HAMP TRIALS: A Big Living Lie

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Note: In a Livinglies survey of HAMP trials, we found that most modification offers vastly exceeded the proceeds from foreclosure. Prior to the brief era of securitization the result would have been obvious: the bank would take the modification offer, perhaps with a little negotiation to get it up a little higher, and then NOT foreclose because the money was better in the modification. Not so in securitized residential loans. But it is still the case in non-securitized residential loans where Banks are accepting traditional “workouts” on both residential and commercial real estate.

  • So what is the deal? Why would anyone, given the choice between less money and more money, take less money? No reasonable person or business would do that unless there was a compelling reason. If there is no compelling reason, or if the reason is illegal, then we are left with a perfectly good program that is not being used to modify mortgages to allow people to stay in their homes.
  • The trial modification is not what it sounds like. It is a continuation of the same policy that put the person in the path of foreclosure destruction in the first place. Besides the defective loan that was guaranteed to fail in the first place, based upon fraudulent appraisals of the value of the property, the Banks universally told people that in order to apply for modification they had to be  at least three months behind in their payments. So a person who was current went three months behind in their payments only to find that there was no modification, and there was only foreclosure awaiting them with no help in sight.
  • The servicers and others in the securitization chain pretended to be lenders when they originated the loan and foreclosed on it and pretended to be performing authorized services when they “considered” the loan modification request.
  • The trials were meant to deceive and did deceive most people into thinking that the Banks had accepted something meaningful when in fact they had kept the old loan terms, added the past due payments to the back end and maintained the payment level that the borrower could never afford because of the reset on interest or the end of the teaser period in which the borrowers were deceived into thinking that the loan was serviceable because the  Bank would merely refinance as property values went inevitably higher.
  • In short, trials are only a way of creating some public relations effect, kicking the can down the road that Banks want — a foreclosure so there is no possibility the loan will survive. The farce in which the servicer refers to the investors as authorizing the trial or rejecting the modification is a blatant effort to achieve foreclosure and to close out the loan as “failed.”
  • Why do they want failed loans? Because they used the defaults on the loans that the Banks had created by instructing the borrowers not to pay as a basis for declaring that the loan pool could not pay in accordance with the terms of the mortgage bond issued to investors. This declaration was what triggered the payment of insurance, bailouts, and CDS payments.
  • Of course that bond payment was already impossible because of the giant chunk that the investment bank took out of the investor funds prior to funding the loans which the investment bank declared was “trading profits.” With 30% of the funds gone,  there was no pool that could do anything but eventually go belly up. And because the securitization documents allowed the investment bank to use the investors money in the pool to pay the bond (using the investors’ money to pay themselves back on the bond) they could keep the Ponzi scheme going.
  • The entire scheme was based upon getting as many homeowners into a “default” even though the servicer was continuing to make payments to the creditor investors. It was so counter-intuitive that even now lawyers and Judges have great difficulty understanding why a Bank would declare a default, lower the value of the collateral by creating a distressed property valuation and then foreclose leaving themselves with the liability of maintaining the property.
  • The reason is simple: the servicers made money based upon the loan principal which they continued to collect from other streams of revenue. And the bigger reason is that if the loans actually performed and were paid off, there was a huge liability equal to or greater than the profits made by investment banks in selling the loans multiple times and creating bets on the pool that were guaranteed to fail.
  • The bottom line is that the investment banks will crash if the loans are paid off by the borrowers because the entire spread they took from investors without investors knowing it plus the proceeds from insurance and resales of the same loan will all be up for a full accounting and return of money paid under the false pretense that the pool failed because of homeowner defaults.
  • The pool didn’t fail because of homeowner defaults.
  • The pool failed because it was started with less capital than the investors knew and because the Banks embarked on a policy of making absolutely certain that as many homeowners as possible could be shoved or coaxed into stopping payments — payments that were actually continued to be made in most cases by the servicer.

More failed HAMP trials end in foreclosure

by Jon Prior

Mortgage servicers are putting more failed Home Affordable Modification Program trials through foreclosure than they were one year ago.

According to Treasury Department data released last week, 10.6% of the more that 615,000 canceled HAMP trials completed the foreclosure process as of Nov. 1. That’s more than double the 4.4% of failed HAMP trials foreclosed on as of November 2010.

While foreclosures are increasing, alternative modifications on these loans are dropping. Of the canceled HAMP trials, 39.7% went through the bank’s own private programs, down from 45.4% over the same time period, according to Treasury data.

Foreclosure completions as a percentage of borrowers never accepted into HAMP trials are lower but still increasing as well. Of the 1.8 million borrowers denied a HAMP trial, 7.6% completed the foreclosure process as of Nov. 1, up from 5% one year before.

Roughly 26.5% of these borrowers received alternative modifications, which held flat over the last year.

The increase in more foreclosure completions on failed HAMP trials occurred at nearly every large servicing shop participating in the program. Citigroup (C: 29.60 -3.71%) saw the highest jump. Of the 71,808 HAMP trials it canceled, roughly 13.5% completed the foreclosure process as of Nov. 1, up from 3.1% one year ago.

At Ally Financial (GJM: 21.37 +0.23%), the percentage increased to 12.8% from 6.4% over the same period. At JPMorgan Chase, the increase went to 11.3% from 6.2%. And at Bank of America (BAC: 6.795 +2.80%), the largest servicer in the program, 9.3% of failed HAMP trials went through foreclosure compared to just 1.9% the year before.

The highest percentage is currently held by OneWest Bank. It foreclosed on more than 19% of its roughly 20,000 failed HAMP trials, up from 10% last year.

Interestingly, Wells Fargo (WFC: 30.18 +1.93%) has one of the lowest percentages of completed foreclosures on these mods at 6.7%, almost the exact same percentage one year before.

This could be a sign servicers are both skirting poorer performing private modification programs or the data is beginning to reflect these higher redefault rates.

According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 17% of the 108,000 HAMP modifications began in the second quarter of 2010 went 60 or more days delinquent within one year. That’s compared to a 31% redefault rate for other private programs.

D. Corwyn Jackson, whose company The Corwyn Group helps to train housing counselors for foreclosure prevention, said servicers are getting mixed signals from the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae, which administers HAMP, Freddie Mac and other stakeholders across the country.

“The servicers are mandated to stick to the agreed upon foreclosure time lines by state,” Jackson said. “But other stakeholders such as nonprofit housing counseling agencies across the nation are requesting servicers during the negotiation to exhaust their loan workout options before starting the foreclosure process.”

The GSEs charge servicers for taking too long to complete the foreclosure process under specific, state-by-state guidelines. Servicers are expected to still consider the borrower for the GSE programs, but time is of the essence. BofA, for example had to pay Fannie and Freddie $1.3 billion in foreclosure delay penalties in the first nine months of 2011.

GSE policies and the failed HAMP trial foreclosure rates is beginning to show in the overall economy. Over the same time period covered by the Treasury data, the shadow inventory of homes in foreclosure or on the verge it has been declining. According to CoreLogic (CLGX: 13.54 +0.45%), roughly 1.6 million homes sit in this inventory, down from 2.1 million in November 2010.

Write to Jon Prior.

Follow him on Twitter @JonAPrior.

Origination/Lending
FBR Capital said JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 35.39 -1.48%) stands to benefit from strong capital levels, 4% growth in loan…Read More »
Secondary Markets/Investors
Justice Department officials are pushing further into an investigation of whether ratings giant Standard & Poor’s sidestepped its own criteria…Read More »
Servicing/Default
Mortgage servicers are putting more failed Home Affordable Modification Program trials through foreclosure than they were one year ago. According to…Read More »

30 Responses

  1. Oh believe me I will be fighting and am just gearing up. I just like to map out worst case scenarios.

  2. @Enraged i think that is where my lawyer is thinkiing of taking it to federal court. It all makes me so nervous, I wouldn’t know any of this stuff unless a friend of my who is a financial adviser. He asked to go over my morgage paper work and I said sure what can it hurt. Then wow we found all kinds of crazy stuff

  3. @Jen,

    From what you describe, you have a perfect case to sue over in federal court. Especially if the money for the past 11 months was deducted from your bank account!

  4. @Jen,

    Send me a mail. Cbrightlife@aol.com. I’ll tell you exactly who my attorney is and this way, yours will be able to contact mine.

  5. @ Enraged yes I have sent QWRs I even had a forensic audit and a securization audit done. Funny thing is I have been still paying my morgage and now the servicing company is saying I’m not,they havent sent anything to me not even a bill since I sent the first QWR. The only way I new they were saying I wasnt paying is by my credit report and then someone came and was taking pictures of my house , they said where they were from and gave me a number to call. when i called the women on the phone said well you havent paid your morgage in 11 months I was like really so where are my payments going and further more who even own this morgage????? she hung up on me havent heard from them since. oh and yes i do have TILA and respa viiolations. I just got a lawyer to sign on but he said this hasnt been done before someone sueing before they are actually in foreclosure.

  6. @Jen,

    You’re in a judicial state and banks and servicers there keep getting slammed. Do you have a file pretty well developed? Do you have the accounting from your last servicer? Have you sent QWRs to everything that moved? Do you have your recordation(s)? Do you have an attorney (still the most careful way to go about it, if you can)?

    I can bet you anything you have Tila, Respa, FDCPA and other violations in your “mortgage loan”. That’s what happened to me.

    I went to see an attorney and I told him that I was current for the last month, I was going to stop paying and there were so many problems with my file that I was planning to sue. We studied the best way to go about it and we opted for federal court. Much, much more expensive for banks to defend and my idea was to inflict a maximum of damage, regardless of the outcome. It’s been almost 2 years. Servicer has never countersued for foreclosure.

  7. @ Enraged
    I live in NY

  8. @Chas404,

    Half the victory is in the fighting. Because, when you look at it, whatever the outcome, you come out stronger, more aware, mors self-assured and much more willing to do what it takes not to repeat it.

    That’s where I feel for the people who got the NOD, packed and left without a fight: they absolutely lost everything and, to top it off, they still don’t know what fighting is like. They deprived themselves of that learning experience.

    Sure, losing a house where you have all your stuff, your neighbors, your little habits, your routines, isn’t a pleasant thing to go through. It’s not what happened to us that matters; it’s what we make of it in the end. That’s what makes me admire Carie even more: she purposely chose to see the positive in what happened. She gave it her best, she will never be caught in that trap again and she is already rebuilding. Hats off!

  9. I am fortunate to be bachelor no wife no kids no dog. I do have a truck though. sounds like a country song! I love my house and put my own sweat into it new kitchen with my own hands etc. I should never had refied it and fixed it up I should have paid it off!!! I have read other posts on other sites about people moving on to rent smaller house or later buy one and they are relieved and happy. I think it is important to try to map things out a bit. The banks dont care about your house and I guess in the end to beat them or to atleast get your best outcome you have to care less about the house too.

  10. It’s the principal of principle !!!!!!!!

  11. @Chas,

    You summed up exactly how I feel.

    As I like to say, I was born naked and owning nothing. I’ll die the same way (I mean, if I die a really, really happy person… 🙂 so, I’m not hung up on the house. I like it but not to the point of losing my mind and my health. I’m in the fight for the principle and for the battle and just in case what I accomplish frees up someone else from the fear of trying.

    I believe Marc Dann mentioned that, when it becomes a question of principle for the 99% is when government will really need to pay attention and act. We’re getting there.

    Things will move.

  12. My loan modification program is called CHUMP. It is pretty great. I pay $0 per month for 4 months so far. Expedited instant approval process. No trial payments.

    CHUMP stands for Chas’s Home Underwater Mortgage Payments. As in I am tired of being taken for a CHUMP.

    I called Obama’s HAMP/HARP/HAFA/HEAP/HOPEANDCHANGE number and talked to some lady sounded like her previous job was with the DMV. She had no idea of basic mortgage terminology so I hung up and never applied. I would never be approved bec I am in some middle ground grey area I am sure.

    WFargo/Fannie refuse to say where my loan is in terms of the trust. WF takes 6 months to answer 3 QWRs and says they have a valid lien and that I should go pound sand. I say prove it.

    Not going to pay taxes and insurance. I may pay the homeowners policy instead of getting renter’s policy bec i would like the liability coverage. WF likes to forceplace $13k policies on me when I am current on insurance anyhow (for a $2k policy). Now they can actually have an excuse.

    They are currently destroying my perfect credit and all my credit cards are getting shut off but I knew this would happen.

    Tired of playing their games and put a lawyer on retainer. We will see. I love my house but at the end I decided my sanity is more important. Also honestly I want to know where my loan is. I kinda like the principal behind things I am wierd that way.

  13. @Eugene,

    So far, some outfit, Corelogic, has been paying my taxes and insurance. I have been asking what the deal is with Corelogic and the servicers. It’s been paying eversince I set eyes on the damn house and I can’t even get any info on where CoreLogic gets the money from. The Tax Assessor’s office sent me the entire payout from the beginning and it shows Corelogic. I asked Corelogic for a statement showing money received and money paid but… they won’t send me anything!!!

    My idea was to find out who really was paying those (if anyone) as part of the “Follow the money” startegy. Nobody talks.

    Pisses me off.

  14. Kim v. JP Morgan – Dismissed

    Taxes & Insurance :
    Nobody seems to talk about Taxes and Insurance while in foreclosure.I understand that the Servicer will pay the Taxes and forced placed Insurance because they are assuming that they will most likely(95% plus) get the property when it is not Contested and/or Dismissed as in Kim’s case. The Kim’s were not paying the Taxes for two years, so, I assume the Servicer was not also. The Kim’s or the Servicer later caught up on the Taxes ? Most homeowners, I believe don’t pay the Taxes or Insurance during the foreclosure process because they are included in the monthly payments or homeowners who had been paying the Taxes and Insurance separately. I remember Neil stating, once, that homeowners should continue to pay their property taxes. The 95% ?

  15. HAMP, HARP and the next one… PIMP(Principal Interest Modification Plan). Since Obama has been pimping for the banksters, this is an excellent title for his next plan.

  16. @Alessandro,

    That moderator thing was happeneing to me all the time until I understood why: you should only post one link at the time. I you have two on one post, it seems to automatically get blocked by the moderator.

  17. HAMP trial periods were made to fail by Servicers, who would start the trial period and than say the folks were removed from the program because they didn’t send a bank statement or paystub during the trial period. They never notified anyone that these documents were required and they just remove the folks.

    HAMP can be successful now with the help of the Courts. Almost 50% of HAMP fall-outs were servicer induced. The entire program needs to be independent of Fannie /Freddie and the loan servicers who have a vested interest in the trial periods failing/.

  18. I just left an important post with links but because there are links in it is being held for “moderation”. Hope you can get to it Neil.

  19. Banks are practicing “Parallel Foreclosure” even as they lure people into HAMP payments. Check out this story and consider signing the petition, it is outrageous and not unique.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/john-g-stumpf-ceo-wells-fargo-rescind-rachel-kendalls-foreclosure-auction#

    If you are not comfortable leaving your real address and zip code, change it. I think as long as the name and email is authentic, the signature “counts”.

    You can learn more about Parallel Foreclosure at http://www.parallelforeclosure.com

  20. I dedicate that one to Cubed2k…

    “BANKS ROBO SIGNING CREDIT CARD DOCUMENTS

    Several months ago, the nation’s biggest banks became embroiled in the “robo-signing” scandal, when it became clear that they had been approving thousands of foreclosures without verifying the proper documents or guaranteeing borrowers due process. The banks submitted fraudulent documents to courts and were forced to halt their foreclosures processes entirely as they sorted out what happened. “I had no idea what I was signing,” said one Bank of America employee. “We had no knowledge of whether the foreclosure could proceed or couldn’t, but regardless, we signed the documents to get these foreclosures out of the way.”

    Robo-signing people into foreclosure is bad enough. But as it turns out, the practice may not have been limited to residential mortgages. American Banker, in fact, notes that JP Morgan Chase may also have been robo-signing credit card deals:

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. has quietly ceased filing lawsuits to collect consumer debts around the nation, dismissing in-house attorneys and virtually shutting down a collections machine that as recently as nine months ago was racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in monthly judgments…It is unclear whether Chase has stopped pursuing collection on many claims nationwide, or if intends to pursue the debts in some other fashion. The bank has not explained its apparent moratorium and declined comment.

    Chase’s halt does, however, follow scattered defeats in state courts and a whistle-blower’s allegation that it falsely overstated the balances of thousands of delinquent accounts it sold to a third party. Former Chase employees and debt collection experts insist that the bank would not have abruptly retreated from its collections efforts in the absence of trouble. […]

    Robo-signing, or the high-volume production of signed legal documents, has been a key element of the governmental and media foreclosure reviews. Chase’s current pullback raises at least the possibility that at least some banks may have documentation problems in other business lines…”If sloppy record keeping and problems with false affidavits is a problem with mortgages, it’s 100 times bigger in credit card accounts,” says Michelle Weinberg of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.

    As one finance blogger put it, “When a bank leaves money on the table for no obvious reason, you know that something’s not quite right.” It seems that JP Morgan, and who knows how many other banks, were attempting to collect on debts without being certain that the amount they were asking for was accurate. One whistle blower looked at $200 million in JP Morgan customer accounts and claims to have found that “half the accounts lacked adequate documentation of judgment and one-sixth listed the wrong amounts owed.”

    Banks have been robo-signing documents since as least 1998, as an Associated Press investigation found, and its not all that surprising that a practice that worked so well for so long (at least in the eyes of the banks) would have migrated to other areas.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/17/405406/banks-robo-signing-credit-cards/?mobile=nc

  21. Here it is, spelled out.

    UTAH COURT GRANTS QUIET TITLE ACTION ON DEFAULT
    January 17, 2011

    January 17, 2011

    A Utah court has granted a borrower’s quiet title action against the original lenders and the original trustees named in the Deeds of Trust, even though MERS was identified in the Deeds of Trust. The attorney for the borrowers took the position that MERS did not have to be named in the action or served with court papers as it was not, and could not be, the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and as it did not lend money. The Defendants failed to respond to the action, thus paving the way for a Default Judgment in favor of the borrower.

    Based on this result, there is a planned challenge to an earlier Utah Federal court ruling in favor of MERS.

    The line of reasoning in this case is similar to that set forth in numerous rulings from other jurisdictions including recent decisions in Oregon which have stated that MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” under the Oregon Trust Deed Act. Although more and more states are adopting this rationale, there are still a few holdouts, most notably Arizona, which continues to cling to the “MERS as agent” theory which has been rejected by numerous courts across the nation on many grounds, including the fact that MERS and the lender intentionally chose the word “nominee” to designate MERS, and not “agent” or “power of attorney”.

    Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

  22. One more for the homeowners!

    http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=325

  23. Utah Attorney General Moves to Intervene in Federal Judge’s Ruling Utah Foreclosure Trustee Law Inapplicable
    by Morgan Skinner, KCSG News
    Published – 01/16/12 – 07:39 AM

    (Salt Lake City, UT) – The Utah Attorney General has moved to intervene in a case filed by St. George attorney John Christian Barlow on behalf of Utah homeowner Garry Franklin Garrett in which senior Federal Judge David Sam ruled the Bank of America’s foreclosure arm, ReconTrust Company, N.A. (NYSE: “BAC”) is operating under the National Bank Act regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), is a trustee under the Texas law where ReconTrust is located, rendering Utah Code 57-1-21(3) inapplicable.

    The Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene and Memorandum of Support of Intervention written by Assistant Attorney General Jerrold Jensen said, “Utah is a non-judicial foreclosure State and that most real estate foreclosures in Utah never see the inside of a courtroom.” The pleading says that “in the last couple of years, as the number of foreclosures has escalated, there has been an increasing interest among homeowners who believe they have been wronged by their lender or mortgage servicer to challenge these foreclosure actions in court.”

    “The State of Utah has, with one exception, taken a hands-off policy as to these court actions. But this court’s December 16, 2011 ruling in this case was the first court ruling to hold that Utah’s trustee statute, Utah Code § 57-1-21, was preempted by Texas law”. The State of Utah cannot sit idly by without objecting to such a holding”, Jensen said.

    The Utah Legislature has amended Utah’s trustee statute three-times, the most recent in 2004, to limit the “power of sale” of trustees conducting foreclosure sales in the State of Utah to members of the Utah State Bar or title insurance companies with offices in the State. The Memorandum says the revised Utah statute was found to be constitutional by the Tenth Circuit “making it easier for Utahns to meet with trustees, who play a pivotal role in non-judicial foreclosures. Kleinsmith v. Shurtleff, 571 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2009).

    “The State of Utah takes very seriously foreclosure actions conducted on the homes of the citizens of this State. And while it is the position of ReconTrust that Utah law does not apply to foreclosures it conducts in the State of Utah, that is NOT how the State of Utah reads the interplay between its trustee’s statute and the National Bank Act. It is also not the way the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) reads it either. ReconTrust Opposition

    Because the State of Utah does not get involved in every foreclosure action that goes to court, it had no reason to pay any more attention to this case than any of the other numerous foreclosure cases that are filed. Only when this court declared that Utah’s statute is preempted by the National Bank Act and Texas law did the State become alarmed about preserving the integrity of its trustee statute.

    The State has asked the court to be heard in oral arguments. A date has not been set.

    Read more: KCSG Television – Utah Attorney General Moves to Intervene in Federal Judge s Ruling Utah Foreclosure Trustee Law Inapplicable

  24. Precedent-setting ruling that stops foreclosure could help other homeowners
    Published: Monday, January 16, 2012

    By Jameson Cook
    For The Oakland Press

    A Shelby Township couple won a state Court of Appeals precedent-setting ruling that stops a foreclosure and allows them for now to keep their home that was once worth $650,000.

    Husband-and-wife Eui H. and In Sook Kim gained a reversal of a Macomb County judge’s dismissal of their lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase Bank. The couple won because the bank failed to publicly record its interest in the mortgage after buying it from another bank, and before the sheriff’s sale.

    The Kims’ attorney, Flint-based Bernhardt “Chris” Christenson, said the “for publication” decision likely will affect the outcome of other similar lawsuits and force banks to reveal it owns a mortgage before it can foreclose on a property.

    “Somebody will know who’s foreclosing on their house,” Christenson said. “Things (mortgages) change hands so frequently nowadays. You could be talking to one bank and they aren’t even the ones that have the mortgage.”

    JP Morgan’s acquiring and interest in the property should have been recorded with the Macomb County Register of the Deeds, Christenson said. He said the bank likely avoided recording its interest to save filing costs, which could add up to a large sum of money if done on thousands of foreclosures.

    The Kims in 2009 were surprised with the foreclosure because they were trying to work out a modification based on hardship, he said.

    An attorney representing JP Morgan could not be reached for comment Monday.

    A message left at a telephone number listed with Eui Kim was not returned Monday.

    The Kims appealed after Judge Richard Caretti of Macomb County Circuit Court in Mount Clemens last January granted JP Morgan’s summary disposition request, ruling that a 2004 Michigan attorney general opinion applied. That opinion by former attorney general Mike Cox said the law allows the bank to avoid that requirement if it obtained the mortgage by “operation of law.”

    However, a three-judge appeals panel – including former Macomb County judge Pat Donofrio — said that Cox improperly inserted language into the law, MCL 600.3204(3).
    “Because the Attorney General opinion … did not comport with the current plain statutory language at issue, the trial court’s reliance on the opinion was misplaced,” the judges say, adding that attorney general opinions are not binding.

    The COA notes that JP Morgan obtaining the loan was not an “operation of law” but rather it “simply purchased the loans from the FDIC after they were transferred to the FDIC by operation of law.”

    The Kims, who Christenson operated fast-food eateries, bought the home in 2006 for $650,000, according to Shelby Township records. In 2007, the couple refinanced for $615,000 with Washington Mutual Bank. Washington Mutual failed in September 2008, and the U.S. Department of Treasury closed it and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver. JP Morgan acquired all of the Washington Mutual’s loan and loan commitments, the COA ruling says.

    The Kims defaulted on their payments, and JP Morgan pursued a $624,000 “foreclosure by advertisement,” which is allowed in Michigan, in which a notice was published four consecutive weeks in May and June 2009 in the Macomb County Legal News, the ruling says. On June 26, 2009, JP Morgan purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale for $218,000.

    The Kims sued in November 2009.

    The COA decision buys the Kims time to work out a potential modified mortgage agreement with JP Morgan or a chance to redeem it if JP Morgan restarts the foreclosure, Christenson said.

    The ruling returns the case to circuit court for more proceedings, although Christenson said he will ask Caretti to rule in his clients’ favor since the ruling is clear.

    The home sits on 11 acres on Brookland Street next to a small lake.

    The Kims were delinquent on property taxes for three periods in 2008 and 2009, accumulating more than $11,000 in unpaid assessments, according to township records. About $12,000 in property tax levies have been paid in four payments in 2010 and 2011; the most recent assessment of $3,288 was paid Dec. 31.

    The house’s market value has dropped dramatically to about $294,000, plus $130,000 in land value, township records say.

  25. @Jen,

    I did. In fact, it stopped the bank in its tracks. Which state are you in?

  26. @ Enraged

    I’m curious to know what it was that nabdullah’s judge read in court…probably something I copy-pasted from ANONYMOUS! 😉

  27. Does anyone know of anyone that sued the bank before they were in foreclosure.

  28. @Carie,

    Hey! Good to read from you. I read Nabdullah’s post. Great job. I honestly didn’t think any judge would even consider it.

    Proud of you.

  29. Pisses me off!

    Sue the banks whenever you can. Take them down by any means: close your accounts, stop paying your mortgage and different loans. Cut your credit cards. Walk away from that system!

  30. Everything regarding the homeowners is set up to fail…all roads lead to illegal foreclosure…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: