Tonight! Foreclosure Mills Are Accountable Under FDCPA

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil F Garfield, M.B.A., J.D.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

see Brock and Scott Law Firm Sued Under FDCPA

I think the recent spate of cases against law firms who collect debts is indicative of the tremendous liability assumed by a lawyer who, knowing that there are defects in the claim, pursues it anyway.

In foreclosure litigation countless law firms entered into agreements with various parties to achieve the result of a foreclosure sale. They knew or MUST have known that the documents that they referenced or attached to their pleadings in court were either fabricated by then, or at their instruction, or fabricated by others. They knew or MUST have known that the “client” was not the Plaintiff/Claimant but they fraudulently continued acting as if the named Plaintiff both existed and had a valid claim.

The reason they MUST have known is that every lawyer is required by his state and Federal bar ethical and disciplinary standards to engage in enough due diligence to know with certainty that the named claimant exists and that filing a lawsuit or other claim or sending out notices on behalf of such “clients” without having been retained by them, is legal and valid. Naming US Bank as trustee, when there is no trust is a breach of those standards no matter how you cut it. Naming or implying the existence of a trust when it is in fact nonexistent is also a breach.

Such actions among others are violations of the FDCPA. The banks suckered the lawyers into what appeared to be lucrative retainers to handle mass debt collection and foreclosure without disclosing the fact that with the retainer came liability for violation of multiple state and Federal laws.

These lawyers and law firms were intentionally set up by the banks to be thrown under the bus, followed by a disclaimer by the banks that they were unaware of their conduct when in fact the law firms were acting as instructed by the banks.

Don’t forget that if the law firm is proven t have been negligent as opposed to committing an intentional act, there might be insurance coverage. Besides the obvious reservoir of funds for payment of a settlement or judgment the presence of insurance assures that a lawyer who is far more objective than the law firm policyholder will be the one litigating and negotiating the claim.

Resources:

FDCPA Statute

Quotes from the Statute:

15 USC 1692

§ 802.  Congressional findings and declarations of purpose

(a) Abusive practices
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

(b) Inadequacy of laws
Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c) Available non-abusive collection methods
Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts.

(d) Interstate commerce
Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.

(e) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

15 USC 1692e

§ 807.  False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of —

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to —

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.

(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector’s business, company, or organization.

(15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.

(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 1681a(f) of this title.

15 USC 1692f

§ 808.  Unfair practices

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

(2) The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other payment instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collector’s intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit.

(3) The solicitation by a debt collector of any postdated check or other postdated payment instrument for the purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution.

(4) Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated check or other postdated payment instrument prior to the date on such check or instrument.

(5) Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of the true purpose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees.

(6) Taking or threatening to take any nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property if —

(A) there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest;

(B) there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or

(C) the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement.

(7) Communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card.

(8) Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business.

15 USC 1692g

§ 809.  Validation of debts

(a) Notice of debt; contents
Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing —

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) Disputed debts
If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer’s right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.

(c) Admission of liability
The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

(d) Legal pleadings
A communication in the form of a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of subsection (a).

(e) Notice provisions
The sending or delivery of any form or notice which does not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by title 26, title V of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], or any provision of Federal or State law relating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any such provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with debt collection for purposes of this section.

15 USC 1692h

§ 813.  Civil liability

(a) Amount of damages
Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of —

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure;

(2) (A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000; or

(B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could be recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.

(b) Factors considered by court
In determining the amount of liability in any action under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors —

(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional; or

(2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section, the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was intentional.

(c) Intent
A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

(d) Jurisdiction
An action to enforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.

(e) Advisory opinions of Bureau
No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Bureau, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason.

A Double Standard: Only Mega-Bank’s can Fabricate Mortgage Documents without Consequence

see http://www.pe.com/articles/san-808058-defendants-homeowners.html

“The defendants filed bogus petitions and court pleadings and recorded false deeds in county recorders’ offices.”

So here is my issue. That description of what they did sounds really bad. And maybe it IS bad and should be punished. BUT has the judiciary now opened the door to calling this behavior “not so bad?”

The banks are filing bogus pleadings to support foreclosures in which they have no interest except to complete the project of stealing investors money with homeowners being collateral damage. The banks and their servicers are sending bogus notices of substitution of trustee in non judicial states and filing bogus notices of default on behalf of a “beneficiary” or “mortgagee” that is not a creditor, not a holder, not a possessor of any written instrument that is true. The banks and their servicers are creating and recording false instruments attendant to nearly every fraudulent foreclosure. Among the most egregious examples are the void assignment of mortgage and the conjured endorsement on the note.

