Modification Lies – And What to Do About It


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Most of the foreclosures could have been resolved through modification. In that sense, the Obama administration was correct in pressing servicers and banks to modify and giving them financial incentives to do so.They were wrong in that the servicers never had any actual authority to act on behalf of anyone in negotiating the modification or settlement of competing claims.

I have surveyed homeowners over a wide spectrum and found that most of them not only would waive title and other deficiencies, but would settle for a principal amount due that is far in excess of what the property is worth, which is far in excess of the proceeds obtained through foreclosure. Yet the entire modification process is a lie designed to make it appear (a) that the mortgages are legitimate, (b) that the foreclosures are legitimate and (c) that the banks and servicers are acting reasonably for the benefit and on behalf of the investors.

The Truth is that the modification process is specifically designed to thwart any settlement, its policy is to frustrate the homeowner and get them to pay money toward a modification that will never happen, and to create the appearance that the problem is with the borrowers. If anything is obvious, it is that the criminal enterprise of David Stern is but an example of similar enterprises across the country.

The investors are not told about deals being offered that would mitigate damages and add value to their bogus mortgage bonds. The intermediaries are making far more money taking the homes, even if they abandon them outright or indirectly through gifts of the homes to charity (like BOA, who recently donated 150 foreclosed homes to charity for the tax write-off). That would be the a write off of assets that should never have been booked onto the BOA balance sheet in the first place since the investors were the real parties in interest.

The law says that the banks and servicers must consider proposals for modifications but it does not set forth a rule that requires them to accept it. Thus even if the deal offered by the homeowner is far better than what will be realized through foreclosure, the servicer sends the homeowner through a hundred hoops and obstacles only to be told that the investor turned them down — an outright lie, since the investor was never told.

In my opinion, this HAMP law can still be used against the servicers and banks. If you can show that the proposal for modification exceeds the proceeds that can obtained through foreclosure, which ordinarily is fairly easy, then you can take the matter to court and accuse the servicer of not “considering” the proposal. In order to do that, you would want a solid report on title and securitization (see COMBO above) and probably a loan level analysis (see and probably a Forensic TILA Analysis (see

Then you need to present it the to the servicer the way you would present it to a Judge — on a one page summary explaining and showing in clear short statements comparing the risks and losses associated with modification with the risks and losses of foreclosure. And remember to include the continuing losses from maintenance, insurance and taxes while the property sits on the market or waiting to go to market for sale to a third party purchaser. The abandonment of properties after foreclosure as shown on many of our articles and mainstream media clearly shows that not only is the property worth less than the loan amount, the deal is worthless unless modified.

Based upon limited survey that is mostly at the anecdotal level, it seems that when pressed, the Banks and servicers fold their tent and accept the modification proposal when confronted with this type of challenge. My suggestion, after you consult with counsel, is that you be aggressive in proposing your settlement or modification — detailing that you will waive claims and defenses if they accept, and pointing out that they could be liable for fraud in filing the foreclosure action. Short-sales are certainly rising fast for this very reason, and BOA is experimenting with a sale-buyback that is roughly the same as a modification.

The Banks understand fully that they are at high risk. The walls are closing in around them as to the legal status of most of the foreclosures that have been conducted or threatened. It is important to base your proposal on facts that you can back-up in court. So if your house was financed for $500,000 and it is now worth $250,000, an aggressive stance might go as low as $200,000 in principal, whereas a more moderate stance could go as high as $300,000 in principal in which the homeowner agrees to take part of the loss but the payments are reduced to a level that are acceptable — at 3% simple interest for thirty years.

One word of caution to attorneys: Check title carefully and make it part of the deal that you can sue for quiet title if you deem it necessary to declare clear title to the homeowner subject to the mortgage which is now in favor of the party executing the modification agreement. That party in all probability has neither the authority nor the colorable claim to execute anything. Thus you are entering into an agreement with party who cannot execute a satisfaction of mortgage or release and reconveyance that will accepted as clearing title without a court order saying that they have that right and recording the Final Judgment in the quiet title case in the property records.

