Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Resolution Law Group Loan modifications

The Kings and Queens Loan Mod Scammers: Arizona & Nevada Sue Bank of America Over Loan Modification Program


I remember a couple of years back now, when Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard was watching his state go down the foreclosure rat hole, and he was being greeted most days by a parade of banking types who were telling him that it was they who had the answer, and certainly not the law firms and other professionals who were offering to help homeowners get their loans modified for the dreaded up front fee.
Back then, if you recall, President Obama was new in his office, and he had told us all that loan modifications were free.  He had recently given a speech, in Arizona by the way, announcing his new Making Home Affordable plan that he said would save 3-4 million homes from foreclosure, and the cheering in response was louder than at any speech I could remember.
Back then, for the most part, we all believed that Barack Obama was two things: smart, and a man of the people more than a man of Wall Street.  We believed that, although Bush’s plan to save homeowners from foreclosures was an abysmal failure, certainly Obama’s plan would not meet the same, or even similar fate.
So, when he said that loan modifications were “free,” and that all one needed to do was call the government’s toll-free hotline or, in lieu of that, their bank directly, people believed him.  And very soon, that made anyone who charged a fee to help a homeowner get their loan modified, a “scammer,” just by virtue of them charging a fee for their services.
Those that were reading me back then know that I never was comfortable drawing that conclusion.  Not that I wanted to ever see a homeowner at risk of foreclosure get ripped off, in fact that’s the last thing I’d ever want to happen.  But it never made sense to me that something like getting a loan modified would be “free”.  I mean, getting my loan in the first place wasn’t free.  And I’d never hired a lawyer or other professional for free in the past.  Why would that now be free?
Oh sure, I recognized that the government had a toll-free hotline, and in fact when Obama announced its availability, I called it myself dozens of times… and it worked about as well as I expected a government hotline to work, that is to say, not at all.
But the idea that one could simply call their bank directly and ask them to modify their loan, and that would lead to their loan being modified, never rang true with me.  I’ve tried calling my bank many times in the past, and for many reasons.  And it never had gone well.  I said recently in an article that it would be faster for me to drive to my bank to see if it’s open than it would be for me to call and find out.
Banks don’t reduce the amount of money you owe them easily… they don’t have a give-the-money-back department.  So, when Obama said call your bank directly, or that there was a government hotline available, neither option sounded better than me paying a lawyer or other professional to help me get it done.  Maybe some would call a HUD counselor, and maybe it would work out okay for them, but for me personally, I knew that I’d rather pay for the services I need, and that’s just me.
So, back then Terry Goddard was finding himself being approached on numerous occasions by bank industry people and they were all assuring him that the homeowners of his state were perfectly right to simply contact their banks directly when they needed to get their loans modified… and that would help control the growing foreclosure crisis that was fast destroying his state’s economy and the lives of countless homeowners.
So, he believed them, and he went out and told the homeowners of Arizona that they should not pay someone to help modify their loans, but rather they should contact their banks directly.  And people listened to what he said, and they followed his advice.  But it didn’t work, and in fact it became a nightmare for all who tried it his way.  And many came back to his office and said… WTF?
And Terry Goddard felt like he had been deceived.  He wasn’t exactly sure what the answer was, but he now knew that it certainly wasn’t as simple as telling folks to call their banks directly.
So, when the opportunity came up to investigate the banks as a result of things like robo-signers fraudulently signing affidavits in order to foreclose on people’s homes, came to light, Terry Goddard was one of the state attorneys general to jump in with both feet.  And this past week it was announced that the state of Arizona and Nevada are both suing Bank of America.
Is it “the” answer?  Probably not.  But is it a step in the right direction?  I think it unquestionably is.
In broad terms, Arizona’s lawsuit accuses the bank of misleading consumers.  According to Bloomberg:
“The bank is accused in the Arizona and Nevada lawsuits filed yesterday of misleading consumers about requirements for the modification program and how long it would take for requests to be decided. The bank provided inaccurate and deceptive reasons for denying modification requests, according to the suits.”


In a statement released by the office of Arizona’s Attorney General, Goddard explained that instead of working to modify loans in a timely basis, Bank of America went ahead and foreclosed on homes while the borrowers were awaiting a decision on their application for such a modification, and that violates a 2009 agreement with the state to help people who were at risk of losing homes.
Again, according to Bloomberg:
“The Arizona lawsuit, filed in state court in Phoenix, seeks a court order holding the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank in contempt for violating the agreement and requiring it to pay as much as $25,000 for each violation of the accord plus as much as $10,000 for each violation of the state’s consumer-fraud law.”
I also think it’s more than safe to assume that the announcement by Arizona and Nevada that they are suing Bank of America is the beginning of a much larger movement, and not the end.  All 50 states attorneys general are currently investigating whether the bankers have used fraudulent documents to provide the legal justification to foreclose on homes.  And that’s not the sort of investigation likely to go away quickly or without some price being paid by someone, in my view.
The Bloomberg story also quoted Bank of America spokesperson, Dan Frahm, as saying:
“We are disappointed that the suit was filed at this time.  We and other major servicers are currently engaged in multistate discussions led by Attorney General Miller in Iowa to try to address foreclosure related issues more comprehensively.”
And all I have to say to that, is that, as statements go, is it is beyond disingenuous.  No one involved believes that your bank gives a damn, Mr. Frahm.  Oh, we believe your bank is disappointed, all right, but only that it was caught, and that now someone with some legal clout is finally taking you to task and using the court system to do it.
Remember… Bank of America is one of the banks that announced that it was stopping foreclosures in the 23 judicial foreclosure states back in October, and then in all 50 states, but just a couple of weeks later announced that it had reviewed more than a hundred thousand loans and determined that everything was just fine and dandy.  Nonsense, Mr. Frahm… even a child could see through that and say… nonsense.
Bloomberg’s story lists the following case specific information:
The Arizona case is Arizona v Bank of America, CV2010- 33580, Maricopa County Superior Court (Phoenix). The Nevada case is Nevada v. Bank of America, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County (Las Vegas).

Monday, December 13, 2010

Resolution Law Group

Zillow: U.S. Homeowners to Lose $1.7 Trillion in 2010, Already $9 Trillion Lost Since 2006


According to Zillow’s latest report, U.S. homeowners have lost $9 trillion since the housing market’s peak in 2006, AND WILL LOSE $1.7 TRILLION THIS YEAR ALONE.
So… I have a question for my fellow Americans… and for elected representatives in Washington D.C. and state legislatures… and for that offensive, mindless twit Diana Olick on CNBC… Are we done irrationally punishing the so-called “irresponsible” people yet?  I’m serious about this, are we?  Because I don’t think I can afford to do any more punishing.  And besides, I feel like I’ve done enough punishing anyway.
Or, if we have to keep on punishing homeowners because as a nation we’re just too thick headed to understand anything but stupid sound bites and too self-consumed to let go of our petty jealousies and moral self-righteousness, then could we at least start thinking about switching over to a new means of punishment.  It doesn’t have to be something less severe, necessarily, but I think we need something less expensive for sure?  I suppose stoning might come to mind, if we’re looking for something biblical, but there’s never been anything wrong with a good old fashioned  spanking as well.

Instead of foreclosing on the 20 million people who all became irresponsible during the last decade and decided to buy houses for their families to live in that they couldn’t afford, I was also thinking that we could create a catalog of alternative punishments and let homeowners choose their poison, as it were.  We could even run television ads to generate leads… see what you think of this approach:
Announcer: Are you an irresponsible sub-prime borrower embroiled in the foreclosure process who hasn’t make a mortgage payment in 24 months and are about to finally get bounced out on the streets?  Have you come to terms with the fact that our global economic crisis could have been avoided if only you had just stayed in your old apartment instead of buying a home of your own?

