Litton Loan - In Forecl & Mod Process

[Kim_in_NY]

I am so glad I found this forum! Thank you to anyone who might be interested in reading my story and providing any help they can.

I want to make sure I am doing everything correctly and everything in my power to get the Litton modification complete. Our loan was sold from Countrywide to Litton at some time in 2007.

I am hoping someone can tell me if I missed anything in this long and complicated process.

We live in the state of New York which I understand has a long foreclosure cycle. We have a sale date of March 10, 2010 but a Rep at Litton told me they can move that date up.

We have an outstanding mortgage balance of $463,000. Our monthly payment was $4438 with principal, interest and escrow. Our fixed interest rate is 6.875%. The value of the home is approximately $600,000 (It was appraised at $675,000 in June of 2008 but we all know what has happened to home values in the last year).

I had to stop working due to complications with my health and our monthly income is now reduced to approximately $5700.

We were 3 months behind in mortgage payments when we were served with foreclosure paperwork.

My nephew (co-owner of house) sent paperwork in to Litton several months ago for a modification. I did not get involved at the time as I was going to leave it in his hands - big mistake. We were denied due to not providing correct documentation.

This is where I got involved.

I called Litton and they reopened the modification. I gathered all the paperwork Litton requested for the modification on Monday (8/3/09) for mailing the next day. I received a letter in the mail on Monday after gathering all documents that "Unfortunately, your loan does not meet the guidelines provided by the investor."

After crying for most of the evening, I called Litton the next day. I spoke Rick Jones in the Foreclosure department who happened to be one of the most helpful and knowledgeable people I've spoken to at Litton yet. He went through everything and previous documents submitted showed our gross monthly income at $18,000. Apparently, Litton put a "1" in front of the correct gross amount of approximately $8,000. Rick got that fixed to the correct gross monthly incomes and reopened the modification again.

I sent every piece of paperwork Litton requested via overnight mail for delivery on Wednesday, 8/5/09.

What are my chances at a modification?

Outside of calling Litton weekly to see how things are progressing (or not), is there anything else I should do at this point?

Thank you in advance for any information!

Kim

[Evan Bedard]

Hi Kim in NY welcome and thank you for joining.

I would suggest to keep in touch with Rick Jones if he has seemed to be the most helpful. Most of the time people get on the phone with reps who really dont know what there talking about..

Good luck and keep us posted!

[Kim_in_NY]

The run around with Litton is CRAZY.

We were denied yet again. Turns out after sending requested documentation with delivery on 8/5/2009, they sent the denial letter out on 8/6/2009.

Whomever we have as the investor is not participating in any modifications.

Is there anything more I can do at this point?

How can I find out who the investor is? Litton told me it is on the closing documents we received but our initial loan was with Countrywide and then sold to Litton so I don't have anything regarding who the investor is.

Please help

[so-cal-gal]

WHEN was your loan transferred to Litton from CW?

I'm also wondering whether there was any change of investor while it was at CW. There may be a bit of questionable dealing on note trades that block access to the mods CW promised under the CA AG settlement. A total of 11 states joined in that.

I don't know that they would have had to tell you if the the note was traded while CW remained the servicer. Once the servicing changed, RESPA forces the notification to occur.

My attorney is noting how Litton is intentionally acquiring notes that are already 'behind' (especially the ones where CW had supposedly granted a mod). Not all of these granted-but-not-honored mods are being transferred.

Sadly, unless you have some way of forcing the note back to CW, I suspect they have you targeted for loosing the house.

[Kim_in_NY]

I called ERT again and Luis told me our loan is backed by Countrywide.

So I said that I am aware that Countrywide is allowing modifications so why are we not qualifying.

Luis responded that the "pool" we are under through Countrywide is not participating in any modification plans.

Has anyone heard of this?

I feel like I am in the dark here.

[Kim_in_NY]

Thank you so-cal-gal. I believe it was transferred in January 2007 from Countrywide to Litton. I need to check our paperwork though.
fficeffice" />>>
I think Litton/Countrywide is trying to get the house. Unlike many people in today’s economy, we actually still have about $100k in equity in the house. It makes sense why they would want it.
>>
Anyone have any suggestion what we should do at this point? Does it make sense to get a Real Estate Attorney involved?

[so-cal-gal]

Originally Posted by Kim_in_NY

Anyone have any suggestion what we should do at this point? Does it make sense to get a Real Estate Attorney involved?

At least consult with an experienced and skilled Real Estate Attorney, hopefully you can get a free consult.

If you had a CW loan that was one of the bad ones that the CA AG settlement was targeted at, given that CW is STILL the note-holder, this may be a scheme to keep from having to do a mod per the AG settlement. Eleven states joined in the settlement.

Ask the attorney. You can download and print out a copy of that settlement agreement from: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pre...w_judgment.pdf

Note that there are THREE types of loans that qualified but all had to be initiated from 2004 thru 2007 (as I recall the dates). One type of loan covered is a subprime fixed rate loan, while the other two are both variable rate loans.

Like your case, there is a bit of equity in my house too, especially since they don't have to deal with the HELOC for 100K. Who knows, even my 'note-holder' may still be CW too. I also have Litton as the current servicer. Don't trust any of them. The mod I have was to be honored by Litton. Now, 4 months after the transfer, with the mod effective date prior to the transfer, they still do not want to honor it.

[nitag]

In my opinion it's not good to have equity at this time. You actually have a house they can sell and break even or make money on. When Litton did my BPO and it came back 120,000 in the negative - I was worried. When the lady at Litton called me to go over my BPO she said the the negative equity is a good thing.

You might want to talk to an attorney and see where you stand! However in the long run the mods are up to the investors!!

You might want to talk to NACA and see if they can help.. Alot of people have had success with NACA - NACA

Good Luck..

[so-cal-gal]

Nitag,

Be patient and you'll see why I'm posting on the Litton thread.

I believe EQUITY may have been the driving force behind a little manipulation CW/BofA tried AFTER giving me a loan mod package.

They, or the note-holder, wanted to take the house after all, but they already had rushed and put a loan modification package together for me to meet the deadline they had for generating a minimum of 50,000 mod package nationwide for the CA AG's settlement. The deadline for the mods to be issued was March 31. My package had to be returned by March 25th. My loan was originated during the years targeted by the settlement and was of one of the 3 loan types that were to potentially get an offer. My package content matched mod offer content specified by the settlement AND the qualification process was the streamlined process as specified in the stipulated settlement agreement (actually it was very streamlined). Therefore, I claim my package IS an CA AG settlement mod package.

For some unspecified reason, BofA has set 1000's of those same notarized loan modification agreements aside, unimplemented. They do not contact the borrower about doing so. You only get a letter nearly 90 days after the due date for the first payment under the modified contract, asking you to make up the difference in the payments! (Slight variation on theme occurs if they transfer the note to crappy companies like LITTON so they can try speeding the process up. Greedy b-tards.] Previous contact indicated that everything was fine with the package and it was being implemented or was already implemented. [NOT REALLY IMPLEMENTED OBVIOUSLY IN ALL CASES THOUGH!]

Well, BofA is now finally calling my attorney to 'check where things broke down' (that was last Friday). It took 3 letters to get them to even CALL him. They NEVER did call or write me to say they were trying to MESS with me originally! They would not even talk to the attorney last Friday, wanted a signed statement that he was representing me. The BofA person was not even an attorney.

No contact from Litton with the attorney (the current note holder or maybe just servicer). [They persist with contacting me once a week and I get their name and number and provided them with the attorney's info if they stay on the line long enough after I tell them they have to contact the attorney.]

My attorney has now sent the pertinent facts to the CA AG after a phone 'chat' with a spokesperson there today. They were alarmed with the description of my case. It did not sound 'RIGHT' to them at all. I have informed my attorney that mine is NOT the only case of this happening. I presume he pointed that out since we do not want BofA to be claiming that only this case slipped by and characterize it as a 'mistake'.

Gee, what was that low-level, low-life manager's name at BofA who told my attorney that "BofA has done NOTHING WRONG". [Liar, liar, pants on fire?] I wonder if her job is going to be one of those that are sacrificed over this, as an 'excuse'?

It was no 'mistake' that has already led to other settlement offers. They just have not, as yet, been sufficiently punished for this conduct. Could there be some insider dirty-dealing with some of these notes? Certainly they are COUNTING on people just accepting that the bank would not be wrong.

I think the other guy here in town who suffered the exact same crap from CW/BofA/Litton ahead of me helped me avoid the one trap they set. I'm still fighting but this is NOT the easy battle that the other guy gave them.

[Kim_in_NY]

Thank you. This is all making a bit more sense to me now. Clear as mud, right?

ARGH!!!!

So I need to contact a Real Estate Attorney at this point. I will do that today.

I want to stay in this house. I want to make payments. I am behind but willing to pay up to 50% of my income to stay in the house. I simply can't afford to pay the back monies owed (totaling nearly $30k at this point).

I know the reason they aren't willing to work with me is due to the equity in the house.

[so-cal-gal]

Kim,

If the attorney can not find any way to pressure them, indeed that same investor entity may have the last say about the mod.

Is there ANY other way for you to raise the 30K? Any loan like a HELOC possible? If you can pay more than the mortgage payment is now, look for any other way to fund that 30K.

Is there any retirement fund that you can take it from, as a last resort (consider a loan first from it, but if nothing else, most have a way to take funds out for a hardship). Yes there are TAX consequences unless it is a loan you get paid back into the fund. Loosing the house would have BIGGER tax consequences I would imagine.

Good luck!

[Kim_in_NY]

The investor entity having the last word is my biggest fear so-cal-gal

I am not able to come up with 30k. At this point I can come up with 1/2 of that and do a repayment plan but the kicker is that I am not able to afford the mortgage as it stands right now.

Our monthly with taxes and escrow are about $4400. If we do the repayment we will need to come up with $15k up front and then pay the other $15k over the next year to 18 months. That brings our monthly payment to approximately $5500. I cannot swing that. And then at that point my complete savings of the $15k is wiped out too. I will end up in the same situation I am in today.

A modification would have been the best thing. All I need is the next year or two to get back on my feet. If I could have gotten my payment to around $3,000 a month and add the $30k we owe right now added to the mortgage that would have been ideal.

But we don't live in an ideal world, do we?

This is my fault since I was sick and am now on disability and therefore can't afford the original mortgage we took out. I take responsiblity for that. Unfortunately my willingness to pay part is not enough.

[Kim_in_NY]

Question I am hoping someone can respond to:

1. How do I go about finding a reputable Attorney? I live in NY.
2. Litton is the servicer. Countrywide is the investor. Countrywide had determined my loan is not eligible for modification. Does it make sense to contact someone at Countrywide? Has anyone been successful contacting the investor rather than the servicer?

[so-cal-gal]

Question #2 first: I don't know exactly HOW you could manage to get in touch whith that part of CW. It might make sense to try but HOW?

Question #1: The way I found an attorney was to contact the local bar referral service. It is free. Ask for a 'Real estate' attorney.

You want someone who has been practicing in this field for several years, not someone who just jumped onto the gravy wagon in 2007.

Call and make sure you can speak to an attorney for a no-cost evaluation of your case.

I had one attorney here tell me he had to have $650 just to 'look' at the mod contract. No meeting even. I did not send him anything. It was strange, called his office number and the call went directly to his cell phone and he was walking on a very noisy street. He was a 'known-name' attorney here. Guess he could not afford any legal assistant to take calls.

The attorney I DID hire, met with me, looked over the disputed contract, contacted a BofA rep and attempted to do the same with Litton during the meeting. He went over the particulars and told me his evaluation of the case. He also told me what his retainer would be for the case.

With actions taken by Litton since that date, they have only INCREASED the damages they have caused. We are talking about an ILLEGAL filing of a Notice of Default. If they had followed the new law, they could not even justify FILING.

Now the reports to the credit bureaus? well, when it is shown that BofA has a faux paus along with Litton on the mod being implemented, which led to the dispute where Litton would not accept the agreed payments, well they need to FIX that TOO.

[Kim_in_NY]

Thank you so-cal-girl.

I might try getting through to someone in investor guidelines at Countrywide. Its worth a shot. I've got nothing better to do all day tehn make phone calls

How has the Attorney you retained helped your situation? Does he/she feel a modification is possible for you?

Also, what is BofA?

One more question - Does anyone know how often investors change their guidelines and how I would be made aware if that happened?

[Walking Away]

Kim, the advantage of New York is that it has the longest foreclosure process of any state(12 months on average and that's without even filing bankruptcy--a BK will delay another 6-12 months). In reading your posts; if you absolutely can't come up with the $30,000 owed and you're part of a bundled package of a large pool of loans that the investors refuse to modify and legally do not have to modify; then why not sell the house and clear $100,000+ and start fresh? It sounds like due to unfortunate health problems the home is too costly anyway and even with a loan mod it might not be easy? Some people with equity have found it best to downsize to a really nice smaller home or rent for a few years and get away from the home ownership grind. It sounds like you really like your home, so it's very understandable to be at a loss. Another option to delay the foreclosure would be bankruptcy, which can extend your time to up to 24 months in NY, but if you can sell and walk away with $100,000 plus; you might prefer not doing BK. As far as attorney's go; only if you need one is it smart to spend the money on one. For a loan mod help; NACA is free and has helped many here. Maybe if your loan was fraudelent in some way an attorney can help more than NACA; but if not; then NACA might be better. This would have to be your only home to use NACA, but remember that either way the mod attempt could fail so have a second option if mod fails. Litton is Goldman Sachs sleaze loan servicer and they've helped almost very few borrowers; so I would save every dime you can and have a second plan. it's a longshot but did you double check the Fannie and Freddie websites just to make sure Litton is telling the truth? And are you completely sure that Countrywide is your actual investor? Usually they are the loan servicer. I found out my investior from a credit report which listed both my loan servicer and my investor--maybe your credit report would list investor as mine did. As for a good NY attorney; I live in NY and know some good attorneys upstate; but here's a good link for some of the strongest NY attorneys:

Best Lawyers in New York

[Kim_in_NY]

Thank you Walking Away .

Though we want more than anything to stay in this home and getting a modification would enable us to do that, we have had the home for sale since March 2009. We have had MANY people come through but no offers yet. The Real Estate Agent working on our sale explained some reasons for this: 1. The market basically stinks and 2. Houses in our selling price range are difficult to get a mortgage for since it is considered a jumbo mortgage and those are difficult to get right now. Essentially we would need a buy with significant cash to put down - more than 20%.

We have lowered the selling price of the house from $729k to $679k and are now at $629k. We are willing to walk away with $550k even though the house is easily worth $600k even in this economy.

If we were able to get the modification we could take the house off the market and make things work. That doesn't seem to be the case though.

Thats interesting about filing for bankruptcy and how that extends the process. Its certainly something to look into.

[Kim_in_NY]

Interesting news and update.

I spoke to a Real Estate Attorney who specializes in foreclosures in the county I live in. He seemed nice enough.

He gave me some good information. He said he can drag this foreclosure out for 2 years giving us time to save money or sell the house. He also said would need to answer the foreclosure summons. One other thing he mentioned is that he can counter sue based on "preditory loan defense" per the conditions the mortgage was granted. He said they will likely give the modification rather then try to defend a mortgage they didn't initiate.

Bad news is that the cost to defend the foreclosure for two years is approximately $8 - 10k. Is this normal? It seems fair to me I guess but what do I know?

Finally, he was very agitated at Countrywide (which he said was sold to Bank of America) who took the stimulus money - taxpayer money - and now won't help the people who the money was supposed to help. He said he has 100 cases pending right now with Bank of America as the investor.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[so-cal-gal]

Originally Posted by Kim_in_NY

Thank you so-cal-girl.

I might try getting through to someone in investor guidelines at Countrywide. Its worth a shot. I've got nothing better to do all day tehn make phone calls

How has the Attorney you retained helped your situation? Does he/she feel a modification is possible for you?

Also, what is BofA?

One more question - Does anyone know how often investors change their guidelines and how I would be made aware if that happened?

I see no harm in asking your question of CW. From my own experience, it can be wise to have an attorney look at the situation, if CW sticks to the 'no mod' position. There may be a conflict here with what CW did in assuring all the state's AGs that they would do mods, to now have an investor pool which does not allow the mods. Did they stick that 'no mod' rule on the pool after you were already requesting a mod? When you loan was originated, I doubt that modifications were frequently thought of. So, when along the line did your note get sequested into being funded by that particular pool? When did that pool put that restriction on itself?

Another issue to raise: BofA, in NH, in court admitted that CW never intended to actually offer the contract mods like it had claimed in the media. That is false advertising. The NH case is being settled. The couple NEVER did get a mod offered to them. The false advertising is a recurrent theme with CW. You see that was action one of the CA AG's suit that led to a settlement with CW where they HAD to offer a certain number of mod contracts. After that settlement, CW had mounted a media campaign claiming they would offer modifications. So that campaign led to the NH suit. I don't see why the AGs have not taken this up. Certainly they are now, again, breaking the SAME Business and Professional Code section that was in that original suit. [But I also claim they are in BREACH of the settlement of the ORIGINAL case also.]

I don't know if a good attorney would find these to be valid arguments. CW is finding some interesting ways to deny mods, so I would not put any level of deciet beyond them. If you run into a stonewall with CW, I really doubt that NACA can convince them. You can also call NACA and just plain try to see if they will answer whether they have any way to convince CW that they need to allow the mod given they are the 'investor' not the servicer.

You should probably call CW and ask the question, contact the attorney to get his take on this situation, and contact NACA to find out if they have any leverage. I think they, NACA, simply put packages together. I don't think I've heard of them being able to approach the note-holder, which is needed here.

BofA is Bank Of America which took over CW last year.

The attorney has had a preliminary approach from a gal in the chairman's office at CW. She was no attorney but demanded that my attorney provide proof that he was my representative. In CA, where I live, and where this gal's office is located, the CA Code of Civil Procedure has a section that says the attorney is authorized to represent the client without a separate release form for each company involved needed from the lawyer's client. But we did comply with this non-lawyer's uninformed non-sense demand. In fact there is now a separate release form for each of the three companies that have stuck their beaks into this mess. She claimed to be 'trying to determine where things had broken down' as I hear. DUH. [The simple answer to that is: You, CW/BofA, lied. That is what started the 'BREAK DOWN'.] Now, even in your contact with us, you are still playing a 'delay' game.

So now, this gal has gotten the form faxed AND mailed to her, along with her own personal copies of all three prior letters that had not been responded to. Oh, and the MAILED copy? It had a fourth letter targeted at HER, pointing out that she AND her offices should have known that the attorney already had the right to represent me with the binder that I had already signed.

Oh, and he got a chance to request that the prior letters to BofA be responded to in WRITING. He pointed out that 2 had 'languished for several weeks.' Also he stuck in the confirmation that, aside from the call this gal had made, there had been NO response to any of the letters.

BofA does not want to put ANYTHING in writing, aside from the mod contract itself.

The next planned delivery will be thicker. It will definitely 'up' the settlement costs for them.

Aside from that exchange, Litton and their local rep, Quality, have not contacted the attorney at all.

Now, with my contention of BREACH OF THE CW CA AG SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with their failure to implement my signed, notarized modification contract, with no reason EVER given, no contact made about what was happening? I already knew the AG's office wanted a complaint form filled out. I provided my attorney with a printed copy of the CW CA AG settlement, even with pertinent, applicable sections of it all highlighted. You could see that my type of loan was one of the three that were to possibly get the modification offered. You could see the content of my offer was just as listed, that the date of my loan was in the right time period. Oh, and CW was to get a batch of 50,000 mods offered by March 31, 2009. Gee, my package had to be notarized and returned to CW by March 25th, 2009.

I also highlighted the section where there is to be a CountryWide compliance contact person. So my attorney called the AG's office to ask how to contact this person, who the person was, etc. Well they did not want to identify the person BUT they wanted to know WHY we needed the information. They wanted the docs faxed in, no complaint form filing needed. Just, 'we want to see this, it does NOT sound RIGHT.'

So now, I don't know how long it will take for the CW chairman's office to find out that the AG is ALSO looking 'over their shoulders' at the handling of my case.

I know others have filed complaint forms with the AGs office or sent letters about the CW/BofA mods. I don't know if the others had actually described it as a breach of the settlement agreement. Also, the letters may not conform to the conplaint form readily. I also don't know if anyone else had an attorney call the AG's office. [Just a hint for anyone else with an CW mod that was signed but never honored/implemented.]

Certainly, there was NO language in the settlment agreement that said that any of the required 50,000 contracts to be offered by March 31, 2009 could be ignored. LMHO. No 'lottery' on the first x number returned will be implemented. Nope, no 'outs'. IF they offered, then it was to be IMPLEMENTED. Only problem, 1000s were not implemented. They try to convince people that it just did not 'happen'.

I wonder how soon they will get the hint that the CA AG does NOT agree? I don't believe the CA AG is the first to look at this. MI has forced CW/BofA to honor mods, even contacted banking regulators.

[Kim_in_NY]

so_cal_girl - thank you. You certainly have your ducks in a row. It also sounds like your Attorney is helping move your situation along.

So you are in the same sitch - Litton servicer / CW (BofA) Investor.

The difference is that your loan wasn't in a pool that can't be modified and they are STILL giving you the runaround.

What a mess.

I have an appointment with the Attorney I spoke to this morning on Tuesday. I will probably sign. If he can buy us some time to save money before foreclosure OR help us get the modification by counter-suit then its a win-win.

I was going to sign up with NACA but I don't see how that would be helpful since its not the servicer who is giving the issue but the investor guidelines. I don't want to waste their time if my loan has a big X on it saying it will not be modified under the current guidelines.

There may be a conflict here with what CW did in assuring all the state's AGs that they would do mods, to now have an investor pool which does not allow the mods. Did they stick that 'no mod' rule on the pool after you were already requesting a mod? When you loan was originated, I doubt that modifications were frequently thought of. So, when along the line did your note get sequested into being funded by that particular pool? When did that pool put that restriction on itself?

Can I assume AG means each state's Attorney General?

This is an excellent point and one I will bring up with the Attorney on Tuesday.

[so-cal-gal]

Originally Posted by Kim_in_NY

so_cal_girl - thank you. You certainly have your ducks in a row. It also sounds like your Attorney is helping move your situation along.

So you are in the same sitch - Litton servicer / CW (BofA) Investor.

The difference is that your loan wasn't in a pool that can't be modified and they are STILL giving you the runaround.

What a mess.

I have an appointment with the Attorney I spoke to this morning on Tuesday. I will probably sign. If he can buy us some time to save money before foreclosure OR help us get the modification by counter-suit then its a win-win.

I was going to sign up with NACA but I don't see how that would be helpful since its not the servicer who is giving the issue but the investor guidelines. I don't want to waste their time if my loan has a big X on it saying it will not be modified under the current guidelines.



Can I assume AG means each state's Attorney General?

This is an excellent point and one I will bring up with the Attorney on Tuesday.

Yes, AG stands for state's Attorney General.

There are SIGNIFICANT differences:

Originally Posted by Kim_in_NY

The difference is that your loan wasn't in a pool that can't be modified and they are STILL giving you the runaround.

Differences:
1. I have a SIGNED and VERIFIED modification contract that CW/BofA issued per the CA AG settlement.

2. They have broken basic contract law AND breached the settlement agreement with the failure to implement said pro-offered mod. Gee, that makes for VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS and CONTEMPT OF COURT.

3. After they had the notarized mod package in their offices and had completed verification of said package, the NOTE was transferred to Litton along with servicing per what I have been told. Now they have tried to maintain that they did nothing wrong although they KNOW they never implemented the contract. By never notifying me of a cause, they have broken some of the truth in lending rules as I understand it. The transfer may also break some banking regulations. [MI has called in high-level banking examiners and forced some of the modification contracts to be implemented.] I also heard that one suit over failure to honor one of these same contracts found that there is a valid reason to cite FRAUD and RACKETEERING. In one case that I heard about, there was not even any manipulation like transferring the note OR servicing. They just tried to ignore the contract with it sitting at CW/BofA all the time. [Litton has done likewise, but they did not have any pressure to even have offered the mods, so how they got into this type of muddle is puzzling, likewise with Saxon. Hmm, collusion, fraud & racketeering?

4. I suspect that a private investor now owns the note, possibly with a bit of insider info. There are signs of collusion between BofA & Litton. When the private investor became the owner is in question and how my loan was one targeted for a transfer during a time in the note modification processing that should NEVER have had any transfer occur, per BofA's own employees, that, too, is suspect. I had protested the transfer timing when I was notified it was to occur. I was assured the transfer would not affect the modification (as it SHOULD NOT per the RESPA-compliant notice that alerted me to the scheduled transfer).

Because I knew of another local case that was a duplicate of mine but ahead of me in the timing, I knew that the advice to just 'try for a mod with the new lender' was sure to be rejected by the current investor.

Hearing what had transpired for there other guy, I determined that my only chance was to demand the existing VALID CONTRACT be HONORED. Litton did not even stick with the verbal promise to delay the other guy's sale date, just like they failed to honor the verbal agreement to honor the modification contract for BOTH of us. I understand the other guy is being treated for cancer all while going thru this with CW/BofA/Litton. Verbal promises are very frequently broken by both Litton and BofA, yet you can't get them to put things down on paper. Oh, yeah, they did put this contract down on paper. They still tried to not honor it. Yep, I see why they don't want to put anything down on paper. Looks like they just got totally tripped up by the AG forcing them to do so with the settlement agreement. They may have rushed to identify the 50,000 mods that had to be offered by March 31, 2009. My offered & ACCEPTED/NOTARIZED contract had to be back into their offices by the 25th and it conformed to the settlement in ALL other details. I just bet that they had some internal scheming going on about which loans they had NEVER wanted to offer a mod to and that my offer somehow was the 'cow' that escaped the barn-door when the mod package was offered to me. I accepted and then BofA tried to put the 'cow' back in the barn as though she never got out with the bull. It sure looks like she's havin' a calf. [Just a bit of colloquial humor, referencing the common turn of phase about closing the barn-door after the bull gets to the cow when she is in heat.] Okay, so I'm a San Diegan who never completely left all her Kansas home-state farm humor behind.

Back to that advertising: Seems to be a common theme along with the false advertising that got CW into the whole problem with the AG here. BofA may find themselves back in court over the CW promises to offer mods. They are not offering even the token % that is being done by other lenders. They are at 4% while the average is 10%.

My attorney has even made sure that I NEVER attempted to get a mod from Litton.

Contrary to advice I received both here and over at the BK forum, these contracts that were offered by CW are very much VALID contracts (and I've heard mine is one of THOUSANDS of valid contracts that BofA did not implement). The problem is, most people don't know the lender is trying a fast one on them. I've had a mortgage broker tell me that they could not be enforced. WRONG.

If that were true, would the CA AG's office have asked my attorney to fax the document to them? I don't think so at all. My attorney would not take something to the AG without merit anyway. He would not want to damage his credibility.

So, bring up with your attorney
1) the predatory loan,
2)the false advertising that got you into the loan,
3)the AG's settlement requiring that they offer the mods, and
4)the false advertising that CW did AFTER agreeing to that settlement, publicizing that they would make mods available. Per not only the NH court admission, but I've been told they have made those admissions elsewhere too (possibly even to congress), they have another exposure to the state-level business and professional civil codes regarding truth in advertising.

You might even want to cite my case where there is scheming/COLLUSION to avoid honoring a signed mod contract. This just underscores how they are scheming. That might be how and why your note is now held by an entity within CW that is now claiming not to allow the mods. Having Litton as the servicer while CW still holds the note is a different trick than is the case for my note, I believe, but we may still find that even that is true.

Do you smell some collusion? Both Litton and CW/BofA are pulling some of the same games, independently. Other times, it is being pulled jointly. How did they both come up with the same techniques? (Oh, and Saxon has copied some of the techniques too.)

Now, really, any thought that they just maybe had a conversation around the water cooler or at the bar or over a dinner? We do NOT have to have PROOF of the MEETING. Just outward evidence of the same exact tactics 'independently', let alone the involvement of both companies in pulling some of the tactics, as a variation, too.

BTW, that CW CA AG Settlement also required that CW make further mods available to the targeted types of loans thru 2012. Now it did allow some leeway about which loans of the 3 target types, would be offered the mods. I wonder if your attorney can, indeed, force them to 'rethink' offering you a mod.

Did you say yours was a JUMBO loan? That is the 3rd of the 3 types of loans listed in the settlement agreement. It had to be a loan from 2003 thru 2007.

Download both the COMPLAINT and the settlement. You may want to print them both out and take a highlighter to especially the settlement before your meeting with the attorney.

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pre...w_judgment.pdf -- the settlement
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/pre...complaint2.pdf -- the complaint

[Walking Away]

Kim; my advice would be to first speak with a not for profit counselor before signing anything with an attorney and definitely before giving an attorney any money. Every attorney is nice--some are great and some are terrible, but to me $8,000-$10,000 sounds very high so I would strongly suggest some other options first; unless your foreclosure date is very soon. Most attoneys prefer pushing people into BK and foreclosure instead of trying to help client get their home modified; so it's best to use an attorney as a last resort after trying HUD, FHA or NACA who are all free and will try to save your home. I don't know where in New York you live but here is the HUD website for the state of New York.

HUD in New York

Here is FHA phone number: 1-800-CALL-FHA (1-800-225-5342)

You'd be able to talk with a counselor and you also could find out if you could qualify for a refinance. Here is link for info on FHA refinancing; if you qualify. It never hurts to call and it sounds like if you meet the qualifications, that you could afford the home if you get the FHA refi plan which is similiar to Obama plan and based on the 31% number

Should I Consider an FHA Refinance Loan?

Also you can call the government help line and get free advice and phone numbers for nearest free HUD counselors. Their toll free number is 1-888-995-hope(4673)

HPF - Foreclosure Prevention Counseling at 888-995-HOPE

Many here on site have also used the free service of the not for profit company NACA. They've probably saved more home than our government has saved. They have direct connections to Countrywide home retention. Here's link to NACA home saver page.

https://www.naca.com/refinance/refinanceTenStep.jsp

Good luck Kim

[so-cal-gal]

Walking Away, you need to check further back in the thread. If you do, you will see that the INVESTOR entity has said NO to mods.

This is one case where the BEST chance is using the info I've already provided and taking it to the attorney. The attorney may not even go the BK route with this one because there may be grounds to give the lender enough grief to have them quickly change their tune. In that case it really should not cost anywhere near the same amount as a BK.

NACA and the other freebies are great for the cases where you can just slap a new mod together. FOR ANYTHING where the LENDER has to be SHOOK UP to agree to a mod, especially when it is CountryWide that holds the note, take my experienced advice, HIRE THE ATTORNEY.

NACA or other counselors do not get involved with pressuring note holders. Since THAT IS REQUIRED HERE, your freebie route is just a WASTE OF TIME.

[Kim_in_NY]

so-cal-gal ~ you are my hero! Thank you for all the information. I am so sorry for the reason why you've had to become so educated with all of this. Your situation is truly devestating. To have everything signed and notarized and told "NO" has to be simply awful. My heart goes out to you. I'm sure in the end you will get the mod but what you've had to go through spells 'pain and suffering' charges in the future, if you ask me. It is criminal - literally.

I agree the free routes are not options for me at this time given the information I have at hand.

Also, for where I live $8 - 10k for an Attorney for a 2 year process doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I can't do FHA since the mortgage is considered a jumbo. Wish that were an option - I would have done that already.

My appointment with the Attorney is on Monday evening. I will print all this great info so-cal-gal has given and give an update afteward.

[Kim_in_NY]

There may be a bit of questionable dealing on note trades that block access to the mods CW promised under the CA AG settlement. A total of 11 states joined in that.

so-cal-gal... how can I find out which states joined that complaint?