And one last thing: when they start playing the game of submitting the same paperwork over and over again, put them on notice that you will not send the documents again until they explain how they lost the original set of documents. Tell them they are in violation of HAMP, and that they have no right to pursue the foreclosure until they comply with HAMP requirements. If they can explain the loss like they must explain a lost note, then submit again.

Whenever you send them something, of course, send it certified, return receipt requested, get a fax number and send it that way, get an email and send it that way and then send it regular mail. You can even employ a process server to give them the documents. I believe that by immediately contesting their demand for resending the materials, you place yourself in a superior position (the squeaky wheel) to get the modification pushed through.

See Full Article on

Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

Below you’ll find my account of the “personal lies,” the false statements made directly to me by employees of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage all the way from customer service representatives in the phone queue to the Office of the President.

You can read about the “institutional lies” on my page The Words Do Not Match the Deeds. And Freddie Mac, the owner of my mortgage loan, hasn’t been exactly a beacon of truth and enlightenment, either.

Seems like both kinds of lies are endemic in the system at this point … makes you wonder who at the banks even knows what’s true.

The Fine Line for Mortgage Loan Modifications
If lenders made it easier for people who were in trouble, but not yet in default, there would probably be more successful loan modifications.

Homeowner Questionnaire Shows Banks Violating Gov’t Program Rules
ProPublica received detailed responses from 373 homeowners — all of whom applied to get a modification through the administration’s foreclosure prevention program — and they tell a consistent story. Seeking a modification has been an infuriating, stressful nightmare: a black hole of time lost repeatedly calling an 800 number, faxing and mailing the same documents over and over, and coping with the ramifications of errors made by poorly trained bank employees.

1) The Lie:
You didn’t send the right paperwork #1
In a letter, dated March 29, 2010, Wells Fargo listed among the documents needed “in order to process your request” a “Hardship Letter.” Which I had already sent. The same letter also asked for “3 X Pay Stubs,” which the RMA checklist specifies as proof of income for “each borrower who receives a salary or hourly wages.” Had the person reviewing my initial packet read the hardship letter I sent, he or she would have seen that I am self-employed.

The Truth:
I didn’t know it then, but the very first communication from Wells Fargo started off the now-familiar “send your documents over and over again” game. In my mailing indicating I wished to be considered for the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), I sent the information specified to “Request a Home Affordable Modification.” I sent a completed Request for Modification and Affadivit (RMA) form, complete with attached Hardship Affadavit, IRS form 4506T-EZ and my 2009 personal tax return, as specified on the Making Home Affordable proof of income checklist for borrowers who were still current on their mortgages. (More on that topic later).

2) The Lie:
We have been unable to contact you for needed information; therefore, we have canceled the review of options for retention of your home #1
On April 6, 2010, someone at Wells Fargo “removed” my loan modification request from the retention review and moved onto the “short sale” list, making a note that WF had been unable to contact me.

The Truth:
The March 29, 2010 letter (referenced above) asking for additional documents reached me on Friday, April 2. I called for clarification on Monday, April 5, and was given an expanded list of documents needed. I specifically told the customer service representative, who suggested I fax the documents, that I would be sending them by regular mail. I sent them later that same day, Monday, April 5, 2010.

3) The Lie:
You didn’t send the right paperwork #2
On April 14, 2010, I received a letter dated April 7, 2010, that purported to provide the “final decision” on my “mortgage loan request,” which was that “we are unable to adjust the terms of your mortgage.”

“This decision was made because you did not provide us with all of the information needed within the time frame required per your trial modification period workout plan.”

The Truth
I knew right away this letter was bogus because 1) I had provided Wells Fargo with all the information I had ever been requested and 2) I had never been assigned a trial modification period workout plan!

4) The Lie:
Your review is near the end #1
April 27, 2010, I spoke with Wells Fargo customer service representative Kristin, who asked many questions about my expenses and confirmed that the figures I had provided on the previous financial worksheet were “within acceptable range.” She also confirmed that all the necessary documents had been received and were up to date and said the review was nearing the end.

The Truth:
The real truth is I have no idea what Wells Fargo was reviewing during this time period. You see, their servicer agreement with Freddie Mac, the alleged owner of my loan (also known as “the investor”) requires that all borowers who request modification be first reviewed for the HAMP modification program. However, that apparently didn’t happen in my case because there were two different scenarios presented to me regarding the timeline of my review. In one, the HAMP review began July 8, 2010. In the other, it began April 20 but didn’t consider HAMP until June 29, 2010, because (you guessed it!) they didn’t have the correct paperwork all that time. I consider them both to be lies. Look at my record of when paperwork was sent.