Well, why not consider trading in your social stigma status as an irresponsible borrower and remain in your home as a resulkt.  Just take a look through the new catalog: The Responsible Homeowner’s Guide to Acceptable Punishments.  Here are just a few of the alternatives now available to today’s homeowner:
  • Nothing says punished like a hot bottom.  Try a spanking with a side of shame when you order this package that includes a stylish scarlet letter to be worn for 90 days.
  • Or, here’s one you might like… Six Months With No T.V. is the main draw but this package also comes with an 8:00 PM bedtime and no use of the family car on weekends.
  • No?  Okay, well some states are offering a “Grounded For a Month” alternative, and it comes complete with the No-Dessert-for-You-Young-Man, and daily finger-wagging by a panel of professional finger-waggers.  Still don’t see anything you like?
  • Come on, there’s got to be something that would placate you intractable mental midgets who are still blaming homeowners for the meltdown and are therefore somehow have figured out how to be okay with our government spending $12.2 TRILLION to bail out bankers and 1/1000th of that amount trying to stop the total meltdown of America’s housing market that is threatening to wipe our the wealth of our country’s vast middle class for a generation.
One thing I still don’t understand… If the bankers needed $12.2 trillion, weren’t they irresponsible too?  How come we’re not punishing them?  I was thinking that maybe we could switch… one year punish the homeowners… the next give it to the bankers.  What would you think about that idea?
Come on people, work with me here… I’m trying to be reasonable about this.  I just flat out can’t afford to continue punishing my neighbor because he decided to remodel his kitchen in 2006, which turned out to be more dangerous than trading commodities futures with an advisor from Goldman Sachs.  I don’t care that he bought a Jet Ski anymore… in fact, good for them.  How about if I have a talk with them and they agree to let you borrow it for a week every year?  No?  Come on… don’t answer so quickly, it’s a beautiful jet ski.  Have you ever ridden one?
Hey, wait a minute… here’s something for irresponsible homeowners who are also Verizon subscribers: A 2-Year Contract With AT&T.  Yeah, well that one is a little harsh, I suppose.  Don’t give up… we’ll keep looking… there are a lot of great punishments out there… let’s give it a chance.  Why not trade in your irresponsible borrower status for “A Criminal Record,” and it says they have misdemeanors available.  That might work…



So, Zillow is saying that U.S. homeowners have lost $9 trillion since 2006.  And that’s just lost home equity.  Would anyone care to run a tape that adds in stock market losses of U.S. homeowners as well?  I didn’t think so.  As it stands, I figure that my family will make up for the ground lost and break even in the year 2045.  But we plan to come back strong by then, so don’t you worry about that.
Zillow also showed that it’s getting worse.  Residential property values dropped 63% more in 2010 than in 2009.
Damn it, people, we can’t keep this type of punishment going indefinitely.  How about this… we let them off the hook for their irresponsible homeownership, but instead we all totally snub them until 2013.  When one of them walks buy, we all stop talking immediately and look the other way.  What about that?
And even this years losses accelerated fairly dramatically in the second half of the year.  According to Zillow’s report, between January and June this year, the housing market lost $680 billion, but in the second half losses will top $1 trillion.

See… this is not good… couldn’t we have stopped in June?  Plus that $680 billion is underreported, because we also picked up the tab for that economic stimulus housing tax credit madness that allowed the White House to pretend we were having a recovery.
Oh, and check this out… according to Zillow, 21.8 percent of single-family homes with mortgages were underwater in 2009, but by Q3 2010, 23.2 percent were underwater.  Oh my God… don’t you see what this means… it’s as I suspected all along… since negative equity is the number one predictor of foreclosures… foreclosures ARE breeding foreclosures.  It’s like the blob that ate New York, only we’re funding the blob.

And, while we’re talking about potential solutions, I have another idea that I’d like to throw out there for your consideration… stay with me here…

Since the banks aren’t subject to any of those bothersome accounting rules anymore… you know those cranky little nitpicky mark-to-market rules that FASB adopted in the fall of 2006.
Why don’t we consider letting the banks MARK UP their impossible-to-value assets that we’re not requiring them mark down to market value anyway.  I mean… if we’re going to keep our banks looking “healthy” based on allowing them to keep CDOs and CDSs on their books at the absurd face values from the bubble years, why not simply pretend they’ve gone up in value over the last couple of years… say by $9 trillion.
Then, just give the $9 trillion we’ve pumped into banks for no good reason back to all of the homeowners in the housing market and voila… consumer spending recovers, the crisis solved.  I’d even be willing to let the bankers deduct their bonuses for this year and next.
Who would even know?  And even if some of those annoying financial and accounting bloggers get super critical of the idea, we could just fix it with a line of dialog from Bernanke.  Maybe something like:
“The Federal Reserve is confident that the revaluation of pending assets and Tier 1 capital when viewed as a percentage of growth in the GDP for three straight quarters leads us to be very comfortable with the bank’s positions insomuch as they are at the point at which firms like Goldman Sachs are prepared to employ leverage and balance the needs of our economy… blah, blah, blah.”
See what I mean?  That’ll do it, no problem.  Just have the Harvard guys spruce it up a little and shoot it in front of a podium with the White House seal in the background.  It’ll fly, trust me.

It’s not like the idea has no precedent.  A variation of what I’m describing has been working for the commercial real estate market since last year.
Remember last year, when we were about to have a meltdown any minute in commercial properties, like commercial real estate was down by 44%, I believe they were saying the number was.  Then one day, Treasury Secretary Geithner and FDIC Chair Sheila Bair showed up on the Sunday morning talk shows after whispering in the bankers’ ears that they didn’t have to write the assets down, and they could pretend that inconvenient loan maturity dates had simply not yet arrived.  People barely noticed it.
Okay, so this time we just pretend the values of toxic assets have gone up to cover the $9 trillion in losses sustained by homeowners that has made consumer spending a thing of the past, which just leads to higher unemployment, and starts that whole deflationary spiral thing, and next thing you know Bernanke’s got to start printing cash.  We give the $9 trillion back to the homeowners, and take further write ups on bank balance sheets that are overvalued by 50% now anyway.
Come on people… I think this is a workable plan… just announce the whole thing on Super Bowl Sunday… no one would even know about it for a year.  It’s a damn lay-up, that’s what it is… have people spending again by Easter Sunday.

And as to the foreclosures…
If we still can’t agree to stop the whole punish-the-borrower thing, how about we let the banks do whatever they were going to do on their books if foreclosing, but we just let the people keep the homes.  To the banks it would be the same thing… even better because actual expenses would be nothing because they wouldn’t actually be taking back the houses. Physically, it would appear like everything was back to normal, with the bank financials looking even better than would be the case if accounting for real foreclosure outcomes… wink, wink.
Oh come on, don;t be such a baby… why the heck not?  Right now we’ve got miles of empty homes that are only exceed in length by the miles of empty heads that are in charge and allowing this to continue.  Whose going to even know?  If you want, keep reporting that people are losing homes… just don’t actually take any homes back.  It’ll work, I’m telling you.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Resolution Law Group

Banks Seeking to Foreclose Face More Questions About Legal Standing

.
Getty Images
As we’ve noted, banks seeking to enforce foreclosures must demonstrate that they have proper documentation proving their right to enforce a foreclosure [1]—meaning they have the legal standing to enforce the foreclosure either as the holder of the note or as an agent acting on behalf of the holder.
In bankruptcy court, this hasn’t always been easy for the banks. Over the weekend, a piece by Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times noted that the United States Trustee Program—a Justice Department unit tasked with overseeing bankruptcy courts—has ramped up its scrutiny of banks’ foreclosure processes and is forcing banks to prove that they have the right to enforce foreclosures [2].
Morgenson points out two cases in federal bankruptcy court in Atlanta in which a U.S. trustee stepped in and asked bankruptcy judges to deny requests from Wells Fargo and Chase to allow them to proceed with foreclosure. In both cases, Walton filed motions saying that the bank had “failed to allege sufficient facts from which the Court can conclude that it is in fact the authorized agent” of the note holder.
Issues of a note’s proper transfer and the bank’s right to enforce a foreclosure were also raised when a U.S. bankruptcy judge earlier this month rejected an attempt by Bank of America to foreclose on a New Jersey homeowner. According to a piece in Bloomberg today, the judge ruled that the bank had failed to properly transfer the note to its true owner [3] and therefore did not have legal standing to enforce the foreclosure.
As part of that case, Bank of America employee Linda DeMartini testified [4] [PDF] that it was standard practice for Countrywide—which was acquired by Bank of America—to sell mortgage loans without physically transferring the note to the new owner.
Countrywide “transferred the ownership, not the physical documents,” DeMartini testified, noting that the practice was “normal” for the company. The judge, in her ruling [5] [PDF], wrote that “the fact that the owner of the note, the Bank of New York, never had possession of the note, is fatal to its enforcement," calling into question whether other cases that were similarly handled could face similar challenges.
An attorney working on behalf of the bank told Bloomberg that DeMartini had been wrong about the company’s practice:
It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case.
“This particular employee was mistaken in what she said,” Platt said in a telephone interview.
While judges and trustees may have caught a few of such cases and tried to stop them, foreclosures without proof of standing may be surprisingly common.
University of Iowa law professor Katherine Porter analyzed bankruptcy mortgage claims [6]in 2007 and found that about 40 percent of the time [7], banks didn’t provide the proper paperwork—specifically, the note—to enforce a mortgage claim and collect the debt.