Seminars Corroborate Title Problems and HAMP LItigation

It might seem to many that the industry is blind to title problems caused by false claims of securitization or even real claims based upon securitization. It might also seem that there is nothing about which you can litigate when it comes to HAMP and HARP modifications. The big seminar promoters are offering a gaggle of of short and long seminars on these subjects, indicating that they recognize that litigation and title snarls are getting traction across the country and they admit that the future litigation will include clearing title and litigating over HAMP modifications.

The principal problem that homeowners and their lawyers are missing is that the duty to consider the modification does not require the the acceptance of a homeowner for modification. Some servicers are getting more lenient than others, including, from what I hear, Ocwen. But the litigation that is being filed and which the pretender lenders are losing is on the precise question of whether the actual creditor was given notice of the offer of modification and whether the servicer did anything to apply any formula to the the almost inevitable denial of modification.

What we have started doing at my firm is (a) supplying the required material, return receipt requested, together with (b) a specific offer of modification on which an expert (real estate broker, mortgage broker or other professional in the real estate industry) gives an opinion that is worded something like the auditors do when they complete an audit, to wit:

“Based upon industry standards and conditions, the enclosed offer of modification reflects actual current conditions in the relevant real estate market and provides the creditor with two benefits that are not present in the event of foreclosure. The first is that the question of the perfection of the mortgage lien and enforcement of the lien is completely resolved, thus clearing title and the second, is that the net proceeds from the enclosed proposal for modification results in a far higher benefit to the actual creditor than the proceeds from foreclosure, which is a fraction of the offer. There is no known criteria in the industry under which this proposal would be rejected under normal circumstances unless the parties rejecting the modification had some risk of loss unrelated to the loan itself.”

When the denial comes back, you have a basis for alleging that they are lying to the court, that the modification was never considered, that inappropriate criteria was used to guarantee denial and that the creditor was never notified. The anecdotal reports I am receiving strongly suggests that this strategy is getting a lot of traction and is resulting in very favorable settlements within hours after the Judge enters an order requiring the servicer and pretender lender to show cause why they should not be ordered to provide a evidence of the “consideration” and the reasons why the proposal or request was denied.

The National Business Institute is offering three seminars that will be the subject of the member teleconferences (become a member of this blog now to get into the discussion: Become a member, for discounts, online teleconferences etc.). I strongly recommend that these short seminars be attended and that you even order the recordings as well.

Go to (livinglies is not paid for this endorsement directly or indirectly). I would suggest ordering the following seminars:

  1. HAMP litigation: breach of contract and related claims, June 21, 2013 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

  2. Resolving complex commercial title defects June 11 2013 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

  3. Handling short sales and deed in lieu of foreclosure 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. July 11 2013

  4. The Role of MERS in Mortgage Origination and Foreclosure June 3 2013 1PM-2:30PM

9 Responses

  1. HAMP quacks like a duck…. it was put in place to help no one but the banksters. It is illegal to have people agree to these non existent, fraud ridden contracts.

    HAMP needs an episode of CNBC’s Scams, Scoundrels, and Suckers.

  2. IMHO…the evidence shows, it is more about what they are all invested in carie….Our Life, Liberty & Property. We can complain until we are blue in the face but it is what these people are invested in that is the real problem. The banksters intended for this unconstitutional and illegal conflict of interest to destroy our freedom and make us turn on each other. That investment strategy needs to stop. Wall Street business model is fraud. Time to clean up this mess.

  3. i just receive a check for 6000.00 from the independent foreclosure review…jpmorgan chase…i would like some help on getting a lawyer to sue jpmorgan chase in phoenix az….vince 602-301-9085

  4. Carie
    We must push- for due process
    Judges make mistakes but when raised it must be corrected. I wont harp on why due process must be guarded at all costs, we can look to stalins goulags for that point.

  5. Right—so since the judges don’t give a damn…we get kicked out.

    Corrupt, selfish, materialistic judges are the problem with the court system.

  6. Or carie they liethrir heads off
    I have an unsigned letter ( typical when its a lie) wells fargo is the owner and investor of your loan” so why did they foreclose naming beny indymac ( one west picks up the ball)
    Then decide hsbc ad trustee for the sec ttust dbalt has standing to remove lis pendens when the trustees deed upon sale is void
    Thing is are these guys in court WHO they say they are. Thing is judge decided he did not particularily want to know.

  7. Hi Elaine,
    So the lender had a buyer in place probably through a real estate agent? I have a similar situation and a very unethical local agent that is simply obsessed with my home.

  8. Neil says:

    “…the precise question of whether the actual creditor was given notice of the offer of modification…”

    “…enclosed offer of modification reflects actual current conditions in the relevant real estate market and provides the creditor with two benefits that are not present in the event of foreclosure…”

    “…inappropriate criteria was used to guarantee denial and that the creditor was never notified…”


    I have been saying for years now that the biggest issue is the fact that the CREDITOR is NEVER NAMED—no matter how much you scream at the servicer.

    They will only tell you that “your loan was securitized”—or, “the investor that owns your loan”…but they will NEVER, EVER give you the NAME of a REAL CREDITOR—which is OUR RIGHT under FDCPA and TILA.

    When pushed hard—the foreclosure mill will say that the Trustee of the (empty) MBS trust is your creditor…which, of course, is an impossibility and a complete lie.

    And, when pushed hard—the servicer will say:
    “To comply with your request for name of creditor with regards to FDCPA and TILA, all we have to give you is the name of the MBS and the trustee of the MBS to satisfy that requirement.”


    Of course, the reason they won’t tell you is because they would have to give you the name of a third party debt collector of unsecured debt…and the whole truth of the subprime securitization fraud would come out…and we just can’t have that, now can we?

    Neil—why don’t you ever push the criminality of all that—seriously?

  9. Excellent post. This is exactly what happened to us. Denied a mod with an incomprehensible reason. Even our attorney threw his hands up. It was like Greek. They had ZERO intentiion of granting – modification – they already had a buyer. e’re fighting back and will prove that they are lying. I am confident of that.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: