Discussion on CA's Foreclosure Moratorium a Sham... We've B

Dud? Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 4

Freak's reply misses the big picture. Yes, to qualify for the exemption the lender needs to have the program in place. But if there is a program and the lender fails to follow it, the borrower could sue the lender and not only force a modification, but also recover attorney's fees and possibly punitive damages, as well. Alternatively, the borrower could go into bankruptcy and show the judge the lender's failure to comply. Finally, the lender's willful non-compliance with it own program will likely trigger regulatory sanctions.

The claim of lenders dictating terms is similarly inaccurate. Increasingly, lenders are closely following models such as FDIC/Obama. Moreover, where there are errors in the calculations (e.g. wrong income or value), lenders are correcting the errors and sending back better mods for my clients. Of course, the key is that borrowers need to have competent advisors to hold the lenders feet to the fire. Hence, the lender campaign to limit the availability of borrower advisors, such as SB 94.

Dud? Joined: 21 Jun 2009 Posts: 16

i respectfully disagree...
1st and foremost..
if your loan has securitized , 99% of sub prime & alt-a loans from 2004-2008 were securitized.
you will never talk to the lender.. period.
a servicer yes...the org lender...no. never..its a trust and or pool of investers... no talking head attached !
but thats not the point..
you will need to show me 1 single case where any court has fined
or found on behalf of the borrower and therefore changed the $$ amount
to reflect relief for the borrower.
please.

bill i take it by " your clients"you are a lawyer?

Dud? Joined: 10 Jul 2009 Posts: 4

Don't know figures for subprime (I did so little), but many alt-A remained in portfolio, e.g. at Lehman, Citi, WaMu. Whatever portion was securitized, it was not 99%. But you are correct that securitized loans are more difficult to mod. Some servicers (e.g. Litton) are better than others.

SB 7 just went into effect in CA in June. Too soon to have any borrowers wrongfully denied mods, gone to trial and verdict, let alone any appellate decisions. They will come. However, both the legal and mortgage media have documented thousand of borrowers who have won against lenders on a wide variety of grounds; e.g. lost note, TIL/RESPA violations, fraud, etc. Bankruptcy cases have also seen billions in principal reductions. Outside of bankruptcy, civil judgment remedies won't necessarily involve reduction of principal. But if you get a judgment that invalidates a deed of trust (but no principal reduction), how much do you think the lender would accept for a debt that is no longer secured?

The bottom line is that things are moving in the borrowers' favor. That should only be helped by today's announcement that the IndyMac mods are seeing only a 16% re-default rate. Last question - yup. Have to sign off for good now; too many borrowers to help.