Archive for December 17th, 2010
New Survey – Servicers Continue to Wrongfully Initiate Foreclosures

“We must eliminate the two-track system in which banks proceed with foreclosures while evaluating borrowers for a loan modification. Homeowners should be properly evaluated for a loan modification before a foreclosure is initiated and that evaluation should be completed before any foreclosure fees are incurred. Servicers must not be allowed to profit from improper fees and unnecessary foreclosure initiation”.
A November 2010 survey by the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) demonstrates that mortgage servicers often initiate foreclosure proceedings improperly, either while a homeowner is awaiting a loan modification or due to improper fees or payment processing.
Foreclosure Initiation During the Loan Modification Process Is Still a Substantial Problem
- Almost 99% of consumer attorneys from 34 states represent homeowners placed in foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.
- Over 15% of those respondents represent over 100 households suffering from this situation.
- Over 65% of the survey respondents stated that they represent more than 10 households who had been placed in foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.
- Over 47% of the survey respondents stated that they represent more than 20 households who had been placed in foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.
- In total, survey respondents reported representing over 2,500 homeowners placed in foreclosure while awaiting a loan modification.
The survey results demonstrate these practices are widespread.
- Over half of respondents represent homeowners who were placed into foreclosure due to misapplication of payments.
- Over half of respondents represent homeowners who were placed into foreclosure due to improper fees (e.g. late fees, broker-price opinions, inspection fees, attorney’s fees and other fees).
- Over half of respondents represent homeowners who were placed into foreclosure due to force-placed insurance.
- In total, survey respondents reported representing over 1,200 homeowners who had been placed into foreclosure due to misapplication of payments, improper fees, or force-placed insurance.
- Over 87% of the respondents represent homeowners who had been placed in foreclosure because the servicer did not properly accept the homeowner’s payments.
- Almost 90% of the respondents represent homeowners where a mortgage servicer initiated foreclosure proceedings while the homeowner was making payments as previously agreed upon.
- In total, survey respondents reported representing over 1,800 homeowners who had been placed into foreclosure despite making payments as agreed.
Full report below…
Rescission Under Fire By The Federal Reserve
Fraud, you know, is a business practice. And protecting fraud is the primary function of The Fed:
Consumer groups and industry lawyers say a rule under consideration by the central bank would make it harder for borrowers to exercise their right of “rescission,” which forces a lender to relinquish a lien on a mortgaged property. They said the number of rescissions has grown in recent years as a result of the foreclosure crisis and allegations that mortgage documents were fabricated or processed improperly.
Ken Markison, regulatory counsel at the Mortgage Bankers Association, said the change would save lenders money. “Greater clarity will help avoid unnecessary litigation and reduce costs,” Markison said.
Note the spin: “Save money” and “Reduce costs.”
Nowhere is the point made that the reason these “costs” show up is that the lender screwed the borrower in the first instance.
Rescission is powerful tool to address fraudulent lending practices; it gives the borrower the right (granted by the Truth In Lending Act of 1968) to shove a bad loan back on the lender. That is, a loan that was made where there was material misstatement or fraud on the borrower can have its security interest voided and all interest and costs removed. The borrower then can refinance with a legitimate lender who is willing to sell them legitimate money under legitimate terms, and pay off the now-unsecured debt.
The key to this is the lien release. Without it the refinance can’t happen, as there’s no collateral available to pledge for the honestly-refinanced loan.
What The Fed proposes to do is to force the principal repayment to happen before the lien is released. This effectively destroys the remedy, since without the ability to pledge the collateral for the new loan it will be impossible to obtain the new loan.
TILA and RESPA violations are one of the most-potent tools available when a consumer has been legitimately screwed. The risk of having the loan’s security interest voided and then paid at principal value only is a tremendously powerful tool to force lenders who have screwed a borrower to come to the table with a realistic and reasonable modification that cures the original breach of good faith.
As has been the practice over the last 20 years, The Fed’s position on this makes clear exactly who The Fed represents – and who it doesn’t. It also makes a mockery of the claim that The Fed “protects consumers” and “polices lenders” – if it had there would have been no housing bubble and the predatory lending practices that were rampant during the 2000s would have led to enforcement actions and criminal referrals.
Now that the bad debts are floating to the surface and stinking up the joint The Fed proposes to remove one of the tools available to those who got screwed in finding justice – in the name of “lower costs” for lenders (read: yet another attempt to keep illicitly-gained money.)
Where’s CONgress on this issue?
Under the table giving knobjobs to the banksters.
Again.
Ps: This is a refresh of a Ticker I posted on November 30th…. this issue deserves far more attention than it is receiving!







