Posted by kevin on March 30, 2018 under Foreclosure Blog | 
I have not posted in a few months because there was little happening of any interest to borrowers. I continue to read the “advance sheets” which have a few, what are referred to as, “unpublished” appellate decisions in New Jersey over the last couple of months. All borrower appeals were rejected.
A war story. I appeared in court in January to stay a sheriff sale. The background: Loan in 2007, foreclosure by BAC in 2009. Client was offered a modification in 2010, but the offer was withdrawn by BAC because they claimed the modification acceptance arrived late. Perhaps, the fact that the borrower does not speak, read or write English had something to do with that. The robo-signing stay in NJ put the case on hold for 8 months; however, after the stay was lifted, BAC did nothing for two years. The Clerk moved to dismiss but BAC got the case reinstated in 2014. After reinstatement, BAC once again did nothing and the case was dismissed in 2016. All the while, interest and fees are piling up. In late 2016, Bank of America filed a second foreclosure.
I became involved in 2017 just about the time that final judgment was entered. We applied for a loan modification under a so-called proprietary modification plan. That means that it is the lender’s (or servicer’s) in house mod plan. The problem was that the BOA never made public what the guidelines were for obtaining their proprietary plans. The servicer notified me that my client did not have sufficient income to obtain a modification under the investment property modification plan. I called the “point of contact” person and requested information about the plan guidelines so that I could confirm whether, in fact, my client did to qualify, and how much more income he would need to qualify. The reason was that the borrower’s son, who had substantial income, was willing to sign on the loan (which was disclosed to the servicer). Neither the point of contact person nor her supervisor, could tell me how much income was needed to qualify for the investment property mod plan. They could not (or would not) give me a copy of the plan guidelines. At BOA’s suggestion, we appealed the decision but were again rejected.
I served a QWR (qualified written request) to ascertain the plan terms and received a reply that borrower did not have sufficient income to qualify. I served a Notice of Error and the response from BOA is that they did not have to tell us the plan guidelines since it was proprietary. WTF? I once again told the servicer that the son was willing to sign on the loan and provided his income documentation. BOA refused to consider any amendment and refused to put off the sale.
The Judge heard the case, listened to my arguments and said that BOA was under no obligation to offer my client a modification. That is true, but was not the point. The point was that once a servicer or lender publicizes that it has a modification program and invites the borrowing public to apply for such a modification, it should be compelled to make public the terms for qualifying for such a program. Otherwise, we are dealing with an Alice in Wonderland situation. The Judge did not see it that way and my client lost the property.
Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by kevin on August 10, 2017 under Foreclosure Blog |
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court came down with a pro-borrower decision relating to enforcement of a modification agreement. Although this is good news for borrowers, my take is that the decision is driven by the facts of the case and may have limited application especially when applied by trial courts.
In GMAC v. Willoughby, the borrower closed a mortgage loan in February, 2006 and defaulted in June, 2006. Not good facts for a borrower going to court. GMAC foreclosed and received a final judgment. The trial court, however, stayed the sale (scheduled for September, 2009) so that the parties could go to court sponsored foreclosure mediation.
In May, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement. The mediator used the court approved form. The lender’s attorney wrote in the terms which included the borrower would pay $600 down and make trial payments of $1678. Upon payment during the trial period, a permanent modification would be offered which was final upon signing of the permanent mod agreements.
Well all the trial mod payments were made thru the end of May, 2011, but instead of a permanent mod, GMAC sent the borrower a new mod offer with a higher payment required. The borrower refused to sign the new mod, but made the higher payments and protested that the new deal was improper (to no avail). Then, in November, 2011 and then again in May, 2012, GMAC sent the borrower new modification agreements which she initially orally agreed to but she refused to sign the written agreements. However, she continued to make payments. So, GMAC (on behalf of the lender) decided to play hardball. They sent back the August, 2012 payment and the lender foreclosed. The borrower tried to enforce the May 2010 settlement agreement but the trial court said that the May 2010 agreement was provisional and not final, and the property went to sale. Note that the borrower paid over $58,000 on the May, 2010 modification agreement but apparently this fact did not move the trial court. On appeal, the appellate division affirmed the trial court.
Ms. Willoughby took the case up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered the trial court to vacate the sale and reinstate the May 2010 settlement. The legal analysis was straightforward. The Supremes found that the settlement agreement constituted a valid contract. There was an offer and acceptance and the terms were definite. To the extent that any terms were not definite, the Supremes found that since the lender’s attorney filled in the terms, any ambiguity had to be construed against the lender. This is basic statutory construction. Moreover, the agreement stated that it was a final, binding and enforceable agreement. Finally, Ms. Willoughby relied on the finality of the agreement and made over 58K of payments.
I think four factors influenced the Supreme Court’s correct decision. First, GMAC was playing it pretty fast and loose. My experience has been that this is typical of lenders and servicers in many foreclosure situations. Second, the contract terms were pretty straightforward. Third, the borrower paid over 58K, and GMAC not only played games with her but pulled the rug out from under her. Fourth, (and this surprised me), the Supremes put a fair amount of emphasis on the NJ Mediation program as a vehicle for settlement. Reading between the lines, the Supremes seemed offended that the servicer treated the mediation process in such a cavalier manner If this were a straight modification without court sponsored mediation as a vehicle, would the decision be the same.
Factors One and Two should be enough for a victory but, I believe, they did not win the day for Willougby. What clearly was more important was that Willougby, in reliance on the settlement agreement, made over 58K of payments which GMAC glomed. This shows incredible good faith on the part of the borrower (which was totally ignored by the trial and appellate courts). The wildcard in this opinion is that fact that the settlement came out of court sponsored mediation. The opinion spent pages on this fact and the policy behind mediation. Would the decision have been the same if it was a straight modification application made through the servicer? I do not know.
Posted by kevin on February 18, 2016 under Foreclosure Blog |
Took a break for awhile. Spending lots of time doing modifications and checking into causes of action under Regulation X. Also, just wrapping up a Chapter 13 (5 payments to go). Saved the house, stripped the second mortgage, and got hefty sanctions against the servicer. Now, back to foreclosures.
I lived in NJ for my entire life with the exception of college and law school. So, I have been the recipient of all those barbs about New Jersey for a long time. Enough to give you a complex. So, a couple of months ago, when I saw in a local newspaper that NJ is #1 at something, it gets my attention. Only problem is that it said that NJ had the highest rate of foreclosure cases in the US. 1 out of 171 housing units is subject to a foreclosure filing. That is more than double the national average.
Looking more at the numbers, activity is up 27% over the prior year, but new foreclosures are actually down. That means that the vast majority of the cases are winding their way through the court system.
In the past three days, I have received calls from people who are at various stages of foreclosure. All need help. One just received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose. That is at the beginning of the process. Others are facing sheriff sale in less than 10 days. Those people are at the end of the process.
The facts are that the courts in NJ have trended in favor of lenders in foreclosure matters. The Feb 1 published decision in Curcio is just another indication that borrowers have an uphill battle. The trend is most pronounced at the end of the process. Once a default is entered, it is getting increasingly more difficult to convince a judge to set aside the default and allow the borrower to go forward with his or her case. Forget about situations where default judgment is entered. Your chances of overturning a default judgment or slim- less than 5%.
So, a little advice. If you are behind on your mortgage and get a Notice of Intent to Foreclose, get in to see an attorney. You may have a case that will resonate in the foreclosure court. Or you may have a situation where a Chapter 13 bankruptcy will work. A modification should always be considered, but if you follow the mod path without addressing the foreclosure, you are setting yourself up for a potential fall.
When you are dealing with an attorney, make sure that he or she is looking at an integrated approach which will utilize all your options to get a result that will work for you.
Posted by kevin on September 13, 2015 under Foreclosure Blog |
If you have read my blog over the last few years, you know that I represent borrowers. You know that I have pointed out forcefully what lenders and servicers have done wrong. Moreover, I have pointed out my frustrations with the courts, servicers, and government.
We are in the latter stages of the mortgage crisis. It is not clear that the federal government will continue the MHA- HAMP programs for much longer. However, there are still hundreds of thousands of mortgages that are in default and those cases need to be resolved.
So, you are a borrower. You may have gone into default when your option arm mortgage had an interest rate change. You could not afford the $3500 per month new payment You may have been in default for 2 or 2 1/2 years. Then, you were able to get a modification at $2800. Not a great deal, but it was better than being thrown out on the streets. You paid that for a year, but have not made any mortgage payments or real estate tax payments or insurance payments since the beginning of 2012. That comes out to more than $200,000 of payments that you have not made over the years and you still have a roof over your head.
Whoa! That does not sound too empathetic. But that is how most chancery judges in NJ are going to look at you. Chancery is the old equity court. Equity, they tell us, tries to balance the pro’s and con’s of a case to come out with a just decision. On the one hand, you, the borrower, took 200K, 400K, 600K and did not pay it back. On the other hand, the bank has shoddy paperwork or fudged your income (usually with the borrower’s knowledge). Does that mean you get a free house? That is tough for a judge to swallow.
Many of the procedural defenses such as standing in securitized trusts and violations of the Fair Foreclosure Act are no longer bases for relief. Potential clients call all the time and tell me that they were the victims of predatory lending because they were given a mortgage that they could not afford except by looking to the collateral. That is a primary definition of predatory lending under the federal regs and OCC guidelines, but it generally falls on deaf ears in court. In NJ, we have three published opinions (and a few more unpublished opinions) dealing with predatory lending and consumer fraud violations. One deals with a black family in Newark. The other deals with a Hispanic person on a modification. The third deals with an 83 year old woman who lost her house in a scam involving a contractor that took back a mortgage on her property to finance the installation of new aluminum siding.
What do these cases have in common? They all involve taking advantage of unsophisticated people who did not have a lawyer. Moreover, those unsophisticated people were either minorities or old people. In other words, in practical terms, it appears there is a demographic element to the way the law of predatory lending/consumer fraud is applied in NJ. Now, I do not believe that is a proper interpretation of what predatory lending is, but that is how it applied in NJ.
Each week, I have people call me and state that they are victims of predatory lending and/or they were jerked around by servicers in modification applications or they were scammed by a Florida or California outfit in the modification. They want me to guarantee that if I take their case, they will not be foreclosed on, or guarantee that there will not be a sale after judgment, or guarantee that they will get a modification that they deem affordable. And while you are at it, could you keep your fees low because money is an issue.
Neither I nor any other attorney can make such assurances except as follows: if you repay all arrearages before final judgment, your mortgage will be reinstated. Moreover, if you file bankruptcy, the foreclosure action will be stayed for a limited period of time in a Chapter 7 and could be effectively stayed for 5 years in a Chapter 13 if you make all required payments going forward including your current mortgage payments and all arrearages. Short of that, no guarantees.
What we can do is explain to you your defenses and come up with a strategy to defend the case through trial and possibly appeal. We can review your modification applications or put together a new one. We can analyze whether there are any violations of the Dodd-Frank regulations. We can analyze whether Chapter 13 makes sense for you. And we can tell you the approximate cost for each type of service. But we cannot pull rabbits out of hats no matter how much we would like to.
So, be realistic when you seek legal counsel.
Posted by kevin on June 19, 2015 under Foreclosure Blog |
For what appears to be the up-teenth time, the OCC has imposed sanctions on 6 servicers for assorted violations relating to modifications including failures a)to respond to requests for information, b)to make good faith effort to prevent foreclosure in the first place and c) to track existing modification applications.
Wells Fargo and HSBC got one thump across the buttocks in that they are prohibited from acquiring servicing rights, entering into new servicing contracts, and banned from offshoring servicing rights. In addition, these banks need OCC approval to hire senior mortgage servicing officers.
JPMorgan Chase, US Bank, Santander Holdings and Everbank got slaps on the wrist. They also must get OCC approval to hire senior staff and must also get OCC approval to buy servicing rights, enter into new servicing contracts, outsourcing servicing rights and offshoring servicing rights.
Either the banks/servicers have become immune to punishment or the punishment is too lenient because I have not seen any real downturn in unlawful activities notwithstanding the continued crackdown.
I am reminded of a client that I had in a shareholder dispute. She could not resist blurting out her opinion about witness testimony during the trial. The Judge became more than a little upset. He held her in contempt and fined her $100. The Judge shot me a look right afterwards indicating that he had put the fear of God into her. Well, my client was humbled for the rest of the day. Then, the next day, she started commenting again. The first transgression got a warning. However, I knew that the warning was falling on deaf ears because while my client was yessing the Judge, she was getting her checkbook out of her pocketbook. By the last day of a 6 day bench trial, she was held in contempt 3 or 4 times and warned about a dozen other times. Clearly, $100 was not enough of a fine to change her behavior.
OCC is just chastising these banks. The punishment makes for a good press release but the offenders will find a way around the sanction. So, the laws will continue to be violated to the detriment of the consumer public. Only when some bank or better yet bank executive gets his ass kicked by the regulator with a loss of employment or incarceration will the situation get better. Unfortunately, that ain’t gonna happen.
Posted by kevin on November 27, 2014 under Foreclosure Blog |
I have been quite vocal concerning how the current Administration sold out the people by backing off on Chapter 13 cramdown in 2009. Instead, we got HAMP and MHA. The first few versions were just awful. Borrowers were routinely being ripped off by servicers on trial modifications;payments were made and glommed by the servicers; permanent mods were not given; and the borrower had no recourse because the courts said absent a permanent mod (and contractual relationship) the borrower had no standing to sue the servicer.
In late 2012, with HAMP version 4, I thought that we might have something. At least on paper, it seemed better than previous versions. Well, in real life, not the improvement that I expected. Why? The servicers still run the show. The government wags it finger at the servicers and tells them to fly right, but nothing substantive happens. Finally, the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the VA are not covered by the government program, MHA.
Why am I saying Happy Anniversary? I represent a elderly woman in a Chapter 13. As part of the Plan, we proposed a modification which called for capitalization of arrearages and a reduction in the interest rate to 4% escalating to 5% on the first mortgage loan to JP Morgan Chase . Junior encumbrances were to be stripped for lack of equity.
If you are familiar with HAMP Version 4, you know that the proposed mod is pretty much plain vanilla. On November 25, 2013, I sent a complete modification package to Chase to modify a note payable to JP Morgan Chase. In mid- February, 2014, the servicer (also Chase) called with good news and bad news- my application was deemed complete and was scheduled to go to underwriting, however, the servicing rights were being transferred to another servicer. I was assured that my file would be forthwith sent to the new servicer and I would have a decision right away. Guess what? I did not believe the Chase people.
It took a month to find the right servicer ( the new servicer assigned the loan to a subservicer). Then it took another month to find out who the point of contact person was. BTW, the point of contact person is very cordial and smart , but he is not running the show. By mid May, I was told that Chase had not yet sent the file to the new servicer so I had to start from scratch. I sent a complete, updated application with documents and proposal in late May.
In NJ, the Chapter 13 trustees will push to confirm plans with mods conditionally. The condition is that the debtor has to get the mod within 4 months of the confirmation or the case is dismissed. Because of the confusion with the new servicers, I was able to put the confirmation off until June. However, I had to make 3 appearances (no, they would not let me do it over the phone) to plead my case and get a lecture from the trustee for not having a mod in place. Every three weeks or so, my client gets a letter from the servicer asking for an updated whatever. Within a few days, we comply with the request(s). September comes and goes and the trustee files a notice that we are in default because we do not have a mod in place and requests that the case be dismissed. I am forced to file a written response. We have a hearing in mid-December.
The point of contact persons assured me that we would have a decision by the end of November, but nothing yet. He also tells me, for the first time, that the loan was sold to Freddie Mac so we are not operating under HAMP guidelines. In the meanwhile, the paralegal at the lender files a motion to vacate the stay because we do not have a mod as set forth in the confirmation order. Thank goodness, her boss pulled the motion.
You can’t make this shit up. To add insult to injury, I checked my time records last week to discover that I have spent more time on the modification than I did on the nuts and bolts Chapter 13 case including motions to strip. Go figure. To be continued.
Posted by kevin on April 7, 2014 under Foreclosure Blog |
The first rule is that HAMP, the government program for mortgage modifications, does not apply to government loans. If FANNIE or FREDDIE bought the loan (whether for their own portfolio or sold to investors), HAMP does not apply. We will deal with this in later blogs.
Other basics:
2. HAMP applies to first lien mortgages originated on or before January 1, 2009.
3. HAMP applies to condo’s, coop’s and manufactured housing if state lien law makes mortgage a lien on real estate.
4. The property securing the mortgage loan has not been condemned and is habitable.
5. Borrower has a documented financial hardship and does not have sufficient other assets to pay mortgage as currently stated.
6. Borrower agrees to escrow for taxes and insurance (if not doing already) prior to any trial period.
7. The unpaid principal balance prior to capitalization is not greater than $729,750 for 1 Unit, $934,200 for 2 Unit, $1,129,250 for 3 Unit and $1,403,400 for 4 Unit.
8. The mortgage is secured by a one to four unit property.
9. The borrower has submitted an initial package for modification on or before December 31, 2015 and the modification effective date is on or before September 30, 2016.
If you have followed my blogs, you know that I believe that HAMP is not bad on paper, but problematic in its implementation. Servicers still jerk people around, and borrowers cannot look to the courts for help unless they have a temporary modification. But, with the courts clamping down on defenses and looking the other way on evidence issues, it may be the best game in town at this point. So, look into it. Time is running out.
Posted by kevin on February 22, 2014 under Foreclosure Blog |
How can you evaluate whether you are being offered a fair modification. At a very basic level, you must ascertain that it lowers your payments enough that it is affordable to you. But the analysis should go beyond that.
Our starting point is to look at the total payments over the course of the loan pre-mod and post mod? We determine that by comparing total payments under the original loan versus your total payments under the proposed modification. This can be a little complex because a good mod may reduce interest, suspend interest, increase the term, capitalize arrearages with a balloon payment and/or reduce principal. All these components need to be considered. I have many clients who believe that they got a bad deal because there was not a principal reduction. However, if your interest rate is reduced from 10% to 4%, that is a considerable savings over the remaining term of the loan (whether extended or not). Moreover, in cases where my clients have not received principal reduction, the servicer usually offers to capitalize arrearages, place that amount in a suspense account with 0% interest, and have that amount paid at the end of the term or at sale as a balloon payment.
Some of my clients say that is not a good deal. My answer is that it depends. Let’s look at two different scenarios. In both cases, the loan will be amortized over 25 years and the amortized amount is $200,000. In the first scenario, however, the capitalized arrearages are $200,000 while in the second scenario, the capitalized arrearages are $50,000. Remember, there is no principal reduction. The monthly payment of the amortized portion (which is your monthly payment) is the same in either scenario; that is, roughly $1056 per month for principal and interest. Taxes and insurance should be the same. So, monthly payments are the same. The glaring difference is that at the end of 25 years, Homeowner A owes the lender $200,000 while Homeowner B owes the lender $50,000. At face value, one would say that Homeowner A got the better deal, and in many cases that is the correct analysis. However, in our next blog, we are going to look at these scenarios in a little more depth. There may be more to this story.
Posted by kevin on November 23, 2013 under Foreclosure Blog |
Periodically, we have been tuning in to the negotiations between the Justice Dept and JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”). It is clear that JPMC wanted to settle to put a cap on its liabilities and to probably also to keep from the public damaging information about the types of loans it was making, servicer improprieties, and robo-signing issues (although technically part of $25 Billion settlement, chance that negative info could have come out in discovery). At any rate, this past Tuesday, the deal with the Justice Dept (which included pro-active States) was finalized for $13 Billion. Here is the breakdown:
$4 Billion to help struggling homeowners of which $2 Billion to lower principal balances and $2 Billion for other homeowner relief including lowering interest rates;
$4 Billion to FHFA for questionable loans sold to Fannie and Freddie;
$1.4 Billion to National Credit Union Administration;
$300 Million to California AG;$515 Million to FDIC;
$2 Billion to Justice Dept.
$300 Million to California AG;
$20 Million to Delaware AG;
$100 Million to Illinois AG;
$34.4 Million to Massachusetts AG; and
$614 Million to NY AG.
(Nothing for NJ because we have been less than pro-active in this fight (as we were in the Revolutionary War and Civil War- but let’s not get into that). The deal does not include a “get out of jail free” pass for possible criminal activity.
In addition, on November 15, JPMC agreed to pay $4.5 Billion to an investor group including Black Rock, Goldman Sachs Asset Management, LP and others based on sale of securities by JP Morgan and Bear Stearns.
Now, if these settlements were based on bad loans sold by JPMC to investors or Fannie and Freddie, how come the loans that backed up these securities are not viewed as equally bad? On the positive side, however, money is available for settlements. Although servicers still dance borrowers around during the modification process (and that is not going to change dramatically no matter what MHA says), we believe that Borrowers with JPMC, or Bear Stearns loans should actively pursue modification. The money is there.
Posted by kevin on March 23, 2013 under Foreclosure Blog |
New Jersey instituted a mediation program a few years back. The Courts claim that around 40% of the people who apply for mediation get some type of resolution. Now, resolution is a vague term and I do not know whether resolution = modification or can include short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure. In other words, I cannot vouch for the purported success rates claimed by the program.
That being said, two recent events impact on the mediation program. First, effective March 1, 2013, the program was de-funded. NJ was using some of its money from the $25 billion settlement to fund the mediation program. Those moneys have been used up, and not replaced by the Christie Administration. HUD counselors and ‘Free” attorneys for borrowers are no longer being paid so they stopped taking on new clients as of 2/28. My understanding is that mediators are still getting paid but that will end also. The judiciary wants lawyers to volunteer to be advocates for borrowers or mediators. One of the judges at the last Bench-Bar conference questioned how long the program will be available.
The second event is that the courts are setting time limits on applying to the program. Before, you could apply anytime before final judgment was entered. That could extend the foreclosure process for months. Now, a homeowner has 60 days from the service of the summons and complaint to file for mediation. After the 60 day period, you can get mediation only upon court order. If you read the prior blog, you will note that courts are clamping down on borrowers who are trying to set aside default judgments. The later you file your motion, the less the chance that the court will set aside the default judgment. You should expect the same treatment with getting orders to allow mediation after the 60 day window closes. In other words, the later you wait, the less likely the court will allow you to take advantage of mediation
What has not changed is that the mediation program is available to only homeowners who reside at the premises which can contain no more than three units.
What is interesting is that the federal HAMP program, as a result of the $25 billion settlement, does not allow a lender/servicer to go forward with a sale or start a foreclosure if the borrower has asked for a modification until a decision has been reached as to whether a modification will be granted. That is called double tracking. However, NJ does not seem to have any problem with double tracking since the mediation notice specifically states that a request for mediation will not stop the progress of the foreclosure action.
Posted by kevin on December 26, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog |
In the last blog, we focused on mortgage modifications and pointed out that lenders (or more probably servicers) can be less than straightforward in their dealings with borrowers or their representatives. Well, the lenders do not just jerk around the little guys; they do it across the board.
In conjunction with the AG/DOJ investigation of the mortgage industry’s servicing operations which led to the $25B settlement, the Office of Inspector General investigated servicer operations at the 5 “Too Big to Fail” Banks for the time period October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2010. The OIG report documented questionable practices used by servicers including employing foreclosure “mills” and “robosigning” sworn documents in thousands of cases.
What the reports also stated was that all five of the lenders (BOA, WF, JPM-Chase, Citi and Ally) hampered the investigation of the OIG. At Ally, the bank’s attorneys refused to allow OIG investigators to interview responsible personnel. Ally failed to produce documents in a timely manner, and when it did, Ally provided incomplete information. WF intially refused to produce 9 persons for questioning, but relented on the condition that WF management and attorneys attend the interview as facilitators.
Chase management provided explanation statements to bolster shaky testimony of employees and limited access to verifying documents. BOA attorneys refused to allow employees to answer certain questions posed by OIG, conferred with employees before they answered a question (presumably during the hearing) and did not turn over requested documents.
In addition to the stonewalling, the OIG report indicated (what everyone in NJ knows) that foreclosure law firms working for the servicers improperly prepared and signed documents.
So, if you are trying to get a modification in Bergen County and have been danced around the floor by your servicer who has led you to believe that it is your lender, just remember- the big banks have done and continue to play games with federal and state regulators. In NJ, until the distinguished judges put their foot down, the people and the judicial system both will continue to suffer at the hands of the lenders.
Posted by kevin on September 11, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog |
A while back, I reviewed the terms of the 25 billion dollar settlement with you. My conclusions were that the settlement was a big victory for servicers who were getting off the hook for a myriad of bad deeds, but that I would have to wait and see about benefits to borrowers in New Jersey.
A report recently came out from the overseer of the settlement who claims that there has been some movement across the country on reductions of principal amounts due on first mortgages. This positive news has been echoed, to a degree, by confirming posts on the listserve of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. But most of those posts came from attorneys out West.
I had not heard any news of principal reductions on first mortgages in NJ. But that does not mean that it is not happening. So, I reached out to attorneys on both sides, mediators and HUD counsellors to get an idea of what types of settlements are available. To my disappointment but not surprise, I did not hear much about modifications involving reductions in principal on first mortgages. What the lenders and their servicers are offering are deep discounts on or forgiveness of second mortgages, usually on properties that are underwater.
Big deal! Prior to the settlement, you could negotiate, without too much difficulty, a 10% settlement of underwater seconds (sometimes even lower). The second lender, you see, is not in the driver’s seat. Under New Jersey law, the second lender may sue on the Note. But lenders do not waste their money on a useless judgment if the borrower is out of work or underemployed. Moreover, aggressive pursuit of a money judgment on a second may just force the borrower into bankruptcy. If the second lender does not sue on the note, it has three choices. Buy out the first mortgage- very expensive and makes no sense if the property is underwater. Get wiped out in the foreclosure. Or try to make a deal with the borrower. So, this is one of the few situations in recent residential mortgage foreclosure where the borrower has some leverage.
Well, if it is true that lenders are forgiving seconds, that is pretty good for the borrower who is getting the deal. She is not out the few thousand dollars that would have been paid to take out the second. But is it good for the aggregate of borrowers in NJ who are looking to reduce principal and modify into an affordable loan? I question that. The lenders, cynical as ever, are forgiving 50-100K equity lines where they would have received nothing in a foreclosure. What do the lender get, then? They get credit against, in the case of NJ, the $67 million obligation under the 25 billion dollar settlement. So foregoing $5000 saves them from giving a $50,000 or $100,000 reduction in principal on a first.
Clearly, the lenders are following the letter but not the spirit of the 25 billion dollar settlement.
Posted by kevin on October 3, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog |
In the last 8 months or so, there has been little activity on the foreclosure front. The NJ Supreme Court directive slowed down foreclosures and basically stopped sales. However, most of the big lenders have now complied with the minimum standards required by the courts, and are now sanctioned to continue with the foreclosures.
The spigots are opening. Notices are going out. We can expect to see a large increase in filings.
However, when I speak with prospective clients, they are reluctant to retain counsel. Cost of representation is now an issue.
Read more of this article »
Posted by kevin on September 15, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog |
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.
Read more of this article »
Posted by kevin on August 30, 2011 under Foreclosure Blog |
Lenders are licensed in New Jersey. That means that doing business- mortgage business- is not a right but a privilege. Yes, you can make money as a lender or mortgage broker. But you have an obligation to the public, an obligation to the State.
People, even it appears sometimes judges, forget this simple fact when they are confronted with with continuing mortgage crisis. They pay lip service to the idea that there is enough blame to go around; but when it is time to pony up, only the borrower is left to face the music.
Read more of this article »