If an assignment can suddenly create rights rather than merely transfer them, then maybe these defendants being prosecuted created false documents that now have meaning in the fight against the banks. And if that is true then maybe no crime was committed at all — as long as we follow the current legal doctrine of “protect the banks.” Once upon a time in California it was said that homeowners have no standing to challenge standing based upon a void assignment. Yvanova v Countrywide changed all that. Maybe these defendants did not have pure motives and maybe they should be punished; but if they deserve to be brought to justice then so do thousands of bankers, robo-signers, robo-witnesses and fabricators of “original” documentation.

The courts meanwhile have been open to all kinds of excuses for that behavior. Have they now opened the door for scams on the other side — in which homeowners are the direct victims — can be called “irrelevant? Can we say that the government has no standing to prosecute claims against scam artists? Is this a case of unequal protection under the law? Is this case really a scam — or just fighting fire with fire?

Those of us who have been heavily engaged in the defense of homeowners know that the banks are given so much credibility that their fabrication, forgery and robosigning of documents that are created out of thin air and then recorded is then given the benefit of a legal presumption of truth and proof of facts that we all know are in fact nonexistent and therefore making the assertion untrue.  When the documents are untrue and false the Court’s rubber stamp means that false representations and false documents will be considered as true when, without the legal presumption, that can never be proven.

So in defense of fraudulent foreclosures is it possible that a new doctrine has been born: you can create and record fake documents and wait to see if anyone takes them seriously in which case they can be enforced. That is clearly the case with the banks and servicers in millions of foreclosures. And if that is the case then it follows logically that the targets of such fraud should respond in kind.

I’d like to see an explanation from prosecutors for why they don’t prosecute the banks, their “witnesses” and their robosigners for filing false documents and recording them when that is exactly their complaint on the other side of the fence. Could the State be estopped from enforcing such laws when they are giving a free pass to the main culprits?

FORECLOSURE SCAMS INCREASE IN NUMBER AND CREATIVITY

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hoak’s article only points out three varieties of scam but there are many more. The long and short of it is that homeowners do need help in gathering information and using it effectively with the assistance of a licensed attorney. But they are not getting the help they need in most instances and they are not getting effective counsel. Here are three categories of scams:

The first is foreclosure rescue. Anyone telling you that the foreclosure will stop if you pay them money is lying to you, pure and simple. The only thing that will stop a foreclosure is a Judge’s order. The automatic stay in bankruptcy is the order of the court. So unless if you have sought and obtained a signed order from a Judge or filed for bankruptcy relief, there is no stopping the foreclosure. Period. Most of these people take your money and run. Some fo them are lawyers who will tell you they are working on it but are doing nothing and won’t return  phone calls once they have your money.

The second uses a short-sale as a vehicle for fraud. There are many varieties of this. Some demand fees up front to get it done, some interpose themselves as middlemen, not submitting the bid they should submit, the list is endless. The worst case scenario is that  you get foreclosed and don’t even know it. You move out thinking the sale went through when in fact nothing happened.

The third one she mentions ought to be the first. It is the false payoff. This hurts everyone. Mostly used in “refis” it  often happens in sales. The writer could have written a full investigative article about this. These “payoffs” send money to someone who has no interest in the deal, no right to receive the money and no authority to release the old mortgage. OR the title or closing agent simply keeps the money from the new deal and doesn’t pay anyone. They get away with it because nobody knows who the creditor is anyway. The homeowner in a refi starts paying the new mortgage source but the old mortgage is still on there going into “default.

SEE FULL ARTICLE ON SCAM IN WALL STREET JOURNAL

By AMY HOAK

Fraudsters will always finds ways to scam lenders and homeowners. And in recent years, they’ve shifted their tactics to profit from the market’s downturn.

Today, there’s less identity fraud and misrepresentation of income or employment to obtain a mortgage, mainly because of stricter validation criteria, says David Johnson, vice president of fraud and consortium solutions for CoreLogic, a provider of financial, property and consumer information. But other types of fraud are replacing those scams.

Moral Hazard in Non-Judicial Sale: Trustee commits violations of FDCPA and other statutes!

