people get their bailout?
How many millions of Americans need to be foreclosed before the U.S. government steps in? I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, but what I find most ironic about Obama’s failure to act in response to the foreclosure crisis is that, prior to the election, he was criticized as a socialist, wanting to take from the rich to give to the poor, yet exactly the opposite is happening:
with every foreclosure, the rich are getting richer at alarming rates while the poor and middle class continue to suffer.
It’s absolutely amazing to me that so much wealth is being transferred from the middle class and the poor to the rich – right under the nose of a Democractic president.
Anyway, would reducing every mortgage on owner-occupied properties to the current value of the property be a radical solution? Absolutely. Some people would argue this would be unfair to homeowners who’ve paid their mortgages. I’m not oblivious to such arguments. However, what’s our alternative? Continuing to foreclose on thousands of homes every day? Continuing to allow banks to earn billions and billions of dollars while the public suffers? Haven’t we seen by now that helping banks isn’t going to help Americans, the public at large, or the economy as a whole? Banks only care about themselves and the profits of their CEOs – helping banks isn’t going to improve our economy. For me, this all begs the question:
Where are we headed here?
In five years, are banks going to own 25% of all real estate in the United States? 30% 40%?
Can you imagine how our economy would function with banks controlling that much real estate? It’s a scary thought.
Times like these are why we have a President. Mr. Obama, it’s time for you to get involved and make a difference. If you wait five years, or even two years, it will be too late. Right now is the time to
Reduce the mortgage on every owner-occupied home to its present value.
Of course, unless and until something like this happens, it’s incumbent upon homeowners facing foreclosure to retain a competent foreclosure defense attorney. You never know – if you don’t give up, and hire an attorney to defend your case, maybe the government will do something like this, enabling you to keep your home (whereas if you give up, you’ll lose your home forever).
Posted in Main | 4 Comments »
Posted on July 20th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
On July 19, 2010, foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa defended a homeowner at trial in a foreclosure case in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Every case is different, and there is no way to know whether other foreclosure cases will play out the same way. That said, my experience at trial reinforced two of my long-standing beliefs about the foreclosure process. Specifically:
1. If you’re facing foreclosure, don’t give up. If you give up, and don’t defend the case, the bank can obtain a foreclosure against you by default, often in just a matter of months. Conversely, if you have an attorney defend your case, you may induce the bank to enter a settlement it otherwise would have been unwilling to enter. To illustrate, as I was in trial yesterday, I found myself telling the bank’s attorney that they should settle the case because there was a real risk the bank would lose the trial or, even if it won, a real risk that the appellate court would reverse that decision on appeal. If you fight, and defend your foreclosure case, you give yourself leverage to settle. If you give up, you lose all leverage, enabling the bank to foreclose without opposition. Admittedly, defending your foreclosure case does not guarantee a settlement, but at least you give yourself a chance.
2. When hiring a lawyer to defend your foreclosure lawsuit, it’s important that you retain someone with experience in court. As a result of the struggling economy, lots of Florida attorneys have begun representing homeowners facing foreclosure. Before retaining a lawyer, make sure you question that lawyer’s experience, and not just as a lawyer, but his/her experience in court. How many foreclosure cases has he/she handled? How many trial has he/she conducted? How many appeals has he/she handled? The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar prohibit lawyers from discussing the results of their prior cases, but lawyers are permitted to discuss their experience. Choosing a lawyer to defend your foreclosure case is a critically important decision – gather as much information as possible so as to make an informed decision.
Posted in Main | No Comments »
