Predatory Loan Modifications
“Yes Virginia……………… there is a Predatory Loan Modification.”
For three years, the US has been subjected to all manner of communications from the government, the media, and lenders about loan modifications. For two years, I have, with increasing frequency, been reviewing actual loan modifications granted to borrowers, and loan modification offers. Over the past six months, I have been doing exams with paperwork included about loan modifications. And March 30, I wrote an article about the results of the HAMP loan modifications.
With what I have learned and know, it is time to finally put words to paper (or to the internet) about what is really going on. If attorneys and homeowners are going to fight to save homes, it is time to present to all the facts concerning the loan modifications efforts and offers. Many have seen portions or parts of the whole, but few have actually put it all together. Some have actually used the term Predatory Loan Modification, but they have applied it to companies that were trying to scam homeowners, by offering to negotiate loan modifications for homeowners, but with no real intent. It was those companies that resulted in SB-94 in California being enacted, with a lot of help from the banks, and that put loan modification companies out of business, and stopping large number of attorneys from engaging in loan modification efforts.
Predatory loan modifications come in many disguises and may include the actual offer, or just the negotiations of the loan modification. The purpose of the modification is to whether now or in the future, to cause the borrower to lose the home. It has no other purpose than that. I shall endeavor to explain many different ones, and then I shall offer an insight into where the next “Battle for California” and the rest of the US must take place.
Same Rate – Higher Payment-Taxes Included
Throughout 2008, this was the most common Predatory Loan Modification. It was seen quite often with Sub-Prime loans, but other loans as well. It is still seen today.
The modification featured an interest rate which was the same as the current rate, but a higher monthly payment. The payment increased because arrearages were packed onto the back of the loan which resulted in the payment increasing. To add insult to injury, taxes were included as well.
The net effect of this “modification” was to induce the borrower to walk away from the home because they knew that the payments could never be made. Those that did accept the modification would end up losing the home anyway, since they could not make the payments.
Forbearance Disguised as a Loan Modification
A common practice used in 2008 and also today is to present a borrower with a letter identifying a “loan modification” offer. The terms of the offer are for a period of time, usually from 4 months to a year, whereby the borrower will usually bring in a lump sum to pay a portion of the arrears, and then over a period of time, make higher monthly payments to “catch up” a portion of the arrears and at the end of the term, bring the loan up to date. The lure of this program is that it implies that successful completion would result in a loan modification.
The fact of the matter is that I have NEVER seen one of these plans result in a successful modification. Once the payments are made, the lender denies the modification and demands the arrearages. When the borrower can’t pay, the lender forecloses. With this program, the borrower has “proven” that he could make the payments, so there is no need to modify, in the minds of the lender.
America’s Servicing Company, aka Wells Fargo, is famous for this program.
Option ARM Loan Modification
This is a different loan modification that I have seen offered numerous times, often by First Federal of Ca. The client is in an Option ARM mortgage.
First Federal contacts the borrower, offering to modify the loan. The modification will put the borrower into a 30 or 40 year fixed rate mortgage. The problem is that the interest rate will be 5.5%. In fact, they told a friend that 5.5% was the lowest that they could go by law. This was a portfolio loan that they owned.
Review of the loan revealed that at the time of the offer the borrower was in a loan with a 2.45 Margin. With the Index at 1%, this meant that he was paying a 3.45% interest rate. First Federal would modify his loan to 5.5%, over 2% higher than what he was currently paying. Of course, it resulted in the borrower declining the offer.
BTW, under the FDIC program, the borrower could have been offered down to 3%, and not 5.5%. Glad to see First Federal gone, but since OneWest took them over, it will be just as bad.
Lower Rate – Two Year Term
This is a common offer. With it, the interest rate will be lowered for a two year term, and as low as 2%. However, after two years, the modification ceases and the loan program returns to its original terms. Of course, this only delays the inevitable.
World Savings Modification
World Savings had a “wonderful” modification program. They would contact a borrower and offer a modification for $299. The offer generally dropped the interest rate by .5%. This lasted for one year. At the end of the year, World would contact the borrower with another modification offer. This offer would cost the borrower $499, and would last a year.
HAMP
Surprised to see HAMP in this list? Why should you be? The lenders and Treasury administer the program.
HAMP modifications offer to qualified borrowers a modification of the loan terms. The terms allow for an interest rate as low as 2%, for five years. After the fifth year, the rate will increase by 1% yearly, until it reaches the Freddie Mac rate at the time of the modification. This is usually about 5%. There it stays until the loan is paid off. Other terms are available with the modification, but to keep things simple, I shall not bother with those terms.
Sounds great with this modification, but here is the catch. I recently evaluated the HAMP program and found that the Mean Debt Ratio for all loans as of Feb 2010 was 59.8%. For March, this Debt Ratio was 61.3%. For the non-lending reader, this means the following:
• If a homeowner has a $10,000 per month Gross Income, and he has a great accountant and tax guy, he is in a 33% bracket for Federal and State Taxes, Social Security, Disability and other Deductions.
• After deductions, his income is $6,667 per month, take home pay.
• Subtract out the 61.3% Debt Ratio and he has $537 per month to live on.
• From the $687, he must cover food, fuel, utilities, medical insurance, clothing, phone, cable and other miscellaneous expenses. And, if he has several children, these expenses continue to mount.
Take into consideration now that the Mean Debt Ratio is the midpoint. 50% of all HAMP mods are over that Debt Ratio, and 50% are under. Subprime loans were for the most part a 50% Debt Ratio, and HAMP is approving them at 61.3% and above. Plus, how many are between 50% and 61.3%, we do not know.
The borrowers are going to face a decision relatively early in the payment process. Do they continue to make the loan payment, and end up having to stop making payments on all consumer debt? Or do they abandon the home, and pay consumer debt? Or do they just file bankruptcy and walk away from everything.
The end result is that most if not all of these modifications will likely fail.
Modification Negotiations That Are Denied at the Last Moment
For the purpose of this article, this is the last Predatory Loan Modification that I will present for review. It is one that I am constantly hearing about.
This Predatory Lending Modification never gets offered. It is all about the process of the modification, attempting to fulfill the requirements of the loan modification process. Common complaints of the process include the following:
• Lost paperwork and faxes
• Never enough paperwork
• Unkept promises
• Paperwork never sent to the borrower
• Trial modification offers but never payment offers for the trial
• Trial modification payments made but the modification is denied
• Modification denied before a trial can start
• Trial payments made, but then the “investor” denies the modification.
The end result is that trial modifications are either never entered into, or if they are, then they are denied at the last moment and foreclosure quickly occurs from there. The common theme in these attempts is a lack of “intent” to do a modification.
The continuing stories being told about the lack of cooperation among lenders and servicers to offer loan modifications led me to pursue the reasons for such behavior. There had to be a common cause, if it could be found. viagra soft tabs Eventually, I found the root causes and it was dependent upon two different issues.
Advances
The first limiting factor in whether a servicer will offer a loan modification is based upon the concept of “Advances”. When a borrower misses a payment, the servicer must “Advance” that payment to the Trust to ensure the payment stream. Only at such time as the loan is determined to be unrecoverable can the “Advances” stop.
The only way that the servicer can recover the advances is one of three ways:
• Offer a forbearance whereby the borrower brings in money upfront for arrearages, then makes a few payments, and then brings in the rest due. (This is America’s Servicing Company’s initial offer.) Of course, if the borrower had that type of money, then they would not be in foreclosure.
• Check the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to see if arrearages can be “tacked” onto the end of the loan and the servicer can recover the advances upfront. If not, they foreclose. ( I have a copy of a Deposition that the servicer foreclosure expert declares just that.)
• Foreclose, and sell the property where they take the advances right off the top of the proceeds.
When the modification is requested by the borrower, the servicer will immediately check to see if there is any ability to recover the advances other than foreclosure. If not, they decide to foreclose. But, what is even worse, the servicer will engage in trial modification actions, usually providing a trial modification whereby the borrower will make payments to the servicer. These payments are less than what is owed, so they are placed into “suspense” whereby the payments are not credited to the account. When the lender denies the loan and forecloses, the payments are kept to offset the advances until the home is finally sold.
This benefits the servicer by allowing them to collect payments, and uses up time until the foreclosure can occur, but also denies the borrower the ability to hire an attorney to aggressively fight the servicer. Furthermore, it removes from the borrower money that will be needed to find a new place to live. (There is possible legal actions to consider which I will address further on.)
The second limiting factor is whether the servicer can in fact offer a loan modification to a borrower.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA)
The PSA governs what can and can’t happen with regard to the servicing of a loan. It specifically details what can occur when a loan is in default or is facing default. Loan modification is one option covered.
Dependent upon the wording of the PSA, a loan modification may not be possible. It may not be authorized or it may restrict the ability to offer a modification by stating that such a modification may be offered, only if the loan is purchased back from the investor for the full balance due. Obviously, a servicer will not purchase back a defaulted loan that is “underwater” so they will refuse the modification, saying that the PSA does not allow for modifications.
The servicer knows immediately what the PSA says with regard to loan modifications. Do they immediately deny the modification? No, instead they engage in “sham” negotiations, requesting paperwork, financials and other documentation while wasting time until they can foreclose on the property. Often, they are accepting trial payments, knowing full well that the modification will be denied. Again, it is simply a way of recovering money.
What to do?
At this point, hopefully the reader and the attorney will begin to understand what I mean by Predatory Loan Modifications. I have attempted to show the issues with these modifications, and have spent several months attempting to determine an effective way to fight the servicers. Along the way, I have learned much, and I have also seen some actions filed against servicers, but because the attorneys did not understand the entire lending and modification process, gaping holes were left in the arguments.
The key to fighting the servicers on the modification issue is to attack the modification process, and show lack of intent to engage in a loan modification. In the case of Indymac/One West, you walk into court backed up by a PSA stating that the servicer could not do a modification without buying a defaulted and underwater loan from the lender. Then, you present a quote from Sheila Bair, head of FDIC, saying that Indymac PSA’s do not allow for loan modifications.
At that point, you are not done. You show the Deposition from an Indymac foreclosure expert that states their key determining factor is whether OneWest can recover “advances” from a PSA, and if it is not possible, they foreclose without regard for anything else.
Finally, you back up your arguments showing the communications between the servicer and the borrower, and showing that their modification actions were “sham” negotiations.
Oh, by the way, I have two court rulings, one in California and one being a 5th Circuit decision that states if a lender engages in loan modification negotiations with no intent to actually do a modification, it is fraud.
Think you can make a Court take notice with this type of an argument?
Summary
I have now presented the case for Predatory Loan Modifications and how this is the next stage in the “Crusade for Homeowners”. No longer can the fight be regarding TILA/RESPA where homeowners lose daily. Lenders know how to fight that. Nor can it be the foreclosure process, which only delays a foreclosure.
I propose that you fight the lenders based upon three significant issues:
• Fraud in the origination of the loan at various levels, and using an Agency/Assignee Liability argument to implicate both the lender and the broker. My Predatory Lending Exams show the way.
• Fight the Foreclosure Process so as to delay the foreclosure and to allow time to present actions based upon Predatory Loan Modifications. (BTW, were you aware that CA CC 1095 in California requires that in any Assignment of Deed of Trust signed as Attorney In Fact requires that the party being acted for be disclosed, or the document is void? I see this error quite often.)
• Fight the Lack of Intent in Loan Modification Negotiations.
Now, as a personal and “shameful” plug for LFI, I would wager to say that you have seen nothing like this presented before. That is because most so-called audit firms have not got a clue about what they are doing. They simply buy TILA/RESPA software so as to determine if the disclosure requirements were met. They have NO UNDERSTANDING of Predatory Lending and what can be offered by competent persons doing such exams.
Furthermore, these people have not stepped into a courtroom, testified in front of a judge, or attended a Settlement Hearing. They cannot know what is important and what is not.
None of these firms have ever thought of the concept of Predatory Loan Modifications.
I spend my days and nights, thinking and living what is happening. I have had to make the hard decisions, and I understand what others are going through. Therefore, this is more than just about being a business.
The reality is that using the same arguments that attorneys are using now, foreclosure arguments and TILA/RESPA, we are only delaying foreclosures. And the banks are winning. Now is the time to consider different tactics, including those regarding Predatory Loan Modifications.
Also, we need to put together cohesive Class Actions which are based upon easily identified classes that have sympathetic Class Members. I have two in mind right now, if the right firm will step up to the plate. (Yes, I do understand the issues regarding Class Actions, and I have tailored the Actions to meet those concerns. If you are an attorney that is interested in my proposals, please call. I WANT to talk with you.)
If anyone personally and professionally knows city and county politicians who have “cajones”, please call me. The cities and counties across the country are facing increasing budgetary concerns. I have been attempting to show cities and counties in CA that they have lost tremendous amounts of money from transfer taxes and recording fees, but the politicians just have no clue as to what I am referring to. What I propose is that with the right politician leading the way, we have the cities and counties attack the MERS and Securitization process regarding the avoidance of Assignments. The cities and the counties have the resources to fight this together that individual attorneys do not have. This could lead to millions in fee recovery, and better yet, a good ruling would then allow all attorneys to “piggy-back” off the lawsuits, and maybe could expose the issues with Securitization and Legal Standing.
A final thought about another tactic that I discussed with an attorney last week, and his comments were favorable. Even the lenders have limited resources. I know this because I regularly get comments from attorneys where they have gone to court and the lender’s counsel has failed to show.
Why not conduct an action whereby attorneys from all 50 states target one lender per month. Imagine the first week of a month, 500 lawsuits filed against a single lender for Predatory Lending. Lenders do not have the resources to react in a timely manner to such an action. Some lawsuits are bound to slip by to the next stage. Sure, like Countrywide, the lender might try to have them all consolidated into one action. But, that takes time, and Predatory Lending Actions do not easily offer the opportunity for consolidation. It may be wishful thinking, but at this point, why not try it?
(Patrick Pulatie is the CEO of Loan Fraud Investigations. He can be reached at 925-238-1221, patrick@loanfraudinvestigations.com. His website is www.loanfraudinvestigations.com. Articles written by him can be viewed on www.iamfacingforeclosure.com. Patrick is not an attorney and does not give legal advice.)
Further to my comment of 9 August 2016, unlike the old Bank Rate system with its high interest rates, Quantitative…
Comment by Patrick Pulatie on 2 August 2010:
Marta,
I don’t deal with the lenders and I can’t give out advice. You need to speak with an attorney.
Haskins is good. In LA is a really good securitization attorney.
Norberto Reyes
213-382-6600
Comment by Don in San Diego, CA on 9 August 2010:
I am in the same boat as everyone else. CountryWide/BofA foreclosed on me while considering my loan modification for HAMP. They were dancing with me for four months, and I had a law group assisting me also. They snuck around the back door while they were performing a forensic audit and then foreclosed so quickly their negotiators didn’t even know as they were still trying to negotiate with me until I told them that I received a letter of foreclosure, then they were like, huh?, and then ended negotiations. I have a lawsuit that has been going along for almost a year now. The Judge has been ruling against the lender attorney’s demurrer, etc, motion to quash, blah blah. If anyone is interested in helping with my case, or joining in, it is in the Superior Court of California, Case No.: 37-2009-00102278-CU-BC-CTL.
Comment by Troy Kent on 26 August 2010:
Hello Marta, I noticed that you have used or are using the services of Aron Rofer in Aliso Viejo. You also asked for a recommendation of a San Diego lawyer. I was wondering: Were you asking for a SD attorney because you are not happy with Mr. Rofer or strictly for the sake of convenience since you live in San Diego? Also, if you wouldn’t mind, did you ever get through to Mr. Haskins’ office, and, if so, what do you think of them so far? I was recently referred to Mr. Rofer, but I have not scheduled an appointment yet. I live in Orange County, but I would be happy to travel the extra distance if Mr. Haskins is better. I just went through the acute aggravation of six months of trying to deal with Chase on my own and will not do that ever again. Thanks, Troy
Comment by bryan booren on 7 September 2010:
right on Pat, lets get the banksters and there buddys on the hill. I got chuck in seattle new to this action butt he can see the picture.we are all in school on this one,some longer than others.we have filed a suit,and need more of your support.thanks so far for audit , pulled the cat out of the bag.every american needs to see the real picture . THANKS AGAIN PAT.
Comment by Deborah Bean on 9 September 2010:
Dear Fellow Americans, My husband was injured at work almost two years ago and denied workers comp. He has worked for American Airlines 20 yrs. We have been in our home almost 10 years. Shortly after his injury I couldn’t continue financially supporting our household and my restaurant, which was only three years old. Citimortgage has strung us along for over a year and even requested money for escrow which we gladly paid. They refused for two different modifications, the last was a HAMP. They told us we were declined and sent us a letter of default. I noticed that the amount they say we are in default doesn’t include the reduced payments made. Apparently none of which was applied to escrow. Well we contacted them the other day to discuss a short sale and they said have considered us for another loan mod.. We feel like the horse with the proverbial carrot dangled in front of us. We are christians and believe in doing the right things. We have been honest with them, given them every thing they ask. But their intention was never to approve us. We did not buy to make money, or buy more house than we could afford, we have been here 10 years and was always on time, even up to the first loan modification. We could have made full payments most times there after. But it may have made finances uncomfortably tight. So a year later they want to continue this game! Psalms 118:8 says It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. That is exactly what we are doing. If they want this house they can have it. We are not giving them another dime. America we have been duped. Our elite politicians, Barney Franks and Chris Dodd are responible for this mortgage mess. Now the Federal Reserve is putting the nails in the coffin. My children and grandchildren don’t stand a chance to have even half of what we have been afforded. We are losing more control of our lives thru fiscal gov’t mismanagement and individual freedoms being confiscated from us while we sleep! Pretty soon nobody will be able to own property. They will control what we eat, what we drive (if anything), where we live, how and who we worship. Wake up my friends!!! God grants us freedom, not any gov’t or man, they only guarantee oppression. Pray for America. LOVE, FAITH,HOPE,CHARITY AND PEACE.
Comment by Katerina on 16 September 2010:
Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your outstanding article. This is the first time I actually see someone analyzing the process from the right angle. Most folks want to believe there is help coming from the government or from their bank. Forgetting the old wisdom that banks only help those who don’t need help. I am in the same boat with most people on the blog. We just filed a complaint against Chase. We are accusing them of fraud in connection with loan modification. Nine months into the process after reading countless blogs it suddenly hit me, THERE IS NO LOAN MODIFICATION! This is all a scam, a game banks play waiting for the right moment to foreclose. How unbelievable, but true. The only way to get anywhere is to fight them in court. But how? Even attorneys go in the dark. I intuitively suggested predatory lending to my attorney. He did not support me on that. However if you think about the whole process it is completely fraudulent. We went through the process the first time for 8 months. Submitted and resubmitted countless documents. Finally were given a trial plan, which we completed. Just to get a denial letter three months later stating that our loan amount exceeds HAMP limits of $729,000. Like they did not know that before they put us on the trial plan! My loan amount is over $2,000,000. Give me a break Chase! When I called again to inquire about my options, Chase encouraged me to apply again. So I did, but concurrently filed a complaint. Presently waiting to see what happens. I like my attorney, however not sure if he knows what to expect. Not sure who knows. Banks deny us intelligent options when they take our modification applications, when they put us on trial plans. If I was told by Chase 12 months ago, that I am not eligible I would have made decision based on my real situation. Instead I was deceived by the bank. I was lured into this game just to find myself behind beyond return. This is fraud, deception and simply illegal on any level. I hope people can hear us, and get educated before they are too to fall victims of this legalized scam.
Are you familiar with any similar court cases? Any positive outcome recently? Really appreciate your input. Thank you. Katerina
Comment by Linda Robinson on 21 September 2010:
RE: Marta Reinoso
Hi Marta, I submitted my complaint online with the State of California Dept. of Financial Institutions (www.dfi.ca.gov). I also submitted my complaint to the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks (www.helpwithmybank.gov). Put together your complaint letter and submit it to both agencies. FYI you can upload them electronically, fax it, mail it, etc.
Comment by Carmen B on 30 September 2010:
Hi Patrick
I was dealing with us bank and the invester of my loan was freddie mac I applied for a modification on 4/09 and they said I qualifyed for the Obama mod so they put me on a 3 month trial payments for 775.00 instead of 2000.00 so at the end of the 3 months I called them to see if they wanted me to continue with the payments and they told me that I had not qualifyed after all that they had already send me a letter which I did get it after and the reason they said was the value of my house well by then they wanted me to send them the money I got behind of those 3 months plus the new payment. I did not have the money to send them so I got a letter from hope that they would help me try to work with my lender for a modification so they tried and they said I was 300 short on my income to be able to qualify for a different loan so they said to try again when that changed so my daughter started to work for the summer and they started another mod at this time I got someone to help me. He started on the end of feb. 2010 and it took them6 months but mean while i got a letter saying my home was going to be action on 7/16/10 and before the date came up they were still working on the mod and the guy requested to extend the sale date 1 more month so they did so when the next sale date was 8/17/10 3 days before they requested a letter from my daughter saying she was contributing income to the home of 600.00 and at that time she had quit to go back to school and my mom gave me a letter saying she was going to give mew 600.00 a month for expenses but before this for a couple of weeks the mod man was requesting a extension again and the invester denyed it and they forcloused and they never told me if they even acepted the letter or what never got a deniel letter the only letter I got is someone came to my home and sewrved me with a letter from freddie mac attorney for cash for keys and saying freddie mac owns your home now. I did not wanted to signe for cash for keys or to lease my home. so I made a complain to bbb and us bank send me a letter now explaining to me why they did nt give me the Obama mod because the invester of my loan did not want to lower my balance of my loan 31% to be able to keep me on the payment that they had given me for the trial. Another words they were not willing to work with me they could of put me on a higher payment but they just said no and that is i. The reason I am very upset is that I bought my home 5 years ago and I put 150000.00 down and they are worried about their investment but who cares about mine right? I would like to know if there is a lawyer you can recomend here in Los Angeles California or San Fernando Valley area. Thank you so much
Comment by nelva fajardo on 2 October 2010:
THIS QUESTION IS FOR PATRICK AND/OR ANY OF THE WELL INFORMED PARTICIPANTS OF THIS GREAT GUIDE TO THE NEW GENERATION OF MISSINFORMED HOMEOWNERS. IN REGARDS TO TODAY ON LINE NEWS WHERE BOFA, CHASE, GMAC & ALLY FINANCIAL INCS HAVE HALTED THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURE CASES AFTER IT BECAME PUBLIC THAT EMPLOYEES SIGNED DOCUMENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASES WITHOUT VERIFYNG THE INFORMATION IN THEM, ENTITIES THAT DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE, WETHER SOME OF THIS LENDERS COMPLY WITH A STATE (CA) CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW REQUIRING LENDERS TO CONTACT BORROWERS AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY QUALIFY FOR MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE, REQUIRING DOCUMEENTS TO VERIFY INFORMATION ON THE MORTGAGE, INCLUDING WHO OWNS IT. ALL THESE ALLEGED DISCREPANCYS ARE THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT AN UNINFORMED FORECLOSURE OR FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER SHOULD REVIEW IN THEIR PARTICULAR CASE.
THANKS, NEL
Comment by Linda on 14 October 2010:
Thank you Patrick for making sense of it all, especially the loan modification process that never gels.
To the readers, I have a doozy of one. I have a rental property in foreclosure and received the trustee sale notice yesterday. My tenant is opening my registered mail with confidential information in it clearly violating my privacy and mail fraud. Its clear he wrongfully obtained and used my personal data in some way that involves fraud, mail fraud or deception, for his economic gain. He then called and me and wanted to buy the property, of course much lower then it is worth, having used the information he read in my mail.
What action would you take? I don’t want to alienate the tenant. He is a good tenant with a lease. He also received the Intent to Sell property notice with no personal data on the letter.
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). This offense, in most circumstances, carries a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine, and criminal forfeiture of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense.
Schemes to commit identity theft or fraud may also involve violations of other statutes such as identification fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), or financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344). Each of these federal offenses are felonies that carry substantial penalties in some cases, as high as 30 years’ imprisonment, fines, and criminal forfeiture.
Comment by Nora on 5 November 2010:
Hi Patrick,
I just found your blog and am happy to finally stumble onto good information. Like many people in this great country of ours have found myself in financial difficulties. I filed for a modification with WAMU in 2009, and I was told to default first for 90 days, then apply again which I did. So I am 3 months behind since March of 09, but have been paying since every month. I also received a trial mod. that went on for a few months then on Christmas day of 09, I was told that I did not qualify. So I filed again, and again and again since. I tried Hope and HUD, you name it now I am with NACA home save prog. but still fighting with the Chase. They have not filed a foreclosure on my property yet, and they refuse to tell me who actually owns the note on my home. I would like to take action before it’s too late. What’s your opinion and or take on Back’s Laws when it comes to assets protections against creditors especially those who purposefully deceived the borrowers? And what attorneys knowledgeable on all areas of predatory lending here in San Diego. I understand that you recommended one to another blogger, I would appreciate any assistance in this matter. And Patrick, thank you on behalf of myself and all those who have been helped by you and to those who desperately need help,
Sincerely,
Nora
Comment by Nora on 5 November 2010:
Hi again,
I meant Black’s Law on my previous comment. Can the UCC-1 financial statement and or a Common Law Lien help home owners to secure their investments?
Thanks again
Comment by Stephen Lillis on 19 November 2010:
Hi,
I have been searching the internet and dealing with Attorneys for 3 years now for an intelligent discussion of the modification and foreclosure process.
I knew in 2008 that Wells Fargo was stringing me along. I called them on it and they recorded a default the next day. It is painful to watch the Congress and everyone else miss the point. It is fraud.
I have a lawsuit against a Mortgage Broker. I question and a suggestion. The Notary backdated the signature page of the Deed of Trust to the date when I first signed some blank Loan Docs on a High Interest, High Fee loan and demanded I sign it. I thought I was completing the loan with the ‘Financial Institution. They then attached it to another Deed which now had a ‘Beneficiary’. In other words, another lender. So there are now two Deeds with the same date! And one signature. Is backdating considered Forgery?
Also, would you consider posting a list of the documents you request when you do an audit? Or sending me that information. I am suing the 3rd Lender who foreclosed and the Senior (Big Bank #1 for Modification fraud, as you rightly call it.
I have an Attorney now who has turned my case around and am going to show him your information this Saturday.
Thanks.
Comment by Marta Reinoso on 23 November 2010:
Thank you, Linda for the info. I’ll use it and really appreciate you getting back to me.
Troy, AVID will work hard for you. We are still trying for the mod unsuccessfully but the folks there give it everything they have and they do have a strong grasp on how to deal with these banks. Good luck and keep me posted.
Comment by Petra on 3 December 2010:
Hey Patrick. I am new to this site and came upon it by chance. I had been in loan modification hell with Chase since 9/09. Did it three times because of lost documents. Was dropped in 9/10. Last payment made. Went into a Chase branch because she said it can be done through her. Submitted all the paperwork, took until now 12/3, to find out I was denied because the investor did not want to participate in the program and Chase can’t make force them. I mad as hell, I want to fight just to expose what a shady, low down company this bank is. She also told me I do not qualify for a Chase Modification either, so it is a short sale, foreclosure or catch up with higher monthly payments..lol. Is all lost at this point? Can you recommend someone in the bay area?
Comment by john on 13 December 2010:
I enjoyed this great writing project in this blog community, just continue this great piece of work!I don´t know Do you know
about friedland law center.I created this topic to share the knowledge if anyone can give me a hand, cause some time before i
was in tension regarding my loan. but when i search on the net regarding legal advice of my loan. Then i got the link of this
site. When i talk to this community then they give me a very good advice. I suggest you to if you want any moderation in your loan part then visit friedland law center. I assure this center will
give you better advice.
Comment by danoUnard on 31 March 2011:
is accutane worth it
buy accutane
dual action cleanse and accutane
Comment by Darron Dimino on 3 June 2011:
You created some beneficial points there. I did a search around the subject and found most folks will concur with
your weblog.
Comment by joan on 26 September 2011:
Patrick, thank you for the recommendation for the law office of Ronald Uy. After being completely jerked around by a Chase manager (having spent hours on the phone with them today), I called the firm this evening. Stephen Henrioulle spent a considerable amount of time on the phone with me, explaining all the possibilities regarding my mod-that-keeps-dying. I can’t say enough good things about them – it was first time I really got the straight deal. *Thank you*.
Comment by joan on 26 September 2011:
Patrick, I’d like to also thank you for your clarification of what the loan mod process is really about. In the next day or so, I’ll write up the summary of my series of phone calls to Chase, and the Kafka-esque conclusion, so I can add to the knowledge base.
I can now truly say, Chase has little to no intention of actually doing more than a few “for show” loan mods. They make a lot more money, more quickly, if the customers never go on a mod. None of my phone conversation would have made sense if I hadn’t read this blog first. Thank you.
Comment by keith on 21 February 2013:
has any heard of midpoint law group they want to charge me 3,000 to help me get a loan modification ……they are located in los,angeles