Arizona Supreme Court Hogan Case Holds that Note is Not required to Start Foreclosure

Posted on May 19, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

“the trustee owes the trustor a fiduciary duty, and may be held liable for conducting a trustee’s sale when the trustor is not in default. See Patton v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Phoenix, 118 Ariz. 473, 476, 578 P.2d 152, 155 (1978).” Hogan Court

Editor’s Comment: Here is another example of lawyers arguing out of a lack of understanding of the securitization process and trying to compress an elephant into a rabbit hole. They lost, unsurprisingly.

If you loaned money to someone, you want the money repaid. You DON’T want to be told that because you don’t have the note you can never enforce the loan repayment. You CAN start enforcement and you must prove why you don’t have the note in a credible way so that the court has footprints leading right up to the point that you don’t have the note. But the point is that you can start without the note. 

The Supreme Court apparently understood this very well and they didn’t address the real issue because nobody brought it up. The issue before them was whether someone without the note could initiate the foreclosure process. Nobody mentioned whether the same party could submit a credit bid at the auction which is what I have been pounding upon for months on end now.

Apparently, right or wrong, the feeling of the courts is that there is a very light burden on the right to initiate a foreclosure whether it is judicial or non-judicial. It is very close to the burden of the party moving to lift stay in a bankruptcy procedure. Practically any colorable right gives the party enough to get the stay — because the theory goes — whether it is a lift stay or starting the ball rolling on a foreclosure there is plenty the borrower can do to  oppose the enforcement procedure. I don’t agree with either standard or burden of proof in the case of securitized mortgages but it is about time we got real about what gets traction in the courtroom and what doesn’t.

In the Hogan case the Court makes a pretty big deal out of the fact that Hogan didn’t allege that WAMU and Deutsch were not entitled to enforce the note. From the court’s perspective, they were saying to the AG and the borrowers, “look, you are admitting the debt and admitting this is the creditor, what do you want from us, a free pass?”

This is why you need real people with real knowledge and real reports that back up and give credibility to deny the debt, deny the default, deny that WAMU and/or Deutsch are creditors, plead payment and force WAMU and Deutsch to come forward with pleadings and proof. Instead WAMU and Deutsch skated by AGAIN because nobody followed the money. They followed the document trail which led them down that rabbit hole I was referencing above.

In order to deny everything without be frivolous, you need to have concrete reasons why you think the debt does not exist, the debt does not exist between the borrower and these pretender lenders, the debt was paid in full, and deny that the loan was NOT secured (i.e. that the mortgage lien was NOT perfected when filed).

For anyone to do that without feeling foolish you must UNDERSTAND how the securitization model AS PRACTICED turned the entire lending model on its head. Then everything makes sense, which is why I wrote the second volume which you can get by pressing the appropriate links shown above. But it isn’t just the book that will get you there. You need to give rise to material, relevant issues of fact that are in dispute. For that you need a credible report from a credible expert with real credentials and real experience and training.

I follow the money. In fact the new book has a section called “Show Me the Money”. To “believe” is taken from an ancient  language that means “to be willing”. I want you to believe that the debt that the “enforcers” doesn’t exist and never did. I want you to believe that the declarations contained in the note, mortgage (deed of trust), substitution of trustee etc. are all lies. But you can’t believe that unless you are willing to consider the the idea it might be true. That I might be right.

At every “Securitized” closing table there were two deals taking place — one perfectly real and the other perfectly unreal, fake and totally obfuscated. The deal everyone is litigating is the second one,  starting with the documents at closing and moving up the chain of securitization. Do you really think that some court is going to declare that everyone gets a free house because some i wasn’t dotted or t crossed on the back of the wrong piece of paper when you admit the debt, the default and the amount due?

It is the first deal that is real because THAT is the one with the money exchanging hands. The declarations contained in the note, mortgage and other documents all refer to money exchanging hands between the named payee and secured party on one side and the borrower on the other. The deal in those documents never happened. The REAL DEAL was that money from investor lenders was poured down a pipe through which the loans were funded. The parties at the closing table with the borrower had nothing to do with funding; acquiring, transferring the receivable, the obligation, note or the mortgage or deed of trust.

Every time you chase them down the rabbit hole of the document trail you miss the point. The REAL DEAL had no documents and couldn’t possibly be secured. And if you read the wording from the Hogan decision below you can see how even they would have considered the matter differently if the simple allegation been made that the borrower denied that WAMU and Deutsch had any right to enforce the note either as principals or as agents. They were not the creditor. But Hogan and its ilk are not over — yet.

There is still a matter to be determined as to whether the party who initiated the foreclosure is in fact a creditor under the statute and can therefore submit a credit bid in lieu of cash. THAT is where the rubber meets the road — where the cash is supposed to exchange hands. And THAT is where nearly all the foreclosures across the country fail. The failure of consideration means the sale did not take place. If the borrower was there or someone for him was there and bid a token amount of money it could be argued in many states that the other bid being ineligible as a credit bid, the only winning bidder is the one who offered cash.

————————————————————

Hogan argues that a deed of trust, like a mortgage, “may be enforced only by, or in behalf of, a person who is entitled to enforce the obligation the mortgage secures.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Mortgages § 5.4(c) (1997); see Hill v. Favour, 52 Ariz. 561, 568-69, 84 P.2d 575, 578 (1938).