5) The Lie:
You didn’t send the right paperwork #3
I received a letter dated May 7, 2010, that purported to provide the “final decision” on my “mortgage loan request,” which was that “we are unable to adjust the terms of your mortgage.”

“This decision was made because you did not provide us with all of the information needed within the time frame required per your trial modification period workout plan.”

The Truth
Still bogus because 1) I had provided Wells Fargo with all the information I had ever been requested and 2) I had never been assigned a trial modification period workout plan! I did find out that these nonsense letters may serve to reset the start date of the review process.

6) The Lie:
Your review for the HAMP program is starting #1
On July 8, 2010, Jessica Dahms, who was the first WF employee who said she would be with me through the rest of this process, called to tell me my file had been re-assigned to the government program HAMP. She said I had been pre-qualified for that program. I asked her to explain what were all the programs I was considered for during the previous three-plus months and got no answer.(Remember, back on April 27, I was told my review was nearly complete.)

The Truth:
No idea. Never did get anyone from Wells Fargo to give me a comprehensive list of all the workout options considered for loans – in general or mine specifically. Nor did I ever see any kind of timeline for the review processes.

7) The Lie:
You can’t get a mortgage modification because you are still making payments #1
On May 17, 2010, Wells Fargo customer service representative Christian told me that being reviewed for a traditional modification won’t help me because I don’t have a payment past due – I have to be past due to qualify for a modification.

The Truth:
22. Do I need to be behind on my mortgage payments to be eligible for a modification under HAMP?
No. Responsible homeowners who are struggling to remain current on their mortgage payments are eligible if they reasonably believe they are very likely to default on their mortgage soon (often referred to by loan servicers as “imminent default”). This might be because a homeowner has had (or will have) a significant increase in the mortgage payment (due to a payment adjustment or rate adjustment upwards); unemployment or some other significant reduction in income; or some other financial hardship that will make the mortgage unaffordable. If you are facing a similar situation, contact your servicer. You will be required to document your income and expenses and provide evidence of the hardship or change in your circumstances.

Borrower Frequently Asked Questions/

Responsible Modification Incentives:
Because loan modifications are more likely to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a payment, the plan will include an incentive payment of $1,500 to mortgage holders and $500 for servicers for modifications made while a borrower at risk of imminent default is still current on their payments.

U.S. Department of the Treasury Making Home Affordable
Updated Detailed Program Description, March 4, 2009

We will consider a loan modification for a Borrower who is not delinquent in his or her Mortgage payment, but is in imminent danger of default, as long as the Borrower has an involuntary inability to pay. In addition, even if the Borrower is not experiencing or has not experienced an involuntary inability to pay, we will consider a loan modification if the property is a Manufactured Home and you believe it is in our best interest.

Freddie Mac Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide, Volume 2
Chapter B65: Workout Options
B65.14: Borrower requirements (08/20/09)

Other key features of HAMP include:
• Financial incentives to encourage investors, servicers and borrowers to execute sustainable loan modifications(2)

(2)For example, servicers will receive one-time incentive payments of $1,000 for each eligible modification meeting the requirements of the program, an additional payment of $500 for modifications made while the borrower is still current, and a “pay for success” fee of up to $1,000 on an annual basis for three years. Borrowers who make timely payments for the first five years will receive annual principal reductions of up to $1,000.

Statement of Edward L. Golding, Freddie Mac Senior Vice President–Economics and  Policy,
before a hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel
September 24, 2009

8) The Lie:
Foreclosure can proceed while your HAMP review is ongoing
The first written communication I received from Wells Fargo after my initial submission of documents in March 2010 includes the following statement: “Please note any collection and foreclosure action will continue uninterrupted until approval.”

In September 2010 I was informed by WFHM customer service representative Kelly at(877)242-4017 that “collection and foreclosure efforts may continue during this review.”

In her January 4, 2011, letter, Agnela Cook from the WFHM president’s office writes,”Please note: all normal collection activities, including the foreclosure process, continue until arrangements have been approved and a signed agreement has been returned.”

The Truth:
Under MHA guidelines, participating servicers must evaluate all eligible homeowners for a HAMP modification before referring them to foreclosure. For those homeowners that were already in foreclosure proceedings, Treasury guidelines require servicers to stop the foreclosure proceedings while the homeowners are being evaluated for HAMP. Should a homeowner not qualify for HAMP (or if the homeowner fails or cancels the modification), participating servicers are required to evaluate that homeowner for alternative loss mitigation modifications, such as HAFA, or one of the servicer’s own modification programs. If a homeowner proves ineligible for an alternative modification, servicers are required to evaluate that homeowner for a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.
If all of these efforts are unsuccessful, participating servicers may not proceed to foreclosure unless they have issued a written certification to their foreclosure attorney or trustee stating that “all available loss mitigation alternatives have been exhausted and a non-foreclosure option could not be reached.” Only after these steps are taken and the certification delivered, may the foreclosure process proceed.

Written Testimony of Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of Homeownership Preservation Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Before the Congressional Oversight Panel,
October 27, 2010

Q1101. Foreclosure actions (with the exception of those in Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri and Virginia), including initiation of new foreclosure actions, must be postponed for all borrowers that meet the minimum HAMP eligibility criteria.

Supplemental Documentation—Frequently Asked Questions
Home Affordable Modification Program
July 15, 2010

9)The Lie:
All these stupid games we’re playing are the investor’s fault
“The investor” requires paperwork be sent over and over, has very strict guidelines we must follow, won’t allow us to modify your mortgage … You’ll hear all these over and over again. All that nonsense Wells Fargo put me through was the fault of the investor, not WF. The most blatent one I got came right from Wanita Nelson, an executive mortgage specialist in the WFHM president’s office. When she was explaining to me that I hadn’t qualified for any of the company’s “in-house” mortgage modification workouts, I asked her to please explain clearly the workout options that were considered for my situation. She said the two options considered were extending my mortgage to 480 months (40 years) and dropping interest to 2 percent. I ask again about workout options and note that she didn’t mention that a decrease in principal was considered. Oh, she says, “we’re really not doing principal decreases.” Well, I say, that is one of the work-out options listed in the Freddie Mac servicer guidelines, which she had previously confirmed were in force regarding my review. She said she would look into that and let me know why that wasn’t considered. That was in late October and to date I have gotten no answer.

The Truth:
When Denying Loan Mods, Loan Servicers Often Wrongly Blame Investors

Herb Allison, the assistant secretary for the Treasury … pointed [out] that principal forbearance is an option for servicers to get a borrower’s debt-to-income ratio down to 31%, but that it is seldom used. He added that the Administration remains open to a program that tackles the negative equity issue.

Treasury Changes Guidelines for Getting Borrowers into HAMP
January 28th, 2010

10)The Lie:
You can’t get a mortgage modification because you are still making payments #2
“A quick look at your file indicates to me that you are not currently in default nor do I see that you are in a foreclosure status. I will tell you that the Treasury Department, which establishes the guidelines for this specific government program, is quite restrictive in granting modifications to people who are current on their loan.  The basic logic being that if one is current on their loan, what is the extenuating hardship necessitating a modification?”

Email from Mark Tinsley, HAMP Loan Processor, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:30:45

The Truth:
See Lie #8 above


29 Responses

  1. @ann

    very good point—-iv been wondering if the occ administrative process might not be a chink in that defense—through appeal up thru occ for arbitrary and capricious application of occ rules set up by the consents——then appeal to fed ct

    at present im wondering who is setting up the complaint that the whole occ process denies equal protection and due process —fed action challenging the admin process–where there is no recourse there is no right

  2. can you get info they are presenting?

  3. This will be a hilarious hand-out at our Seattle protest of Wells Fargo’s invitation to 5000 Washingtonians to their modification day on Jan 12. We are protesting between noon-2 pm @ Qwest Field 800 Occidental Ave. Come find us.

  4. @ Carrie
    ” “only collection rights to false default debt were transferred at closing” means??? ”

    No Iv spent 35 years in law and finance [opposite investment bankers] and I have no idea what that vague word string is supposed to mean.

    I DO understand that a servicer [ie collection agency] that may have acquired collection rights [only] out of a bankrupt originators’ estate is in a position of “only” collecting $$$ after the servicer suckers victims into defaulting to get a modification—–bereft of any duty to trustee or investors—without practical responsibility to even account for the amounts collected to anybody. ie CASH AND DASH.

    This is the real travesty–both the holders of supposed trust MBS rights [pension funds for example] and homeowners and homes deliberately and systematically stripped of value, in order to maximize cash flow to these “burn companies”.

    The breakdowns were many. In my opinion the originations by fly by nites such as [old-pre-bankruptcy] AHMSI, Option One etc were intended from the start to end up this way–as bankrupt-abandoned seizure/liquidation rights. That was where the value was all along–future value–the original obligations to investor pension funds were dumped by friendly bankruptcy courts—controlled by the big banks’ creditots committees. That was where the duties were stripped out and nothing but “collection rights” was left. Its complicated.

    The only thing that I object to here Carrie is lumping every loan and securitization into an amorphous mass that is described in ambiguous terms. The reason for my objection is that it allows the most abusive independent collection agencies to hide amidst the greater group.

    I will not even describe the rights acquired by these predatory collection agencies as “collection rights”. That term is too neutral–its not representative of what they really do. What they really purchased out of the bankruptcy courts 2007-2009 was “seizure and liquidation rights” .

    Please dont lump these in with all lending and collection actions–we all want the bigbanks to cut loose this bunch of blatant criminals —not be cast in the same mold. So long as we do not differentiate the “very bad” [ie big banks] from the truly “insidious evil” collection agencies chasing “seize and freeze” casualty insurance frauds and “cash and dash” plans to escape offshore with their ill-gotten gains—we in effect shield them.

  5. OMG, DCB…you are STILL acting as if there was a “real” loan somewhere…I guess you don’t quite “get it” yet…do you understand what “only collection rights to false default debt were transferred at closing” means???

    So—the original subprime contracts are VOID and FRAUDULENT…and ALL those subprime foreclosures are 100% ILLEGAL…

  6. ithink about it in this way——you sign a note in favor of an elderly person by which note you promised to pay a lump sum in ten years’ time—-in year 5 the person dies—you search for heirs–there are none—do you still owe the promised payment?

    by the logic often tossed out here you would seemingly walk away happy and debt free–especially if the mortgage was never filed—-the deceased assets “forfeited” but not to you—-to the deceased heir—-which if there is no blood heir under english law means the king or state–the ultimate heir—-does this make sense?

    if the law were otherwise you would have to fear being a lender–some borrower would shoot you to make their debt disappear

  7. RIGHT ON, NORA C!!!

  8. Bank of America Corp. and other lenders cancelled lines of credit totaling more than $100,000 that Jackson needs to finance cases. She closed her law office and works from home. She even canceled her $260 subscription to a legal research website.

    Jackson, who worked for the IRS for 18 years, said she has paired down her client roll to just 10 and is considering moving with her husband to Mexico and abandoning law altogether. That’s bad news for any Indiana homeowner who might have wanted to tap her experience in navigating this type of bureaucratic nightmare.

    You feds out there should know that this is waiting for you too. The banks hate fed investigators as an institutional matter–especially IRS. This is probably simple intentional infliction of emotional distress. And do you know why the banks do it to feds? and fed attys? Because as one judge noted ” [they] are not sympathetic plaintiffs” —in other words the jury is going to hang the plaintiff fed investigator irrespective of her harm or ” connections”—[whatever thatr means]
    –so bank attys know they can beat the daylights out of her and get away with it–and really it should be brought to all fed employees’ notice that this is what will happen to them because they let these monsters get away with this–and are now themselves thrown in general population–and we know what that means

  9. I just don’t get it. Why do we keep going back to the drill of trying to get a modification on “loans” that never occurred, liens that were never even perfected and approval from investors that were never consulted? From people who don’t answer their phone, or respond when you call them, who transfer you until you give up in frustration?

    I got an appraisal–cost me $350. I did a year-long wage summary and average monthly income analysis. I took photographs of the rotting floors, leaking roof, dangerous wiring. I filled out seven sets of stupid applications, included a proposed ammortization of the total profit on the “loan” with a payout figure that exceeded the value by $70,000. I attended three all-day homeowner conferences, standing on a concrete floor for ten hours as a line seven blocks long noodled through a cue. I made 22 payments under a forbearance agreement, all in anticipation of getting that elusive modification they’d promised. My full payments equaled 43% of total income, and yet no modification based on all of this arrived, until after I found out that the criminals at work fleecing America of wealth and property couldn’t modify my loan, because they didn’t OWN it. Then a modification offer arrived, at a reduced interest rate, with an affordable payment. I tossed it in the trash. It included language that took away my fourth and fifth amendment rights, moved over ten thousand dollars in fees I don’t owe to the back of a 40 year loan! Why would anyone with a brain cell left functioning sign such a piece of shit modification?
    The conclusion is, other people in my community who signed these bogus modifications, were foreclosed on 6 months later by the same criminals, despite having made all the payments on time. Their “modifications” were just yanked off the table without explanation.
    They can’t make legitimate modifications.
    They reneg on the fake ones they do give.
    They continue to break every law and commit fraud on the courts.
    They continue to steal every home they can, and every dime.

    Why would you want a fake modification, where you sign away your rights, and you ultimately get foreclosed on later, by some bank that not only doesn’t have standing to foreclose, but DOESN’T OWN THE LOAN?

    It’s been said repeatedly, the investors are not the creditor. The servicer is not the creditor. Who the hell CAN prove a financial loss that can be made whole by foreclosure? I don’t think anybody can legally foreclose, any more than somebody can give me an equitable Title when I am done making the payments. This is why I say the homes should be returned to the “borrowers” free of liens. This is not a “free house mentality”. It’s the law.

  10. So, attorney Jackson, you chose to represent homeowners. It’s all in your honor. Except… that you didn’t really go through it. You handled foreclosure defense from the perspective of the “learned” attorney, who spent a few years in law school, saw the misery inflicted on homeowners, felt compassion but still, you didn’t get it. Defending homeowners against banks was another way of making a living for you: you could look at yourself in the mirror. You were using your law degree for the betterment of human condition.

    Again, you chose the right camp. All to your credit.

    You’re now on the receiving end. Now, you know firsthand what your clients went through. I hope it makes you a better cruisader for it. Because Atty Jackson, defense attorneys are a dime a dozen: it’s a way of making a living. Once you go through it, it becomes a calling.

    I hate what happened to you. I hate what happened to all of us. I am delighted it happened to you: you now know that no one ever had a prayer. Including you, learned in everything-law. No one ever had a prayer. You can make a serious difference.



  12. Asking the Borrower to do a loan Modification with the Banksters is like
    asking the Rape Victim to marry the person who raped her.

    This is done in Afghanistan etc….. The United States of America under Barak Hussein Obama for whatever reason has become just like Afghanistan Iraq etc………


  13. @ dee, sorry dee, not an attorney. I’m just good enough at law to lose my own home, I’d hate to be responsible for two!

    Not sure I could give you a good answer if I was, as there’s so much background noise to every situation….it all needs to be factored. If there was a cookie cutter answer, there’d be no problems.

  14. the thing that is hard to believe, is how they all have the same MO… in such a short period of time did they all get up to speed on how to screw the homeowners the same exact way !!!!!!!

  15. @ E.Tolle

    If the judge denied their Motion to Dismiss. I would think the next step is to request discovery.right?

  16. If one is in foreclosure and receives a HAMP modification, does the foreclosure judgment get tolled or removed? If it is tolled then this gives the defendant a right to strike at the judgment. WI. has a 1 year limit in challenging foreclosure judgments unless tolled. Don’t forget that if you have ad any bankruptcy stays this does not count towards the 1 year limit.
    Racine WI

  17. E. Tolle: Here’s another interesting tidbit, without going into too much detail here (as I know the enemy reads this blog). There is a motion afoot and the pretender-lender is begging judge for mediation before the motion gets ruled upon.

  18. I have a statement that claims that my servicer doesn’t own the debt but as an agent of Deutsche they are allowed to service the “debt”. They will not answer who the “creditor” is. They only say blah, blah, blah is the original lender and Deutsche is the owner of the debt. They claim they are “authorized” to do Modifications. However, they’ve also told me they have to follow the “investors” guidelines. They tell me my investors are RALI (the name of the “trust”). (lies and b.s.)

    I am thinking about getting an apprasial on my property. Submitting the apprasial along with a mod proposal on my terms. I think if anything it will show good faith on my part and not that I’m a “dead beat” like we are all painted. I’m sure my proposal will be denied but at least it will show I am not trying to get a “free house” like you know they will claim in court.

    I will not enter into one of their mods where you are expected to waive all your rights up front with no guarantees. I hate to make a deal with the devil but I”ve already lost a couple properties and 4 me it’s not worth the fight if I can settle up front. However, I will fight for MY HOUSE if necessary until the end.

  19. @ neidermeyer, that’s a first on LL that I can remember. I have yet to hear of anyone here actually getting to discovery, or at least writing about it. Good luck indeed! I hope that you can report occasionally, that you’re not gagged.

    @ leapfrog, yes I know it’s tough to fly right seat to someone that you’re questioning, but procedure is king here. No one will make it pro se, and I apologize to all here who are trying. I wish you the best. But this table is so tilted that all the chips flow south on a good day, much less a bad one. There must be another way.

    What’s really revealing here….is that in just the last two posts, both neidermeyer and leapfrog, it’s been shown presumably that the lender claimed isn’t the actual bona fide lender. I know that to be the case for me as well. And yet we should all modify….with whom?

    Alex, I’ll take musical chairs for $500K….

  20. “In my opinion, this HAMP law can still be used against the servicers and banks. If you can show that the proposal for modification exceeds the proceeds that can obtained through foreclosure,”

    Does this law establish a cause of action for damaged persons?
    Is there a citation or link to the specific provision please?
    Or is this induced from basic agency-type abuse of discretion by the servicer-modifiers as exclusive beneficiaries. Add Conflict of Interest but not our cause that they want to liquidate and keep the proceeds as fees—or pass thru pmts of reduced amount to investors.

    Servicer makes the seize now for 10 cents, vs hold for 3% of a 30%smaller continuing monthly pmt. Its a no-brainer. Servicer middle name is “cash and dash”.

  21. […] Link: Modification Lies – And What to Do About It […]

  22. E. Tolle: I have a BIG problem with that too. I’ve been ordered by the court to enter mediation with the pretender-lender. The pretender-lender has NO SKIN in my game and has stalled our case for over a year and then finally crumpled and admitted it doesn’t own our loan, after LYING to the court in its answer to our original pleading and stating it did in fact “own” our loan. It has also produced no proof of ownership during the discovery – maybe its smart enough not to forge documents?

    Why then would we negotiate with it? Can’t really say much more, other than my attorney does seem to know what he is doing (I’ve experienced success in some of his manuevers that I didn’t understand/wasn’t too happy about/highly questioned and for now I will have faith). The man does know how to play the game and maybe this is just part of the strategy.

    I just think its ridiculous though to negotiate with a party who has no standing or capacity, but what the hell, I’m trying to put myself in the frame of mind to be wiilling to play along. I’ve just got to detach for now and get my poker face on.

  23. I’m pretty F’ing happy … been in foreclosure for 6 months now ,, we ARE going to get discovery ,, and I am now receiving “modification” paperwork from ANOTHER servicer that apparently has no idea that the so called trustee is suing, just waiting to see who they claim to be the “holder in due course” … they are going to create a gordian knot out of this mess and make discovery the only solution … and that discovery will be broad and deep…


  24. So, am I to suddenly come to terms with the fact that it’s generally accepted now that the problem is too great, and these banks are indeed too big to fail, therefore modifications are in order? Forget the crimes, the fraud, the blatant capture of our government and all the laws of state? It’s modify with the criminals or lose the home. They simply have too much power. It’s hopeless. Is that all that’s left? What happened to the rule of law?

    Of course it’s all over the bought and paid for news shills the talk of a new Obama program to fix what ails us, a.k.a. the housing crisis, which we here all know to actually be the foreclosure heist, whose after affect happens to be the housing crisis, not the other way around. In the program details leaked so far, what’s being discussed is an across the board interest rate reset of 4.2%. This rate would, however, be available only to those who are current on their payments….can’t have any of that moral hazard stuff. For as we all know bailouts are immoral and to be viewed as a method of last resort, save for a select few….namely any banker who holds out his hand for more illicit gain.

    Is this what it’s boiled down to?

  25. The suggestion to present a request for modification in a dollars-and-cents method to the servicer or lender to show how they gain by modifying a loan may or may not be helpful, depending on your servicer and/or lender, and on who in the company you are dealing with — whether that person is a creative thinker, open-minded, has the ability to make an out-of-policy decision, etc., which is probably unlikely in most cases. However, you cannot take the servicer/lender to court over not modifying a loan. I have just lost this issue in court myself. The reason is that the contract between the government and the lender/servicer is a contract between only two parties. The borrower is a third party not protected by the contract, even though the contract is meant to help the borrower. The only possible offense on this issue in court is perhaps that the contract was made as public policy for the public good, an offense in which you need to cite the national or state laws involved, the reasons they were passed, etc. However, this argument is governed by state laws, and in my state it is a useless argement.

  26. But wait, there’s more. Remember my pal Kelly Ayotte, the potential Mitt Romney running mate? She’s up to her usual rug-sweeping at Pat Leahy’s people watch with bated breath:

  27. “Hollow victory

    Today, however, Pasillas’ victory at the Supreme Court rings hollow.

    Before appealing to the Supreme Court, Pasillas’ petition for a judicial review was denied by District Judge Patrick Flanagan, who authorized foreclosure proceedings to move forward against the homeowner.

    After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Reno resident, his case was remanded back to Washoe County District Court.

    There, Flanagan reached a new judgment in November, ordering another round of mediation for Pasillas. Flanagan also sanctioned HSBC to pay for all mediation costs plus an additional $2,500 to be payable to Washoe Legal Services, a nonprofit that provides legal services to low-income county residents. This meant Pasillas could not use the money to pay his own lawyer.

    The decision was just about the most lenient interpretation of the Supreme Court opinion, which gave the District Court leeway to impose tougher penalties on the bank, said Reno lawyer Keith Tierney.

    “That decision is not normal,” Tierney said. “What’s normal is to have the prevailing party request sanctions with attorney’s fees going to the homeowner. At least that’s what you see in the East Coast, where courts have been coming down strongly on the side of homeowners in cases like this.”

    Giles also thought that the judgment against HSBC was lighter than he expected, given the latitude provided by the Supreme Court decision for sanctions.

    “The Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and imposed sanctions (on HSBC),” Giles said.

    “A new mediation isn’t much of a sanction.”

    Pasillas’ lawyer Terry Thomas was particularly critical of Flanagan’s order. Such a light sanction won’t serve as a deterrent for banks that do not negotiate in good faith at foreclosure mediations, Thomas said.

    “This sanction is a perpetual do-over, plus a few bucks to charity, which (the lender) can deduct as a contribution to a 501c3,” Thomas said.

    “Paying $2,500 isn’t even a slap on the wrist for the banks.

    “This order means simply that banks may do absolutely anything in bad faith at the mediation … because there basically are no sanctions. It makes mediation a farce.”

    “That decision is not normal,” Tierney said. “What’s normal is to have the prevailing party request sanctions with attorney’s fees going to the homeowner. At least that’s what you see in the East Coast, where courts have been coming down strongly on the side of homeowners in cases like this.”–Foreclosure-Pioneer/

  28. Sorry I neglected to mention it is the first of several telephonic and in personam interviews I will be conducting with Hosea Anderson.

  29. Thanks Neil that is an excellent summary to bookmark and to share with those in need. Meanwhile, I’m busy as always, documenting the downfall of Western Civilization:

    Here is your Anderson v. Burson Back Story. As far as stories go, major media needs to start doing with I have been doing for the past year, i.e. interview these people and get their butts into these courtrooms for actual coverage of these travesties of Justice wherever possible: NY and PA trial courts forbid cameras and their legislatures allow the denial of coverage, so they are of questionable integrity and one might call them complicit in the Fraud, accessories after the fact.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: