Posted by kevin on September 15, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog | 
Comments are off for this article
Almost every client that I interview has a story about how he or she was jerked around unmercifully by a servicer. Some servicers suggest that payments not be made so that the borrower can apply for a HAMP. Others “lose” paperwork more than once. Others take 7-8 payments instead of the required 3 and then deny a permanent modification.
Posted by kevin on August 21, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog | Comments are off for this article
The second shoe fell on August 9 when the Appellate Division case of Deutsche Bank, as Trustee v. Mitchell was published. This involved a mortgage foreclosure rescue scam but the decision rested on standing issues. The appellate panel followed Ford and Raftogianis and found that DB did not have standing. DB filed the complaint on May 13, 2008 in which it asserted that it was the owner of the note and mortgage but it was not until May 14, 2008 that WAMU assigned the mortgage to DB. DB then filed an amended complaint which listed the assignment.
Posted by kevin on August 1, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog | Comments are off for this article
Settlements have been all over the lot in the last 12 months. About a year ago, we were starting to see reduction in principal in cases that were open for long periods of time because they were aggressively fought. It reinforced our position that the best way to stop foreclosure was to fight foreclosure. Then, the AG’s and federal regulators started pushing principal reductions. Some of the “too big to fail” banks balked, and then we stopped seeing “reduce principal” offers.
Posted by kevin on June 21, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog | Comments are off for this article
In New Jersey, there are two approaches to fighting foreclosures in court. The first approach is the procedural approach. That boils down to whether the lender can prove standing and has complied with the Fair Foreclosure Act. The second is to reduce the amount due on the mortgage loan because of violations of the law. Usually, the violations are for common law predatory lending or violations of the Truth in Lending Act.
