Renewing the Statute of Limitations Accidentally: Modifications and Payments

It seems apparent to me that the banks are sidestepping the statute of limitations issue by getting homeowners to renew payments after the statute has run. Given the confusion in Florida courts it is difficult to determine with certainty how the statute will be applied. But the execution of a modification agreement would, in my opinion, almost certainly waive the statute of limitations, particularly since it refers to the part of the alleged debt that was previously barred by the statute. It would also, in my opinion, reaffirm a discharged debt in bankruptcy.



There are several reasons why servicers are offering modifications and several other reasons why they don’t.

My perception is that the main reason for offering the modification is that the servicer is converting the ownership of the debt from the investors to the servicer and by reference to an empty trust with no assets. HAMP modifications are virtually nonexistent statistically. “In house” modifications are what they are offering; that is code for “it’s our loan now.” That scenario leaves the servicer with rights to the debt that didn’t legally exist before — but subject to separate, private agreements with the Master Servicer who is willing to pay the servicer for their apparent “services” but not willing to share in the windfall profits made by a party who now owns a loan in which they had no financial interest before the execution of the modification.

This is a good alternative to stealing from the investors by way of false claims for “Servicer advances” where the money, like all other deals in the false securitization chain, comes from “investments” that the investors thought they were making into individual trusts. And by the way this part explains why they don’t offer modifications — the Master Servicer can only apply is false claim for “recovery” of servicer advances when the property is liquidated.

A second reason for applying pressure to a homeowner to sign more papers they don’t understand is to get the homeowner to (1) agree or reaffirm the debt, thus restarting the statute of limitations from where it had originally left off and (2) to get the homeowner to make at least some payments, thus reaffirming the debt for purposes of both bankruptcy and the statute of limitations. This explains why they take three “trial” payments and then deny the “permanent” modification after they already announced the homeowner was “approved.”

In this sense there is no underwriting done. There is only an evaluation of how the Master Servicer can make the most money. This also is an example of why I say that the interests of servicers are adverse to the investors who have already been screwed. Forced sale doesn’t just artificially limit the recovery, it virtually eliminates recovery for the investor while the servicers take the money and run.

And a third reason for coercing the homeowner into a modification agreement that is guaranteed to fail is that the homeowner has either waived defenses and claims or has created the conditions where waiver could be asserted.

Schedule A Consult Now!

11 Responses

  1. Neil’s comments herein are accurate.

  2. See, now this is a good piece.

  3. Why is President Obama not so serious in all these?

  4. Did I mention Irrevocably ?

  5. Whereby the Title to the Estate was transferred & conveyed (Stolen).
    Misrepresented. .Ommitted. (Fraud)

  6. FHA settled..
    You got BOA in house mod.
    BOA has Dirty Hands, I caught them in my cookie jars too!

    I know one Broker who wished he hadn’t switched our Conventional purchase loan to an FHA at the closing table. FHA & HUD , & the real Assistant Secretary of Housing, & the IRS were very cooperative with us regarding the misrepresentations of both CW & BOA.

    Couldn’t figure out why the wouldn’t give me a payoff…
    Wouldn’t clear & reconvey title to my estate….

    Not a Loan…but a Financial Transaction.
    Reverse Purchase & Sale into Trust

  7. In reading your articles I have discovered many things. Like the merger with Countrywide was with Red Oak, a subsidiary of BOA. I wonder, depending on the time-frame, shouldn’t CHL assignments state the merger was with Red Oak a subsidiary of BOA instead of giving the illusion the merger was with BOA or BHL. For instance, an assignment filed (07/06/09) in the Court regarding my property states “Bank of America Home Loan Servicing LP, f/k/a known as Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP” is deceptive or am I missing something?

    I went into a Modification with CHL/BOA in early 2015. I too was forced into a modification because my crappy lawyer would and did not want to defend my case any further after I paid him in full. I did a lot of the work myself and began to feel as if my attorney started working with opposing counsel in order to discontinue the case. I was convinced when I produced to him, two different HUD-1, an affidavit from the notary stating that one of the signatures on the Mortgage was a forgery and not his signature. I even obtained a number of copies of the mortgage from different avenues and discovered a number of blatant and fraudulent discrepancies, which I pointed out to my attorney. I even obtained from the County recorder’s office via electronically all the assignments that had been so-called filed in the matter. The assignments filed in the county which were all executed by the same law firm in Pennsylvania, all stated they could not be certified/verified by the County! I even live in the county in PA where the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds initially filed suit against Mers! My concerns and discoveries fell on deaf ears because the matter had been pending in the Court for a period of time and he was not interested.

    So when he came to me with the modification, I was pissed because I wanted to fight and I made that perfectly clear, but was out of money after paying him. So once the modification was presented the pressure was applied. He, opposing counsel and the Bank were all applying pressure. I conceded and told my so-called counsel that I wanted all documents executed in person and wanted copies of all signed document. The Bank’s counsel refused stated he bank declined an in person signing so I reluctantly signed the modification. What my counsel, opposing counsel and the Bank tried to do then was to get me to agree to and sign a Confidentiality Agreement which I emphatically refused to do! I am smart enough to know that the confidentiality agreement would hinder me in talking while also taking away my right to sue them if there was an issue with the modification which I would not agree to that and I am so glad I did.

    So of course, after signing and now looking carefully at the modification agreement, I’ve discovered a number of things. First, let me state BOA has not changed one iota — they are just trying to be more slick about everything.

    For instance, the so-called modification documents were “Prepare by ‘Walled Lake Credit Bureau LLC'”. Then a separate and on the very last page it looks like this:


    Bank of America, NA, for itself or as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

    By: Urban Settlement Services, LLC, its attorney in fact

    By: Dated:

    Title :

    So undercover of the signed modification papers I wrote a letter to BOA (that’s who they purported to be) forwarding the signed modification documents as well as questioning who Walled Lake Credit Bureau LLC and Urban Settlement Services, LLC were. I received a non-responsive reply letter talking about credit reporting. So I searched for answers and discovered upon further inspection that Walled Lake and Urban are one in the same company. Walled Lake are debt collectors and Urban are I think subservicers for BOA. I have also obtained a copy of the agreement they entered into with BOA from the United States Trademark and Patent Office.

    Then I discovered that the person who executed my agreement and signing as BOA’s “attorney in fact” and “Assistant Secretary” is a notary in Colorado, who is employed and works for Urban. I have obtained copies of other modifications wherein the same person that signed my documents is either an Attorney in fact and Assistant Secretary or just the Notary on the other modifications. I am in the process of obtaining a fully executed copy of my modification agreement which I am pretty sure will show there is notary signature on there supposedly verifying and stating I signed before them — which of course, their counsel refused to allow. As well as another Colorado notary verifying for BOA the signature of the “Attorney-in-fact”/”Assistant Secretary” signature. Which after speaking with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office is definitely a “No, No!”

    I know for certain I have/had an FHA note, now since these frauds have taken over, some how they miraculously purport and state, in black and white, that I have a conventional loan, but when verbally asked they will not say on the recorded line. I question how has the note changed, I have not executed another note. This is just a of few the fraudulent things I have discovered.

    Now all I have to do is gather the rest of my documents and find competent counsel here in PA that can advise whether I have a viable case and if so, assist me in filing suit against these thieves!

  8. Melissa, pretty much all the documents that have been created and related to your loan/mortgage/note are fictitious and/or forged. They just create em when they need em.

  9. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  10. I will give them an in-house modification alright…
    My Perfect Size 10 In-House Special.


  11. I agree with what you are saying Neil, but why is the trust still reporting on the Distribution reports that my loan is in it when on the Perm Loan Mod. The Trust is not named. Only the servicer, and the investor loan Number is the Master Servicer.

Contribute to the discussion!