Loan mod processed in 9 days/tentative success

[so-cal-gal]

Remember they could claim you edited the tapes like Nixon. Better to still send a quasi-transcript so they can have a chance to dispute what they said immediately.

[so-cal-gal]

Originally Posted by Garry

I'd much rather just save the tapes for the judge, I'm sure any judge would flip out and rule in your favor. I'd make sure to let the bank know I was recording them also.

They'd still say you edited the tapes like Nixon.

Better to give them a quasi-transcript by mail or by bank fax so they have to immediately do the 'correction' they want in the printed version. That would be further proof the judge would just luv. Then it would be REALLY interesting to play the tape for the judge if they did try to claim it was substantially different and there was no large time delay between when they said the stuff and when they had gotten the printed version. No 'it has been too long to remember' excuse that way.

We don't want them to have ANY excuses.

They are even using dirty tactics against anyone who does file a suit, getting one of their people calling up an posing as another 'wronged' BofA 'victim'.

[Irish Gal]

Originally Posted by so-cal-gal

They are even using dirty tactics against anyone who does file a suit, getting one of their people calling up an posing as another 'wronged' BofA 'victim'.

Although I'm not surprised, can you expand on this? Unbelievable! You say you have an attorney. Why aren't they filing suit on your behalf?

[so-cal-gal]

Originally Posted by Irish Gal

Although I'm not surprised, can you expand on this? Unbelievable! You say you have an attorney. Why aren't they filing suit on your behalf?

The attorney was, at first, shocked at how hard-headed they are being with my case. One of my postings in this forum references our next delivery being 'different'.

I have the CW/BofA signed mod contract with transfer to Litton to try to give them an 'excuse' for ditching/not honoring the mod apparently? and then Litton using Quality to record the NOD document locally. Wonderful how quickly I could read thru the sections that should be present for the Civil Code changes enacted in July. Why, I spent more time looking for ANY TRACES of those sections than I did actually reading them. THEY WERE NOT THERE. THE NOD IS FATALLY FLAWED. [I like that rhyme.]

As of the date they filed it, they did not have the things done to comply with the new Civil Code. That is a falsely filed derogatory PUBLIC RECORD.

Now if you look at what they must affirm to get the NOD properly filed, we should NOT be seeing any NOD while they are refusing to honor the existing modification contract. I don't know if it will take a judge to get them to honor it or what.

The new CA Civil Codes state that the lender must work with the borrower to determine if a modification can be worked out. They must document all their FAILED attempts to work out any modification and then insert that into the NOD. Well, here is a nice signed existing mod contract just gathering dust. They are supposed to claim that the borrower can't or won't work with them on a mod. There is NO way to say 'Well, there is a signed contract mod already in existance but that was while the note was held by BofA and we don't want to honor it." Yeah, due to their refusal to honor it, it will now have to be updated before it is put into place. So, just update the dates, and tinker with the arrearage (HO, HO, HO). That still does not make the agreement contained in the existing contract mod invalid. It just means they have been breaking other laws like basic contract law long enough the the new Civil Code also went into effect, catching them in other hoops that THEY have to go thru. I don't see HOW they can now achieve a VALID NOD being recorded with this signed contract mod at hand. The affirmations now required of them state they are were unable to work out a mod with me or that I willingly gave the property back. RESPA should not allow the existing signed mod to be 'ditched'. Litton has inherited a contract mod that was originated by BofA. DEAL with it. That means, no NOD. Litton, you already have a mod to honor.

Boy, I used to design software and I had to make sure it properly followed the government contract specs, or even prepare mods to the specs if they were full of non-sense or worse, had conflicting requirements. [I see an irony here that I'm again dealing with contract mods.] That work was far harder & more complex to do, given the number of volumes of specifications on most contracts, than prowling thru the new Civil Code Section 2923.5. The new civil code is only a few pages long but it must be too hard for Litton and Quality to follow.(Is it just me or is that company's name ironic?)

The issue of using the transfer to 'scrape' the SIGNED mod from the contract? The transfer has to conform to RESPA. RESPA says the transfer itself it not to affect the 'mortgage instruments'. Are BofA and Litton trying to say that a signed mortgage contract modification is NOT a part of the mortgage contract? PLEASE!

Both companies apparently maintain that signed modification contracts OFFERED BY EACH OF THEM can arbitrarily be abandoned. That is breaking basic contract law. BOTH companies have done that. (I have seen complaints of Litton doing it and BofA has definitely done it even without the artifice of a transfer.) They seem to be drinking from the same water fountain, don't they ==> collusion. Then there is the possibility of claiming racketeering, and fraud, on top of the false and misleading advertising charge per CA Business & Professional code 17500 plus violation of CA civil code Section 2923.5 regarding the joke of a NOD. Drat, I almost forgot, breach of the CW AG Settlement agreement too. Do not forget that false derogatory public filing. Oh, yeah, that RESPA problem, is that why MI calls the Banking Regulators to get these signed contract mods implemented? I think there was a bit about some other department with the FEDs to check with, too. Then there is the CA DRE to check whether this could hurt the real estate license BofA and Litton (and Quality) need here in CA. Litton can't go any lower with the ranking at the BBB but BofA maybe can sink lower. Then there is the question of whether our AG will take a look at the mess BofA is making of adhering to the settlement without us needing to have a judge take a look for himself. Why not toss in truth in lending too since I was NEVER informed the modification contract was not being implemented or provided a reason. [I can just envision a truthful statement for such a letter: "We have arbitrarily voided the contract we offered you, Ms. xxxx..."] Currently, IF people get anything directly from BofA after a mod is not implemented, BofA waits just short of 90 days and then they, out of the blue, ask you to make up the difference in the payments. Only with a note transfer thrown in as a further monkey-wrench, do you have any alarm occur sooner.

The local news tonight had an item about a different company having a goof with honoring a plan a couple was adhereing to to make up a couple of back payments. Seems the company jumped the gun and sold the property before the end of the period that couple had to make up the back payments. OOPS. Would the local news boys like to take a crack at all the juice in this case of mine? They might have to leave out some if the facets to make it fit the time alloted for a story.

[Should I take up writing professionally? Am I entertaining you guys while passing on some useful facts?]

[Tartbird]

Originally Posted by so-cal-gal

[Should I take up writing professionally? Am I entertaining you guys while passing on some useful facts?]

Yes. Yes, and Yes. How in the world do you keep all that straight? I have a headache just TRYING to keep up with what you are going through!!

Tartbird