-6-
We agree. (e.s.) But Hogan has not alleged that WaMu and Deutsche Bank are not entitled to enforce the underlying note; rather, he alleges that they have the burden of demonstrating their rights before a non-judicial foreclosure may proceed. Nothing in the non-judicial foreclosure statutes, however, imposes such an obligation. See Mansour v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1181 (D. Ariz. 2009) (citing A.R.S. § 33-807 and observing that “Arizona’s [non-]judicial foreclosure statutes . . . do not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings”); In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 22 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (stating that non-judicial foreclosures may be conducted under Arizona’s deed of trust statutes without presentation of the original note).

———————AND SPEAKING OF  DEUTSCH BANK: READ THIS AS GRIST FOR THE ABOVE ANALYSIS——-

Disavowal by-DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-AS-TRUSTEE-NOTICE-TO-CERTIFICATE-HOLDERSForeclosure-Practice-Notice-10-25[1]

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

Pandemic Lying Admission: Deutsch Bank Up and Down the Fake Securitization Chain

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

One problem with securitization in practice even under the academic model is the effect on potential enforcement of the obligation, even assuming that the “lender” is properly identified in the closing documents with the buyer of the loan product and the closing papers of the buyer of the mortgage bonds (and we’ll assume that the mortgage bonds are real and valid, as well as having been issued by a fully funded REMIC in which loans were properly assigned and transferred —- an assumption, as we have seen that is not true in the real world). Take this quote from the glossary at the back of this book and which in turn was taken from established authoritative sources used by bankers, securities firms and accountants:

cross guarantees and credit default swaps, synthetic collateralized asset obligations and other exotic equity and debt instruments, each of which promises the holder an incomplete interest in the original security instrument and the revenue flow starting with the alleged borrower and ending with various parties who receive said revenue, including but not limited to parties who are obligated to make payments for shortfalls of revenues.

Real Property Lawyers spot the problem immediately.

First question is when do these cross guarantees, CDS, Insurance, and other exotic instruments arise. If they are in existence at the time of the closing with the borrower homeowner then the note and mortgage are not properly drafted as to terms of repayment nor identity of the lender/creditor. This renders the note either unenforceable or requiring the admission of parole evidence in any action to either enforce against the borrower or enforce the cross obligations of the new cross creditors who supposedly are receiving not just rights to the receivable but to the actual note and the actual mortgage.

Hence even a truthful statement that the “Trustee” beings this foreclosure on behalf of the “trust” as creditor (assuming a Trust existed by law and that the Trustee, and beneficiaries and terms were clear) would be insufficient if any of these “credit enhancements” and other synthetic or exotic vehicles were in place. The Trustee on the Deed of Sale would be required to get an accounting from each of the entities that are parties or counterparties whose interest is effected by the foreclosure and who would be entitled to part of the receivable generated either by the foreclosure itself or the payment by counterparties who “bet wrong” on the mortgage pool.

The second question is whether some or any or all of these instruments came into existence or were actualized by a required transaction AFTER the closing with the homeowner borrower. It would seem that while the original note and mortgage (or Deed of Trust) might not be affected directly by these instruments, the enforcement mechanism would still be subject to the same issues as raised above when they were fully actualized and in existence at the time of the closing with the homeowner borrower.

Deutsch Bank was a central player in most of the securitized mortgages in a variety of ways including the exotic instruments referred to above. If there was any doubt about whether there existed pandemic lying and cheating, it was removed when the U.S. Attorney Civil Frauds Unit obtained admissions and a judgment for Deutsch to pay over $200 million resulting from intentional misrepresentations contained in various documents used with numerous entities and people up and down the fictitious securitization chain. Similar claims are brought against Citi (which settled so far for $215 million in February, 2012) Flagstar Bank FSB (which settled so far for $133 million in February 2012, and Allied Home Mortgage Corp, which is still pending. Even the most casual reader can see that the entire securitization model was distorted by fraud from one end (the investor lender) to the other (the homeowner borrower) and back again (the parties and counterparties in insurance, bailouts, credit default swaps, cross guarantees that violated the terms of every promissory note etc.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Recovers $202.3 Million From Deutsche Bank And Mortgageit In Civil Fraud Case Alleging Reckless Mortgage Lending Practices And False Certifications To HUD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                  Thursday May 10, 2012

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”). The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. Among other things, the suit accused the defendants of having submitted false certifications to HUD, including false certifications that MORTGAGEIT was originating mortgages in compliance with HUD rules when in fact it was not. In the settlement announced today, MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Complaint, including that, contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations. MORTGAGEIT also admitted that it submitted certifications to HUD stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; that FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and that HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted. The defendants also agreed to pay $202.3 million to the United States to resolve the Government’s claims for damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. The settlement was approved today by United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK treated FHA insurance as free Government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules. Participation in the Direct Endorsement Lender program comes with requirements that are not mere technicalities to be circumvented through subterfuge as these defendants did repeatedly over the course of a decade. Their failure to meet these requirements caused substantial losses to the Government – losses that could have and should have been avoided. In addition to their admissions of responsibility, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT have agreed to pay damages in an amount that will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery stated: “This is an important settlement for the United States, both in terms of obtaining substantial reimbursement for the FHA insurance fund for wrongfully incurred claims, and in obtaining the defendants’ acceptance of their role in the losses they caused to the taxpayers.”

Giving Back to the Community through a variety of venues & initatives.

Making sure that victims of federal crimes are treated with compassion, fairness and respect.

www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html                  1/45/16/12                  USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky stated: “This case demonstrates that HUD has the ability to identify fraud patterns and work with our partners at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to pursue appropriate remedies. HUD would like to commend the work of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in achieving this settlement, which is a substantial recovery for the FHA mortgage insurance fund. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the Department of Justice and the SDNY to combat mortgage fraud. The mortgage industry should take notice that we will not sit silently by if we detect abuses in our programs.”

HUD Inspector General David A. Montoya stated: “We expect every Direct Endorsement Lender to adhere to the highest level of integrity and accountability. When the combined efforts and attention of the Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD OIG are focused upon those who fail to exercise such integrity in connection with HUD programs, the end result will be both unpleasant and costly to the offending party.”

The following allegations are based on the Complaint and Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in Manhattan federal court by the Government in this case:

Between 1999 and 2009, MORTGAGEIT was a participant in the DEL program, a federal program administered by the FHA. As a Direct Endorsement Lender, MORTGAGEIT had the authority to originate, underwrite, and endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. If a Direct Endorsement Lender approves a mortgage loan for FHA insurance and the loan later defaults, the holder of the loan may submit an insurance claim to HUD for the costs associated with the defaulted loan, which HUD must then pay. Under the DEL program, neither the FHA nor HUD reviews a loan before it is endorsed for FHA insurance. Direct Endorsement Lenders are therefore required to follow program rules designed to ensure that they are properly underwriting and endorsing mortgages for FHA insurance and maintaining a quality control program that can prevent and correct any deficiencies in their underwriting. These requirements include maintaining a quality control program, pursuant to which the lender must fully review all loans that go into default within the first six payments, known as “early payment defaults.” Early payment defaults may be signs of problems in the underwriting process, and by reviewing early payment defaults, Direct Endorsement Lenders are able to monitor those problems, correct them, and report them to HUD. MORTGAGEIT failed to comply with these basic requirements.

As the Complaint further alleges, MORTGAGEIT was also required to execute certifications for every mortgage loan that it endorsed for FHA insurance. Since 1999, MORTGAGEIT has endorsed more than 39,000 mortgages for FHA insurance, and FHA paid insurance claims on more than 3,200 mortgages, totaling more than $368 million, for mortgages endorsed for FHA insurance by MORTGAGEIT, including more than $58 million resulting from loans that defaulted after DEUTSCHE BANK AG acquired MORTGAGEIT in 2007.

As alleged in the Complaint, a portion of those losses was caused by the false statements that the defendants made to HUD to obtain FHA insurance on individual loans. Although MORTGAGEIT had certified that each of these loans was eligible for FHA insurance, it repeatedly submitted certifications that were knowingly or recklessly false. MORTGAGEIT failed to perform basic due diligence and repeatedly endorsed mortgage loans that were not eligible for FHA insurance.

The Complaint also alleges that MORTGAGEIT separately certified to HUD, on an annual basis, that it was in compliance with the rules governing its eligibility in the DEL program, including that it conduct a full review of all early payment defaults, as early payment defaults are indicators of mortgage fraud. Contrary to its certifications to HUD, MORTGAGEIT failed to implement a compliant quality control program, and failed to review all early payment defaults as required. In addition, the Complaint alleges that, after DEUTSCHE BANK acquired MORTGAGEIT in January 2007, DEUTSCHE BANK managed the quality control functions of the Direct Endorsement Lender business, and had its employees sign and submit MORTGAGEIT’s Direct Endorsement Lender annual certifications to HUD. Furthermore, by the end of 2007, MORTGAGEIT was not reviewing any early payment defaults on closed FHA-insured loans. Between 1999 and 2009, the FHA paid more than $92 million in FHA insurance claims for loans that defaulted within the first six payments.

***

Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,

MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:

www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html                  2/4

5/16/12                  USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York

MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;

MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;

Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;

MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and;

MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.

The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:

The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;

One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and;

Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

***

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud, including mortgage fraud.

To date, the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit has brought four civil fraud lawsuits against major lenders under the False Claims Act alleging reckless residential mortgage lending.

Three of the four cases have settled, and today’s settlement represents the third, and largest, settlement. On February 15, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud lawsuit against CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for $158.3 million. On February 24, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud suit against FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B. for $132.8 million. The Government’s lawsuit against ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORP. and two of its officers remains pending. With today’s settlement, the Government has achieved settlements totaling $493.4 million in the last three months. In each settlement, the defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint.

The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit is handling all three cases as part of its continuing investigation of reckless lending practices.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Mr. Bharara thanked HUD and HUD-OIG for their extraordinary assistance in this case. He also expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division in Washington, D.C.

www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/may12/deutschebankmortgageitsettlement.html                  3/4

5/16/12                  USDOJ: US Attorney’s Office – Southern District of New York

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lara K. Eshkenazi, Pierre G. Armand, and Christopher B. Harwood are in charge of the case.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 42 Comments »

ANOTHER VICTORY IN OKLAHOMA

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: 

There is no doubt that the tide is turning and that Judges are increasingly uncomfortable with the presence of forged, fabricated documents containing fraudulent statements of fact on transactions that never actually occurred. As this article explains, in Oklahoma — a very conservative red state — they are beginning to realize that it isn’t the borrower seeking the free house it is the foreclosing party who has no financial stake in the outcome except a windfall if they get the house on a “credit bid.”

by Brian Mahany

We have been saying for several months that the tide is beginning to turn against big banks and mortgage lenders. Many courts are beginning to get fed up with the abusive practices of lenders. Recently several state supreme courts have been weighing in on a wide variety issues including missing paperwork, forged affidavits, questionable title and abusive foreclosure or loan modification practices.

When a state supreme court decides a case, the decision takes on considerable weight. As the highest court in the land, a state supreme court decision is generally binding on all trial courts in that state. We were happy to learn that the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided 7 cases this month in favor of homeowners.

The facts in each of the cases were similar. In each case, the court ruled that in order to bring a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must prove that it has the right to enforce the promissory note. No note means no standing to bring the complaint.

It’s in the details that the Oklahoma cases become important.

Many lenders have problems producing the note and mortgage. In recent years, most lenders sell the mortgage shortly after the closing. Banks rarely hold their own paper any more. The mortgages are often packaged, securitized and sold several times. In that process, paperworks frequently is lost. The lost or incomplete paperwork issue was addressed by the court.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion is helpful to homeowners in several ways.

First, the court reaffirmed that the plaintiff must prove it has the right to enforce the note. Courts shouldn’t simply rely on an affidavit from a lawyer saying the bank or servicer has the right to enforce the note. They must prove it.

Next, the court said that the foreclosing party needs to have the note. Just having an assignment of mortgage is not enough. (Often the servicing bank will draft an assignment of mortgage. That requires the lender’s signature. The note, obviously, contains the borrowers signature. If documents are missing it is much easier for a lender to forge a mortgage assignment than to forge a homeowners signature.)

FInally, the court said that the lack of standing (missing note) can be raised at any time. That can be extremely important in foreclosure cases. Often borrowers seek legal counsel after a judgment of foreclosure has issued. Many folks don’t seek legal help until well into the foreclosure process. By the time a lawyer gets the case, discovery periods have elapsed and often there is already a judgment of foreclosure. The Oklahoma court said as long as the case isn’t closed, its not too late to challenge jurisdiction.

Postscript- There are tens of millions of homeowners under water. Many are facing foreclosure. Unfortunately, there are few lawyers that truly understand how to fight big lenders and even fewer actually willing to do so. If you are facing foreclosure, seek professional assistance as soon as possible. Don’t settle for a bankruptcy lawyer or a fly by night foreclosure “rescue” consultant. Foreclosures can be won but it’s not easy.

The average cost for a lawyer to file an answer and defend a foreclosure action is between $2500 and $5000. While there are some highly qualified lawyers that do this work, we think the only thing big banks understand is a counterclaim and aggressive lawyer.

Everyday we receive calls from homeowners across the U.S. Although we write about foreclosure defense, we rarely take such cases. Our primary purpose in writing is to provide general information and offer hope. The cases we do take are lawsuits against banks and lenders for illegal lending, loan modification and foreclosure practices. If you sufered a particularly bad experience, we certainly want to listen.

Our mortgage fraud team is currently co-counsel in the largest federal false claims act case in the nation, the $2.4 billion action on behalf of HUD against Allied Home Mortgage. Large or small, suing banks and getting justice for victims of predatory lending and foreclosure practices is what we enjoy.

Mahany & Ertl, America’s Fraud Lawyers. Offices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Detroit, Michigan; Portland, Maine & Minneapolis, Minnesota. Services available in many jurisdictions.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 55 Comments »

FREE HOUSE Smoking Gun: ARE COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES MORTGAGE BACKED?

Posted on June 5, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Are Countrywide mortgage-backed securities really mortgage-backed?

EDITOR’S NOTE: BOA IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. I PREDICT THE BANK WILL CRASH AND SOON. As this article points out, the mortgage backed securities are not backed by mortgages. The transfers were not made. Whether the loan originated with  Quicken, Freedom, Aurora, BNC or anyone else, if it ended up with Countrywide the mortgage is not enforceable or even real. It is an unsecured debt subject to offset for liability for appraisal fraud, TILA violations, rescission remedies, fraud in the inducement etc. The only thing missing here is that it is not just a matter that the loans were never transferred by  Countrywide, it is about the fact that Countrywide never owned them and therefore COULDN’T TRANSFER THE LOANS.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

  1. It means that the the only party to name in the quiet title lawsuit is the mortgagee of record — the mortgage originator.
  2. It means that the mortgage originator either didn’t ever have the right to call itself a creditor or doesn’t have that right now.
  3. It means that the mortgage is void and should be removed from the title registry, which is what quiet title is all about.
  4. And it means that with neither BOA, nor Countrywide being the creditor, they have no right to enforce the debt without NAMING the creditor on whose behalf they are initiating collection. If they disclose that, then it will be obvious that the real creditor wants no part of the actions to collect dubious debts procured by predatory and fraudulent lending practices.
  5. It means that the real creditor does not want to try to collect from the homeowner.
  6. It means that homeowners who have been foreclosed should be able to get their homes back free and clear even if there was a transfer or sale to a third party.
  7. It means that that any foreclosure involving BOA or countrywide is probably subject to being dismissed with prejudice forever.

QUOTES:

If the President or Treasury actually wanted to fix the housing market, the ability to do so is lying in all those court records, which show the systematic failure of securitization and the massive exposure the banks hold as a result. This would really help the economy – foreclosure problems are seen to add 1.25 points to the unemployment rate, according to one survey. But instead, they’ve
allowed the banks to pick and choose at their discretion who gets a modification. They’ve allowed the banks to use HAMP as a predatory lending scheme, to squeeze a few extra payments out of borrowers they planned to evict anyway. They’ve even allowed banks to continue toscrew even their customers who they gave a modification.

Fortune has examined dozens of court records that corroborate the
employee’s testimony. And if Countrywide’s mortgage securitizations
systematically failed as it appears they did, Bank of America’s
potential liability dwarfs its shareholder equity, as the
Congressional Oversight Panel points out.

Field is referencing Countrywide v. Kemp, and the sworn testimony of
Linda DeMartini, a top official at BofA. She acknowledged on the
record in a deposition that Countrywide never conveyed the mortgages
to the trusts, and that Countrywide notes “weren’t endorsed except on
a case-by-case basis generally long after securitization ostensibly
occurred.” This would mean that the mortgage-backed securities
composed of Countrywide loans are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed
securities. And Field did the grunt work of looking at the court
records, which back up DeMartini’s claim. None of the 104 Countrywide
notes she looked at in two New York counties were endorsed originally.
Read the whole story, it’s a good one.  [cont’d.]

Smoking Gun on BofA Securitization Fraud
‎Yesterday, ‎June ‎03, ‎2011, ‏‎6:09:34 PM | David Dayen

(photo: woodleywonderworks)

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan told the LA Times today that a settlement
between top banks and state and federal regulators on foreclosure
fraud would be inked in “a matter of weeks.” HUD has been pretty close
to the settlement talks, so I don’t totally doubt him, though I’m
wondering exactly how many Attorneys General they expect to sign on to
a deal, with Republican AGs distancing themselves and Democratic AGs
undertaking their own investigations. Interestingly, Tom Miller’s
chief spokesman contradicted Donovan quickly after the LAT published,
saying “While we certainly hope we can reach a settlement in a matter
of weeks, we don’t know how long it will take.”

Donovan said flatly that the banks’ offer of $5 billion in penalties
for robo-signing and other fraudulent practices was “unacceptable,”
but made no attempt to give a more acceptable figure (regulators
reportedly made a $25-$30 billion offer initially, and told banks last
week they would be on the hook for $17 billion in civil lawsuits if
they didn’t settle). And how could he offer a figure? There hasn’t
been enough investigation to determine the extent of the abuses. Heck,
Abigail Field did more investigation by herself into Bank of America’s
faulty mortgage docs than probably anyone in the foreclosure fraud
working group negotiating with the banks.

Are Countrywide mortgage-backed securities really mortgage-backed? Do
banks even have the legal right to foreclose on certain homes?

These are just a few of the questions raised since the foreclosure
crisis revealed shoddy mortgage servicing practices at many of the big
banks – practices that have led to countless investigations and
lawsuits. Court testimony by a former Countrywide employee added to
the intrigue last fall, because she confessed that many loans there
weren’t properly handled, bringing into doubt the validity of
Countrywide’s securitization process. Bank of America, which owns
Countrywide, quickly silenced the discussion with firm denials.

But Fortune has examined dozens of court records that corroborate the
employee’s testimony. And if Countrywide’s mortgage securitizations
systematically failed as it appears they did, Bank of America’s
potential liability dwarfs its shareholder equity, as the
Congressional Oversight Panel points out.

Field is referencing Countrywide v. Kemp, and the sworn testimony of
Linda DeMartini, a top official at BofA. She acknowledged on the
record in a deposition that Countrywide never conveyed the mortgages
to the trusts, and that Countrywide notes “weren’t endorsed except on
a case-by-case basis generally long after securitization ostensibly
occurred.” This would mean that the mortgage-backed securities
composed of Countrywide loans are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed
securities. And Field did the grunt work of looking at the court
records, which back up DeMartini’s claim. None of the 104 Countrywide
notes she looked at in two New York counties were endorsed originally.
Read the whole story, it’s a good one.  [cont’d.]

This is a bombshell. If the regulators were in any way competent,
DeMartini’s testimony would have stopped them cold. They would have
engaged in the same analysis as Field, and presented to BofA the stark
truth that they have no ability to foreclose on Countrywide loans that
were securitized, which would lead to all kinds of charges from both
homeowners facing foreclosure, and from investors who were scammed
when they purchased the securities. They would have signaled to the
other banks, who did little different during the bubble, that they had
the goods on them as well. The underlying exposure is massive. That
would be the kind of ammunition needed to force compliance from BofA.
But none of this has been done.

The Obama Administration knows that housing is among the biggest, if
not the biggest, problems with the economy right now. The President
said it in a meeting with House Democrats yesterday. I liked this side
note: “The President said housing was the main thing dragging down the
economy, with Geithner nodding solemnly like they’d done everything
humanly possible for the last 27 months to fix the housing market.”

If the President or Treasury actually wanted to fix the housing
market, the ability to do so is lying in all those court records,
which show the systematic failure of securitization and the massive
exposure the banks hold as a result. This would really help the
economy – foreclosure problems are seen to add 1.25 points to the
unemployment rate, according to one survey. But instead, they’ve
allowed the banks to pick and choose at their discretion who gets a
modification. They’ve allowed the banks to use HAMP as a predatory
lending scheme, to squeeze a few extra payments out of borrowers they
planned to evict anyway. They’ve even allowed banks to continue to
screw even their customers who they gave a modification.

And this “settlement,” whatever it offers, won’t change that fact.

—
Jake Naumer

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 66 Comments »

Help on HUD Claims

Posted on November 25, 2008 by Neil Garfield

Attachment B

Single Family Claims Input Help

Part A, Form HUD-27011

General information:

The Claim Input window can be used to enter Disposition claims and transmit them to

HUD. It can be used for Part A of the following claim types only:

01 Conveyance

07 Pre-foreclosure

Mortgagees are fully responsible for the accuracy of any claims they file using this

window. Electronic submission of the claim constitutes certification that the statements

and information contained in the claim are true and correct. Access to this function is

granted upon mortgagee’s request. The transmitter’s ID will be stored with incoming

transmissions.

The claim input window identifies items with the corresponding item number from the

Form HUD-27011, Part A. Claims will not be accepted with invalid entries. Error

messages will appear. There will also be warnings to indicate that an entry is

questionable. These warnings will not prevent transmission.

Instructions for data entry:

Data Item Valid Formats Description

1. Claim type

Default to appropriate

Claim Type, based upon

web page selection.

(Required)

2. FHA Case Number NNN-NNNNNNN

(Required)

Enter full FHA Case Number assigned

to loan, including check digit if known.

If unknown, enter “X” for check digit.

New

Claim/Correction/Comments

Select appropriate radio

button

(Required)

Select “new claim” if submitting claim

for first time. Select “Correction” if

submitting correction for previously

transmitted claim. Select “Comments”

if submitting comments only

3. Section of Act Code NNNN Enter the ADP Section of Act code

with leading zero.

4. Default Reason Code

Select appropriate default

reason from pull-down

menu

(Required)

Codes are 1-15.

2

5. Endorsement Date MM/DD/YYYY (Required)

6. Date Form Prepared MM/DD/YYYY (Required)

7. Due Date of First Payment to

Principal and Interest.

(a). Original

(b). Modified

MM/DD/YYYY for (a)

and (b).

(a). Required

(b). Not applicable

8. Due Date of Last Complete

Installment Paid MM/DD/YYYY (Required)

9. Date of Possession and

Acquisition MM/DD/YYYY (Required)

10. Date deed or assignment

filed MM/DD/YYYY (Required)

11. Date Foreclosure

Proceeding:

(a). Instituted

(b). Date of Deed

MM/DD/YYYY

(Required for Claim Type 01)

(a)Enter date foreclosure initiated if

applicable.

(b) Enter Date of Deed in Lieu if

applicable

(Optional for Claim Type 07)

12. Holding Mortgagee Number Ten numeric characters

(Required)

Enter the HUD ID for the mortgage

holder

13. Servicer Mortgagee Number Ten numeric characters (Required)

Enter the HUD ID for the servicer

14. Mortgagee Reference

Number

Up to 15 alphanumeric

characters

(Optional)

Enter mortgagee’s loan number

15. Mortgage Amount:

(a). Original

(b). Modified

NNNNNNN.NN

Numeric entry with 2

decimal places; do not

enter $ sign or commas.

(a) Required for all claim types. Enter

original mortgage amount.

(b) Not applicable.

16. Holding Mortgagee EIN (9 digits numeric)

17. Unpaid Loan Balance as of

date in block 8.

NNNNNNN.NN

Numeric entry with 2

decimal places; do not

enter $ sign or commas.

(Required)

Enter the unpaid principal balance as of

the due date of last paid installment

18. Date of firm commitment MM/DD/YYYY

19. Expiration Date of Extension

to Foreclosure/Assign MM/DD/YYYY

20. Date of Extension MM/DD/YYYY

21. Date of Release of

Bankruptcy MM/DD/YYYY

22. Is Property Vacant ? Select appropriate radio

button Must be “Yes” or “No”

3

23. Date of Approval MM/DD/YYYY

Required for Claim Type 01 if Item 22

is “No”.

Not applicable for Claim Type 07.

24. Is Property conveyed

damaged ?

Select appropriate radio

button Must be “Yes” or “No”

25. a. Date of Local HUD Office

Approval.

25. b. Certification

MM/DD/YYYY for (a)

and (b).

Required for Claim Type 01 if Item 24

is “Yes”.

Optional for Claim Type 07.

26. Type of Damage Select appropriate damage

type from pull-down menu

Required for Claim Type 01 if Item 24

is “Yes”.

Not applicable for Claim Type 07.

27. Recovery or Estimate

NNNNNNN.NN

Numeric entry with 2

decimal places; do not

enter $ sign or commas.

Required for Claim Type 01 if Item 24

is “Yes” and Item 25 ((a) or (b))

applied.

28. Is Mortgagee Successful

Bidder ?

Select appropriate radio

button “Yes” or “No”

29. Deficiency Judgment Code Enter the Code number 1,

2, 3, 4, as appropriate.

Required for Claim Type 01.

Not Applicable for Claim Type 07.

30. Authorized Bid Amount

NNNNNNN.NN

Numeric entry with 2

decimal places; do not

enter $ sign or commas.

(Required for Claim Type 07)

31. Mortgagee Reported

Curtailment Date MM/DD/YYYY

33. Mortgagor Name

Up to 22 alpha characters

allowed for combined last

and first name.

(Required)

33. Mortgagor/Co-Mortgagor’s

SSN NNN-NN-NNNN

(Required)

Enter social security number(s) with

dashes.

33. Property Street Up to 19 alphanumeric

characters (Required)

33. Property City Up to 18 alpha characters (Required)

33. Property Address: State Select state from pull-down

menu (Required)

33. Property Zip Code 5 digits plus 4 digits (Required)

First 5 digits required.

Contact Information:

Phone

Numeric.

3 digit area code, 7 digit

phone number (omit dash).

Extension of up to 4 digits,

(Required)

Enter phone number of mortgagee

contact. Include area code and

extension, if applicable. Do not include

4

if applicable. dashes.

Contact Information:

Name

Alphanumeric characters,

up to maximum of 20.

(Required)

Enter name of mortgagee contact.

Mortgagee Comments Alphanumeric characters,

up to maximum of 420. (Optional)

Error Messages and Warnings:

When you click on the SUBMIT button, the data will be edited. The data will first be

edited item by item, independent of any link with HUD’s database (Client-side edits). If

an error is detected, editing will stop at that point and an error message will be displayed.

The two types of messages that may result from this editing are:

1. Error messages that will not allow further processing until data is fixed.

2. Warning messages that raise a question about data, but do not prevent user

from sending it as is.

These warning messages offer two choices: “Cancel” to return to data element and fix it

or “OK” to allow data to remain as is and continue with transmission.

When the claim data successfully passes these edits and is submitted, another series of

edits, using links with HUD’s database, are applied (Server-side edits). These edits

verify that the user is authorized, that the mortgagee information on the claim matches

HUD’s records, and that the loan is insured.

Error messages and explanations:

Client-side edits requiring correction of data before claim can be submitted:

(Self-explanatory. Many concern formatting requirements)

Claim Type

“Claim Type must be 01 or 07”

FHA Case Number

“Case Number cannot be null”

“Valid Case Number format is nnn-nnnnnnn“

“Check Digit Error”

Section of Act Code

“Section of Act must be numeric”

Default Reason Code

“Default Reason Code is not selected”

Endorsement Date Related

5

General Date Edits

“Endorsement Date cannot be greater than Current Date”

Date Form Prepared Related

General Date Edits

“Date Form Prepared cannot be greater than Current Date”

Due Date First Payment to Principal and Interest Related

General Date Edits

“Original First Payment Date cannot be greater than Current Date”

Due Date of Last Complete Installment Paid Related

General Date Edits

“Last Payment Date cannot be greater than Current Date”

“Last Payment Date cannot be less than First Payment Date”

“Due Date of Last Complete Installment cannot be greater than Current Date”

Date of Possession and Acquisition of Marketable Title Related

General Date Edits

Date Deed or Assignment Filed Related

General Date Edits

Date Foreclosure Proceeding Related

General Date Edits 11a & b

Claim Type 01 — “Foreclosure Instituted or Deed in Lieu Date cannot be greater

than Current Date”

Claim Type 07 — General Date Edit 11a (11b must be blank)

Holder Related

“Holding Mortgagee Number is missing”

“Holding Mortgagee Number must be numeric”

“Holding Mortageee Number must be 10 characters”

Servicer Related

“Servicer Mortgagee Number is missing”

“Servicer Mortgagee Number must be numeric”

“Servicer Mortgagee Number must be 10 characters”

Mortgagee Reference Number Related

“Mortgagee Reference Number contains illegal character(s)”

Mortgage Amount Related

“Amount cannot be negative or zero”

“Invalid characters in Original Mortgage Amount”

“Original Mortgage Amount is missing”

6

Holding Mortgagee EIN

“Must be 9 digits, numeric”

Unpaid Loan Balance Related

“Invalid characters in Unpaid Loan Balance”

“Unpaid Loan Balance is missing”

Date of Firm Commitment Related

General Date Edits

Expiration Date Related

General Date Edits

Extension Related

General Date Edits

Date of Release of Bankruptcy Related

General Date Edits

Date of Approval Related

General Date Edits

Is Property Conveyed Damaged?

“Must be Yes or No.”

Date of Local HUD Office Approval Related

General Date Edits

Type of Damage

“Damage Type is not selected.”

Recovery or Estimate

“Must be valid numeric”

Deficiency Judgement code

“Must be 1 through 4”

Authorized Bid Amount

“Must be valid numeric”

Mortgagee Reported Curtailment Date

General Date Edits

Mortgagor Related

7

“Mortgagor Last Name is missing”

“Mortgagor First Name is missing”

Mortgagor/Co-mortgagor SSN Related

“Mortgagor’s SSN is missing”

“Invalid SSN length; SSN must be in NNN-NN-NNNN format”

“Invalid characters in SSN; SSN must be in NNN-NN-NNNN format”

“Invalid SSN; SSN cannot be 000-00-0000 or 999-99-9999”

“Invalid SSN format; SSN must be NNN-NN-NNNN format”

Property Address Related

“Property Street is missing”

“Property City is missing”

“Property State must be selected”

“Property Zip Code is missing”

“Property Zip Code must be numeric”

“Property Zip Code must be 5 digits”

“Property Zip Code Extension must be numeric”

“Property Zip Code Extension must be 4 digits”

Contact Info Related

“Contact Phone Number must be entered”

“Area Code must be 3 digits”

“Contact Phone Number must be 3 + 7 = 10 digits”

“Area Code must be numeric”

“Contact Phone Number must be numeric”

“Extension must be numeric”

“Contact Name must be entered”

Mortgagee Comments Related

“Comments must be entered (for Comments Only transmissions)”

Date Related

“Field Name + must be entered”

“Year cannot be null”

“Year must be 4 digits”

“Year must be numeric”

“Month cannot be null”

“Month must be numeric”

“Month must be between 01 and 12”

“Days cannot be null”

“Invalid day”

“Day must be numeric”

“Day must be between 01 and 31”

“Day must be between 01 and 30”

“Date cannot be earlier than 1950”

8

Client-side Warnings

“You will lose all the fields entered if you proceed. Do you wish to continue?”

“Original First Payment Date should be first of the month !! Choose CANCEL to

fix or OK to continue”

Server-side Errors

Connection Related

Database Error Encountered – Try Again Later

IMS Database Error Encountered – Try Again Later

IMS PSB Error Encountered – Try Again Later

ZZZ; Pipe Error – Try Again Later

Access Authorization Related

Unauthorized User; Please Leave

Not Actively Authorized

Not Authorized for Claims Input

“Unmatched Agency”

Neither the holder or servicer on the claim match the mortgagee ID under which

the user is registered

“You have already submitted this claim today. If you have made any corrections since

then, submit a correction claim (Note: the original claim will be ignored).

Filed under: CDO, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Response to Cat: Why Hold Onto an Upside Down Investment?

Posted on April 23, 2008 by Neil Garfield

Mortgage Meltdown: Cat Writes:

cat

All good but why would I want to keep paying on a house that I owe $450,000 that is only worth $325,000 at best.

From HUD RELEASES TIPS FOR AVOIDING FORECLOSURE, 2008/04/22 at 9:42 PM

EDITOR’S RESPONSE:

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS YOU WOULD WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE HOUSE — MONEY AND STRESS. Using the procedures and substantive claims addressed here it is POSSIBLE to get the mortgage note down to something considerably less than the value of the house.

The violations of TILA and other claims (including fraud) gives you a leg up on a complete refund of all the interest and points you paid, plus the down payment and improvements you made to the house, and a refund of the difference between what the house was really worth in fair market value and what it was stated to be worth.

Put all that together in a settlement (rather than a trial) and you can end up with a mortgage that is perhaps 50% of true fair market value, with your payments down by as much as 75%+ per month. 

Whether you offer an olive branch to the lender/investor of participating in the upside (an honest increase in the fair market value of the home) so that they recover some of their investment when you sell or refinance, is up to you. We would suggest that you offer that inasmuch as it is more likely to lead to settlement.

 

Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, inflation, Investor, Mortgage, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

HUD RELEASES TIPS FOR AVOIDING FORECLOSURE

Posted on April 21, 2008 by Neil Garfield

HUD RELEASES TIPS FOR AVOIDING FORECLOSURE
Information aimed at helping more homeowners stay in their home

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released its top 10 tips for homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

“These guidelines will assist homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage and could be threatened with foreclosure,” said HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. “We want to encourage homeowners to take action and use every resource available so that they can get control of their finances and stay in their home.”

If you are unable to make your mortgage payment:

1. Don’t ignore the problem.

The further behind you become, the harder it will be to reinstate your loan and the more likely that you will lose your house.

2. Contact your lender as soon as you realize that you have a problem.

Lenders do not want your house. They have options to help borrowers through difficult financial times.

3. Open and respond to all mail from your lender.

The first notices you receive will offer good information about foreclosure prevention options that can help you weather financial problems. Later mail may include important notice of pending legal action. Your failure to open the mail will not be an excuse in foreclosure court.

4. Know your mortgage rights.

Find your loan documents and read them so you know what your lender may do if you can’t make your payments. Learn about the foreclosure laws and timeframes in your state (as every state is different) by contacting the State Government Housing Office.

5. Understand foreclosure prevention options.

Valuable information about foreclosure prevention (also called loss mitigation) options can be found on the internet at www.fha.gov.

6. Contact a non-profit housing counselor.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds free or very low cost housing counseling nationwide. Housing counselors can help you understand the law and your options, organize your finances and represent you in negotiations with your lender if you need this assistance.

7. Prioritize your spending.

After healthcare, keeping your house should be your first priority. Review your finances and see where you can cut spending in order to make your mortgage payment. Look for optional expenses-cable TV, memberships, entertainment-that you can eliminate. Delay payments on credit cards and other “unsecured” debt until you have paid your mortgage.

8. Use your assets.

Do you have assets-a second car, jewelry, a whole life insurance policy-that you can sell for cash to help reinstate your loan? Can anyone in your household get an extra job to bring in additional income? Even if these efforts don’t significantly increase your available cash or your income, they demonstrate to your lender that you are willing to make sacrifices to keep your home.

9. Avoid foreclosure prevention companies.

Many for-profit companies will contact you promising to negotiate a loan work out with your lender. While these may be legitimate businesses, they will charge you a hefty fee (often two or three month’s mortgage payment) for information and services your lender or a HUD approved housing counselor will provide for free if you contact them. You don’t need to pay fees for foreclosure prevention help-use that money to pay the mortgage instead.

10. Don’t lose your house to foreclosure recovery scams!

If any firm claims they can stop your foreclosure immediately if you sign a document appointing them to act on your behalf, you may well be signing over the title to your property and becoming a renter in your own home! Never sign a legal document without reading and understanding all the terms and getting professional advice from an attorney, a HUD approved housing counselor or trusted real estate professional.

To find out more about HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and their services, please visit www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hcc/hcs.cfm or call toll free (800) 569-4287 on weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time). The same number can give you an automated referral to the three housing counseling agencies located closest to you.

-###-

HUD is the nation’s housing agency committed to increasing homeownership, particularly among minorities; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development, and enforces the nation’s fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov.

 

 

Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, inflation, Investor, Mortgage, politics | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: