Posts Tagged ‘Orlando’
Posted on October 30th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
Have you ever wondered why banks sue “unknown tenant 1, unknown tenant 2, unknown spouse of John Doe, and unknown spouse of Jane Doe,” in addition to the homeowners? Sometimes, these individuals are necessary in a foreclosure case. For instance, if the property in foreclosure is a rental property, then the tenants must be sued and served with process.
Often, though, as the Tampa Tribune explains, banks and their lawyers know there is no need to sue these parties, but they do so anyway – just to pad the bill. And who receives that bill? The homeowner, of course. Incurring expenses that don’t need to be incurred just to pass on an expense to homeowners – ya gotta love the foreclosure mills.
Posted in Main | 3 Comments »
Posted on October 27th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
As if we needed more proof that the banks’ foreclosure procedures are fundamentally flawed, Wells Fargo just announced it is re-doing affidavits in 55,000 foreclosure cases, as the original affidavits, executed by robo-signers, were flawed. Lest you think 55,000 improper foreclosure filings is not a big deal, bear in mind – that’s just what Wells Fargo is admitting, based on its own, internal investigation. If Wells Fargo is admitting to 55,000, you can bet the problem is far more widespread.
Posted in Main | No Comments »
Posted on October 27th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
One of my goals, both as a foreclosure defense attorney and the author of this blog, is to make everyone – the public, homeowners, and judges – aware of the many pitfalls with the way foreclosure cases are handled by our courts. I realize not everyone agrees with my positions on all of these issues, and that’s okay. I also realize I’m not well-liked in some circles for being so vocal in my views, and that’s okay, too. My job isn’t to be well-liked – it’s to represent homeowners as well as I possibly can (consistent with the law and my ethical obligations). Besides, meaningful change in how foreclosure lawsuits are handled is nothing but a pipe dream unless someone such as myself is willing to stand up and say “this is wrong.” Not everyone will agree 100% of the time, but I stand no chance if I don’t try.
For example, a few weeks ago, I started receiving Orders from Honorable Douglas Baird in Clearwater which systematically denied my clients’ Motions to Dismiss, without a hearing. I found this troubling, particularly since Judge Baird had not even placed me on notice that he might be ruling on such motions without a hearing. Given my overwhelming belief that this disregarded the most basic notions of due process, I felt compelled to file a Motion to Disqualify the judge.
As I’ve said before in this blog, I don’t want this to appear as if I disrespect Judge Baird. I respect him plenty. The issue is that I strongly disagree with him on these issues and, candidly, felt compelled to tell him so. As I see it, if I can’t express respectful disagreement (especially on issues for which there is no clear “right” answer), what’s the point of being a lawyer?
Anyway, Judge Baird granted the Motions to Disqualify, and in so doing, wrote me a letter. The letter said, in essence, ”I figured foreclosure defense attorneys such as yourself realized that it was my procedure to deny motions to dismiss without a hearing, but since you didn’t realize that, I’m granting the Motions to Disqualify.”
Judge Baird and I are never going to agree on some of these issues. What I respect, though, is that even though he disagrees with me, Judge Baird realized how his procedure could be construed to others as unfair, particularly when I didn’t know about it beforehand. In fact, since that happened, I have yet to receive an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss without a hearing from Judge Baird. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. That said, I just received an Order (in a different case) from Judge Baird directing me to file a written memorandum to the bank’s response to my Motion to Dismiss within five days, after which he may rule on the Motion to Dismiss without a hearing.
Respectfully, I still find this new procedure patently unfair, and I said as much in another Motion to Disqualify. As I see it, the judge should not be taking it upon himself to prosecute a lawsuit that the Plaintiff has chosen, for whatever reason, to let stagnate. In other words, it’s not a judge’s role to say “I see the Plaintiff has stopped prosecuting this case. It’s time for me to help advance the case towards judgment.” My concern about this conduct is heightened by the fact that the Plaintiff is seeking relief in the case and the Defendant is not. Where only one party is seeking relief, the judge’s attempts to advance a dormant case towards judgment, sua sponte, reveal bias.
Also, I find it unfair to be given five days “from the date of the Order to file a written response.” By the time I received the Order, that gave me three business days to respond. Respectfully, that’s unreasonable. There is no emergency here; this case has been languishing for months. For the judge to suddenly, out of the blue, require me to file a written response within three business days, failing which my client’s argument may be denied without a hearing … I find that inappropriate. What if I were on vacation? What if I were in trial? What if I were busy with other files? I have handled all types of lawsuits, from inception through trial and appeal, and I can’t ever recall being given such a short deadline. Respectfully, why should I have to drop everything to file a written memo (in three days)? Simply because the judge decided, on his own, to start prosecuting this case towards judgment?
All of that said, I can’t help but feel a bit encouraged. After all, even though I suspect he still disagrees with me, it appears that Judge Baird has changed his procedure, if only a little. Instead of denying a Motion to Dismiss outright, without a hearing (and without any warning that a ruling may be coming), he’s at least giving me a chance to file a written memorandum before he rules. I still think this is insufficient, but at least it shows that the judges are receptive to opposing viewpoints. It’s a baby step, yes, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Candidly, I’m don’t know how Judge Baird is going to react to this most recent Motion to Disqualify. I’m sure no judge likes receiving such a motion, and I suspect he still disagrees with my belief that his procedures are flawed. That said, I remain hopeful that he will continue to re-evaluate his stance on these issues. After all, I’ll argue all day long, as I have several times now, that it’s not a judge’s role to set a foreclosure case for hearing when the plaintiff has decided, for whatever reason, not to push the case towards judgment.
Part of my willingness to express these views in an open forum, other than my stern conviction that I’m right, is that judges are all over the map on issues such as these. To illustrate, consider the procedures of Judge Anthony Rondolino. Like Judge Baird, Judge Rondolino is a Pinellas County judge. The rules are the same for both judges, the law is the same, and the cases are generally the same. Nonetheless, Judge Rondolino often grants Motions to Dismiss, most recently via this seven-page Order (entered after a 45-minute hearing), yet Judge Baird routinely denies Motions to Dismiss, often without a hearing. When one Pinellas County judge is regularly granting well-taken Motions to Dismiss, after duly-noticed hearings, and another is regularly denying them without a hearing, there is clearly room for reasonable people – even reasonable judges – to disagree. As such, it’s up to us, as foreclosure defense attorneys, to assert our views as respectfully but persuasively as possible. Be respectful, but don’t back down, and don’t give up. Judges are paying attention, and your efforts may make a difference.
As for homeowners out there, I strongly encourage you to evaluate which foreclosure defense lawyers are willing to fight, respectfully but forcefully, and which are just “going through the motions” of a foreclosure case.
Posted in Main | 12 Comments »
Posted on October 27th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
In this article, a reporter estimates the cost of a loan modification under HAMP to be $54,757. If you follow his math, which seems well-reasoned enough to me, that’s actually a conservative number. Anyway, think about that for a minute:
Our government is paying $55,000 for every loan modification under HAMP.
There must be a better way.
Posted in Main | No Comments »
Posted on October 25th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
The ongoing and systematic refusal by banks to enter meaningful loan modifications with homeowners will have long-term consequences that the average American cannot yet imagine. Just try to picture it…
Imagine your typical American family. Married couple, two kids. Earn $40,000 per year. Own a house worth $150,000 but owe $250,000. Have two cars, a small amount of savings/retirement money, and $10,000 in unsecured debt (credit cards). The numbers can vary, but you get the picture – your typical, middle-class family that’s making ends meat but not much else.
There’s a strong argument to be made, for such a couple, that it’s in their best interests to strategically default, i.e. stop paying on their mortgage, defend their ensuing foreclosure lawsuit, and file a bankruptcy (Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, depending on their circumstances). Each situation is different, but in all likelihood, this would drastically reduce or eliminate their credit card debts, drastically reduce or eliminate the deficiency on their mortgage (the $100,000 difference between what they owe on their home and what it’s worth), enable them to save money while their foreclosure case is pending, and give them a “fresh start” if/when the foreclosure is finalized.
For instance, suppose the foreclosure lawsuit were to take a year to conclude (a conservative estimate in light of recent reports out of Palm Beach that the average case takes 18 months), and their mortgage payment was $1,500 per month. With those figures, this couple would accumulate $18,000 in savings, merely by not paying their mortgage while the foreclosure lawsuit was pending ($1,500 x 12 = $18,000). If they completed a bankruptcy, they could keep this $18,000 if/when the foreclosure case was over. The $250,000 debt on the house? Poof – gone (or substantially reduced). The $10,000 in credit card debt? Poof – gone (or substantially reduced). Sure, this couple would lose their house, but what was the house really worth anyway? As I see it, and I suspect most accountants would agree, losing a house worth $150,000 when you owe $250,000 means you eliminated a $100,000 liability. Hence, the liabilities are gone, but the $18,000 – that’s the couple’s money to keep.
Now imagine the foreclosure case takes two years instead of one. Again, no way to know for sure, but given what I’m seeing in Florida, it’s certainly within the realm of possibilities. In that event, the couple would have $36,000 when the foreclosure lawsuit ends in two years. Think about that. $36,000 cash and little or no debt (depending on the type of bankruptcy), and all you had to do was defend your foreclosure case and file bankruptcy! And it’s all perfectly legal!
With this example in mind, who wouldn’t want to strategically default? I realize there are strong moral arguments not to do this, but let’s put aside morality for a moment and view this purely from a purely financial perspective. (That’s not terribly unreasonable, since that’s what the banks typically do.) Isn’t it clear this couple would be better off by strategically defaulting on their mortgage, defending the foreclosure lawsuit, and filing bankruptcy? In other words, isn’t it better to eliminate most or all of your debt, save up money, and have $18,000 or $36,000 or whatever amount in your pocket, and start fresh, than to owe $100,000 more on a house than it’s worth and credit card debt? Heck, in today’s economy, $18,000 or $36,000 (or whatever amount you were able to save) could buy you a house, free and clear. As such, it may be possible to convert your $250,000 mortgage into a free and clear house by doing nothing except strategically defaulting on your existing mortgage, filing bankruptcy, and retaining a competent foreclosure defense attorney to defend your foreclosure lawsuit.
Now the staggering thought – there are literally millions of Florida homeowners in this type of situation. Sure, there are plenty of Floridians who aren’t realistic candidates for bankruptcy because they have too many assets, too much income, or both. In today’s economy, though, such people seem to be few and far between. As such, what percentage of Florida homeowners could strategically default, stop paying their mortgage, file bankruptcy, and be better off? 40%? 50%? More?
Now, try to imagine what our country’s financial system will look like if this happens. Imagine half of all Floridians with a mortgage – or half of all Americans with a mortgage – go into default. If that happens, what will our financial sector look like? Will big banks even exist? What will property values fall to? What will our court systems look like? These are staggering questions for which there is no clear answer.
Now a tough question – should the typical Florida homeowner care? In other words, to what extent should homeowners continue paying their mortgages for the “good of society,” even to their own detriment? Undoubtedly, there are arguments to be made on both sides of this issue as well. Given society’s “me first” attitude, though, I’m confident many people will disregard the impact on society and embark on this path. Hence:
As things now stand, millions of homeowners will choose a strategic default.
Avoiding this consequence should be the primary objective of the U.S. government. Quite simply, our government must step in and do something to ensure that everyone doesn’t have the incentive to strategically default. Our economy and financial sector as a whole will not be able to function if so many Americans have the incentive to stop paying.
How does one go about this? The problem, in my eyes, goes back to the absence of meaningful loan modifications. People have the incentive to default because they see that a bankruptcy court would eliminate or reduce their debt and nobody else, i.e. the banks, is willing to do so. Using the example above, if the banks reduced the mortgage to $150,000 or even $175,000, maybe that homeowner would have some incentive to keep paying. Suffice it to say that to fix this looming crisis the government must implement some type of loan modification program that will work on a massive, widespread level. Absent that, our country is headed down a path of “stop paying, file bankruptcy, defend the foreclosure, and come out on the back end far better off.”
Posted in Main | 39 Comments »
Posted on October 23rd, 2010 by Mark Stopa
If you’ve ever wondered what “foreclosure fraud” is all about or how a homeowner could possibly have legitimate defenses to a foreclosure lawsuit, take a close look at the Order of Dismissal from Judge Rondolino.
The Plaintiff in this case is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of May 1, 2001. However, the Note and Mortgage attached to the Complaint are in the name of Maxwell Mortgage, Inc. The Note contains no indorsement, and there is no allonge, no assignment of mortgage, and no other documentary evidence reflecting a transfer of the Note/Mortgage from Maxwell to Deutsche. Hence, on the face of the Complaint, Deutsche has no basis to obtain a foreclosure.
After Judge Rondolino dismissed the case the first time, Deutsche filed an assignment of mortgage. However, the assignment was not created until after the lawsuit was filed, and Florida law does not enable a plaintiff to acquire standing after filing suit. See Progress Exp. Ins. v. McGrath Community Chiro., 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). To circumvent this deficiency, Deutsche contends the Note was transferred to it before the suit was filed (even though the written assignment was done after) by some sort of “equitable assignment.” However, as Florida law requires the pleading of facts, alleging an “equitable assignment” is insufficient without specifying the time, place, and manner of transfer. In other words, where the written assignment post-dates the filing of the lawsuit, how could the “equitable transfer” have taken place beforehand?
If this sounds like a lot of legal jargon, it is. So here’s what’s really going on, both in this case and many others.
Banks don’t have their paperwork in order. Banks, in this case Deutsche, file foreclosure lawsuits on a regular basis without the requisite paperwork. When foreclosure cases go unchallenged, these deficiencies go unchallenged, so the banks generally get away with the deficient paperwork. When foreclosure lawsuits are contested, by attorneys such as myself, banks and their lawyers often try to fix the problem after the fact. That’s why I routinely see allegations like those in this case alleging an “equitable transfer,” without any factual basis, before the suit was filed even though the written assignment is dated after suit was filed. Again, how could an “equitable transfer” have taken place before the suit was filed when the written assignment is dated months after?
Whether these types of allegations are permitted is the issue in thousands of Motions to Dismiss (and, ultimately, motions for summary judgment) in foreclosure cases throughout Florida. Many judges, particularly senior judges, in their ongoing attempt to “push through” foreclosure cases, have denied Motions to Dismiss by homeowners, enabling Plaintiffs such as Deutsche to get away with conclusory allegations of “equitable transfer” without any factual basis.
As you can see, Judge Rondolino is not one of these judges. He believes Plaintiffs, even in foreclosure cases, should have to plead some facts in support of an alleged “equitable transfer” of the Note/Mortgage, particularly when the filing of suit precedes the date of the written assignment. Obviously, I agree … but there’s more to it than that.
The issue isn’t just whether Plaintiffs such as Deutsche should have to plead facts in support of the alleged equitable transfer … the issue is whether such facts exist. Again, how could an “equitable transfer” have taken place before the suit was filed when the written assignment is dated months after?
Given his reference to “incacerative sanctions” (if Deutsche’s allegations are proven untrue), it seems Judge Rondolino shares the same belief that I do – in many of these cases, the requisite facts don’t exist. In other words, it seems there was no “equitable transfer” before the suit was filed, yet Deutsche alleges otherwise to try to “push through” the foreclosure.
This sounds complicated, but this is the issue in foreclosure cases throughout Florida. Is the Plaintiff entitled to foreclose? Can it establish standing as of the date it filed suit? Is the bank’s paperwork in order? Many times, the answer is “no,” and it’s good to see a judge call out the banks on these deficient filings.
Posted in Main | 4 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 18th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
I’ve been talking about the banks’ obligation to attach documents to the affidavits upon which they rely for summary judgments in foreclosure cases for many months. My blog entry titled “Willful Blindness by Judges,” below, explains this issue in detail. To recap, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e) plainly requires “Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith,” yet Florida judges have been systematically ignoring this principle of law in foreclosure cases.
Today, it seems that these cries for change may be making an impact where it matters most – the judiciary. Kimberly Miller of the Palm Beach Post reports that Chief Judge Blanc, who oversees Palm Beach County, agrees with the need to enforce this principle of law in foreclosure cases:
“In the past, the judges weren’t requiring the attachments, now we’ve got something in the record saying there may be a problem, so now they should attach the documents. Dealing with the volume we are dealing with, we want to make sure all of our i’s are dotted and t’s crossed.”
Is it a coincidence that this report came out just days after my blog about it? Maybe. Either way, it’s nice to see that Chief Judge Blanc now recognizes this well-established principle of law. That said, I must ask – what about the tens of thousands of foreclosure cases that were “pushed through” in Palm Beach County and other counties throughout Florida with total disregard for the bank’s obligation to attach documents to their summary judgment affidavit? And what about the other counties in Florida – are all judges going to follow this principle of law from this point forward?
At this point, it’s clear that judges can’t fix this error in cases where a Final Judgment of Foreclosure has already been entered. Basically, even though judges have committed legal error in tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of foreclosure cases throughout Florida, those rulings stand, absent a timely appeal.
I am hopeful, though, that all judges throughout Florida will now recognize this principle of law and force banks to comply with it in all foreclosure cases – even uncontested cases. Respectfully, the law is the law, and it shouldn’t have taken a national foreclosure epidemic for judges to announce, via the press, that they’d start enforcing the law in all foreclosure cases.
Finally, it’s worth noting that foreclosure defense attorneys such as myself have been arguing this issue in Florida courtrooms for many months. Now that these judges are openly agreeing with the argument, perhaps they’ll learn a valuable lesson. Judges, next time a foreclosure defense attorney is arguing something at a hearing during a “rocket docket,” give him/her a chance to be heard. Respectfully, we’ve been all over this issue with attaching documents to affidavits for many months, and it’s a shame that only now are judges starting to catch on.
Posted in Main | No Comments »
Posted on October 15th, 2010 by Mark Stopa
The Associated Press just wrote a terrific story that highlights the extent of the foreclosure problems we’re facing, but from a little different perspective.
So You Bought a Foreclosed Home – Now What?
If you’re facing foreclosure, you may think this issue doesn’t pertain to you, as you’re in no position to go out and buy a foreclosed property. I totally disagree. This issue impacts all of us. As the article reflects, and as I’ve been saying for months:
purchasers of properties at a foreclosure sale have legitimate reasons to be concerned about the legitimacy of the title they’re obtaining.
Everyone is realizing this, and it’s undoubtedly causing would-be purchasers not to go to courthouse auctions and buy. Well, guess what? If people aren’t buying properties at a foreclosure sale, what’s the point of the sale? Essentially, there is none – and there’s the rub. A sale is supposed to be more than just a rubber-stamp on a title to a bank. A sale is supposed to be a way to gauge the fair market value of a property, so as to: (1) ensure the homeowner collects the surplus (the difference between the sale price and the amount of the final judgment; or (2) ensure the extent of the homeowner’s deficiency (the difference between the amount of the final judgment and the sale price) is minimized.
The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that all of these sales that are being conducted where there are title problems, the homeowners have legitimate grounds to object to the sale. After all, their chances of having anyone bid fair market value for a home (and getting a surplus or minimizing their exposure for a deficiency judgment) are reduced when everyone questions the legitimacy of title acquired by a foreclosure sale.
Posted in Main | No 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 »