From Eaine B

Editor’s Note: I have long advocated sending letters, objections to sale and complaints against “trustees” named (or substituted) on deeds of trust who initiate foreclosure proceedings. Indeed, it is highly probable that because of statutes attempting to protect the trustee from liability, the trustee is at best usually named only as a nominal party in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the non-judicial sale, demanding the identity and contact information of the creditor and getting a full accounting from the real creditor.

I would argue that this reader’s comment is more on target than they even know. Because that is the point — knowledge. If the “trustee” knowingly proceeds when it KNOWS there is a question of title, a question of who is the creditor, and knows that this loan was sold to third parties that have not been disclosed to the Trustor nor the Trustee, then the trustee is more than a nominal party, to wit: they are a co-venturer in a  fraudulent scheme.

Typically non-judicial action commences under a “substitute trustee”.  One would ask why it was necessary to call in a “substitute trustee” from the bullpen, when the current one is just fine. The only possible answer is that the old trustee either doesn’t want any part of this, or won’t do it without following industry standards to confirm ownership etc. It would seem fairly obvious that if the existing trustee is still in business and continues to qualify as a trustee, the only rational reason to change trustees is because the actors wish to do business with people who won’t ask questions.

Often the “substitution of trustee” is backdated, undated or dated after the notice of sale, notice of default etc., so there is a simple procedural angle to set back the sale if you are actually reading the documents, and getting a title report.

More substantively, the “substitute trustee” is granted that position by a party who in all probability does not have the power to grant it — but that requires a forensic analysis, title report, and probably a lawsuit to establish. For example, if some person unknown to MERS assumes the title of “assistant Vice president of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems” and signs the substitution of trustee or any other document, they probably lack the power to do so, or they lack the documentation showing they have the power to do so.

This actually runs to the core of moral hazard in non-judicial states. Anyone who knows you have missed payments, could file a “substitution of Trustee” document in the county records, send you a notice of default, notice of sale and sell your property to the highest bidder — all BEFORE your real servicer (who we know is only a pretender lender) even knows about it. It is a scam waiting to happen. The scammer then takes the money and runs. Meanwhile you have most likely given up and left the house so it is now abandoned. This scenario can only happen in non-judicial states, where the statute authorizing a non-judicial foreclosure sale ASSUMES that the right party is doing the right thing under proper authority.

When mortgages were simple, and securitization was only an idea, the opportunity for abuse in non-judicial states was present but generally controllable because your true lender had control of the loan, they knew when you were delinquent, and they would be in touch with you, during which time it might come out that you had already received a notice of sale from a “substitute trustee.”

In the world of securitization where the potential real parties in interest are almost infinite in number, where the credit report is used rather than the title report, and where various layers of companies are used to create plausible deniability, insulation from liability and the ability to move things around “off-balance sheet” or “off record” at the county recorder’s office, the potential for abuse is practically infinite. And true to form, my experience is that virtually every foreclosure in a non-judicial state contains at least the taint of this abuse and often facially shows the failure to use proper documentation.

Comment submitted by Eaine B—–

Trustee commits violations of Fair Debt Collections Practice Act!
A good cause of action against Northwest Trustee Services Inc, Routh Crabtree Olsen PS is that I have found they sell your private information to the public. Go to http://www.usa-foreclosoure.com and find your foreclosure….then buy for $39.00 a copy of the title report that is supposed to be private between the trustee and the beneficiary. Any public person can order your report online. This is mail and interstate violations. Make a complaint to the Bar association, and the FTC and your state Attorney General.
Call the title company on the top of the form and ask them. Then perhaps you can file a suit against Routh Crabtree Olsen and Northwest Trustee Services Inc for violations of 15 USC 1692 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation. It’s triple damages. Most likely they will have sent you a letter from Routh Crabtree Olsen. One I got even quotes the 15 USC 1692. So obviously THEY know about it. The owner of Routh, Crabtree and Olsen is Stephen Routh and Lance Olsen. Routh has various companies in AK, MT, AZ, CA etc. Just look at the list on the various web sites. http://www.usa-foreclosure.com has the same address as Routh Crabtree Olsen and Northwest Trustee Services and as Routh in AK.
Also, the process serving company that they use is owned by them.

Foreclosure Scams: You are Vulnerable — Don’t Lose Your Common Sense or Good Judgment

There are plenty of people in the mortgage meltdown crisis, just like in a natural catastrophe who completely lack conscience or morality and who will tell you want you want to hear. Check it out, get references and if you are not sure of them, skip the “opportunity.”

Real Estate
Foreclosure Scams Lurking In Your Neighborhood
Matt Woolsey 05.23.08, 4:00 PM ET

 

 

 

Delinquent homeowners looking to break free from default notices are getting tricked by brokers promising to save them from foreclosure, only to make off with thousands in fees or what home equity is left.

Take rent-to-buy scams. In cases like these, a fraudulent rescue company convinces a homeowner to sign over the title while building equity as a renter. The homeowner avoids foreclosure but risks being evicted by the very firm that promised to save his home.

The situation is bad enough in Florida, one of the nation’s foreclosure capitals, that State Attorney General Bill McCollum has filed suit against National Foreclosure Management, a mediation company, for allegedly defrauding troubled homeowners; fraudulent rescue companies in Illinois have been increasingly penalized, while in Massachusetts the for-profit practice of foreclosure rescue transactions has been banned.

In Pictures: Foreclosure Scams Lurking In Your Neighborhood

Video: Homeowners Hit The Road

It’s no wonder such scams are surfacing. In April, there were 243,353 foreclosure filings, according to RealtyTrac, an Encino, Calif.-based broker of foreclosed and bank-owned properties. That’s 2% of the nation’s homes, and the highest monthly figure since RealtyTrac started compiling data in January 2005. While this has damaged home values in many markets, areas of California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona are among the hardest hit.

Related Stories
How Low Will Real Estate go?

Worst Cities For Homeowner Debt

With rising foreclosures threatening homeowners, rescue brokers prey on subprime or adjustable rate borrowers because many facing foreclosure are overextended and desperately looking for a way out of their mortgages.

“A lot of people did not have the necessary reserves or backup plans,” says Marki Lemons, who specializes in foreclosure properties for Rubloff, a Chicago real estate firm. “No one anticipated that the market would change overnight like this.”

Bad-News Bailouts 
Low-level schemes involve those who pose as mediation specialists or counselors promising to rescue homes from foreclosure. Naturally, they work for a fee. While they might not charge an excessive amount of money, between $300 and $6,670, according to the Illinois state’s attorney’s office, the Federal Trade Commission says that once homeowners pay that first check, these so-called specialists disappear.

It hurts to lose a few hundred dollars, or even a thousand, but the wilier schemes involve surrendering the title.

The most basic involves pushing on homeowners’ phony documents that appear to be a new mortgage application. These are known as rescue loans which, if correctly represented, give a homeowner the cash to stave off a foreclosure. Instead, these false documents turn over the title.

A more sophisticated version of this scam involves a rent-to-buy provision. Here, a mediator matches a distressed homeowner with a management company that takes over the property while giving the homeowner the ability to become a long-term renter, with his rent paying down the mortgage.

The premise here is that the management company has great credit and can refinance at a better rate, which they will do for a fee. This arrangement is attractive to a delinquent homeowner because the months-long foreclosure process is a black mark on a credit report.

“By the time a delinquent loan goes into the foreclosure process, borrowers typically are behind many months in payments, and the debt has grown with late fees and other charges,” says Peggy Twohig, associate director of the Division of Financial Practices at the Federal Trade Commission. “Because of the late payments, the borrowers’ credit histories have deteriorated.”

Of course, once the title is surrendered, the fraudster makes off with what equity the homeowner has built. Even worse, if the title has been surrendered and the new owner falls into foreclosure, the original homeowner will be evicted because they no longer possess a legal claim on the property.

How is the credit crunch affecting you? Weigh in. Add your thoughts to the Readers Comments section below.

An inability to understand government assistance programs adds to consumer confusion. Government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association or Ginnie Mae, and the Federal Housing Administration offer programs, including increased loan limits, refinancing aid programs or mortgage insurance programs, meant to help the embattled homeowner and lift sagging real estate markets. But because many homeowners don’t know how to apply for these programs, they fall prey to scammers who claim to be able to help them.

Instead, says Twohig, distressed homeowners are best served by negotiating directly with their lender and to keep in mind that since no one can guarantee a solution, anyone who makes promises to that effect should be viewed with suspicion.

“In all of these scenarios, consumers typically believe that the promise to ‘stop’ foreclosure and ‘save your home’ means a permanent solution that will allow them to keep their homes and save their equity,” she says. “Yet they still end up losing their homes.”

In Pictures: Foreclosure Scams Lurking In Your Neighborhood 

%d bloggers like this: