Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

razmik

LoanSafe Member
May 6, 2012
241
8
18
California
Well they're we have it. Proof that Pelosi et all are trolling Bagels for campaign strategy. Krafty, there's your response to democrats not saying anything.


I'll be honest. The first word that came to mind when I saw Pelosi and crew kneeling for nine minutes in full cultural appropriation regalia was pandering. But then I stopped to remind myself I never signed anything promising to be jaded all the time. Kneeling is a posture too rife with historical symbolism not to be powerful. It signifies concession, penitence, a plea, a willingness to compromise, adoration, atonement and a prayer among other things. More generally it signifies humility in the face of something greater than yourself. Genuflection is a gesture of the deepest respect.

Kaepernick used the poignant stance as protest and it was interrupted as a sort of arrogance which was ironic but it caught on due to the "arrogance" of bowing to something more powerful than our society's perception of equality. So hats off to the democrats and Mitt Romney as well for marching with the protesters! And the policemen too who took a knee. Now let's see if it engenders positive change.

BTW, cultural appropriation is a good thing you silly PC types. It's one of the ways society grows and strengthens with our diversity
Hello isisis hope you are very well. Remember me? I am still in my house. Going to 11th year. I used yours and some other people help from here and I appreciate it a lot. The latest, after years and months of fight, for second time, they gave me a modification but it is for about $8,400 a month which I can not afford. No principle reduction is involved. The rate is calculated for a 20 years amortization. they don't do 30 or 40 years or interest only. This is Mr. Cooper/Nationstar.
What is your opinion, should I pay for 3 months and then stop and go back to NOD and NOS. Thank you
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,238
164
63
Hello isisis hope you are very well. Remember me? I am still in my house. Going to 11th year. I used yours and some other people help from here and I appreciate it a lot. The latest, after years and months of fight, for second time, they gave me a modification but it is for about $8,400 a month which I can not afford. No principle reduction is involved. The rate is calculated for a 20 years amortization. they don't do 30 or 40 years or interest only. This is Mr. Cooper/Nationstar.
What is your opinion, should I pay for 3 months and then stop and go back to NOD and NOS. Thank you

WOW......

If I may ask, what was your original mortgage payment??? I could not imagine a payment of that size....
 

razmik

LoanSafe Member
May 6, 2012
241
8
18
California
WOW......

If I may ask, what was your original mortgage payment??? I could not imagine a payment of that size....
My loan was $970,000 and with unpaid balance they calculated, which I am not sure it is correct, they claim it is somewhere around $1,600,000 and not offering principle reduction. My payments were below $4,000 before
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,498
270
83
My friend owns a house in San Francisco, bought in 90s for 700K, now it's worth 3M. It's just house price in SF went up so much.

Anyway, i got an 28-day extension to file my petition for reconsideration. Best $53 (motion fee) ever spent, buys me at least 2 months (assumed they can sell my house). Then I'll file petition for review with the Supreme Court, then wait. Got a hold of a few examples of briefs , so I am all set, just have to excecute the plan.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,238
164
63
My loan was $970,000 and with unpaid balance they calculated, which I am not sure it is correct, they claim it is somewhere around $1,600,000 and not offering principle reduction. My payments were below $4,000 before
As you mentioned going into your 11th year fighting, I guess that much is possible...but wow...talk about sticker shock.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,810
254
83
North bay
Hey Razmik,

Been awhile. Ouch, $8,400 a month is not a sustainable payment. Sounds like they took your arrears, foreclosure charges and fees and the interest they earned at the note rate and recapitalized the new ballooned balance so they could earn interest on interest. That's part of the modification scam. It also sounds like asset based lending and a violation of federal law. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(h) Extension of credit without the ability to repay. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1639.

Also Cal. Civil Code § 1920, Any mortgage instrument that is made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall meet the following requirements: (a) monthly payments shall consider factors which can reasonably be deemed to affect the ability of borrowers to meet their mortgage obligations. Though I'm not certain how those statutes affect modifications because exceptions might apply.

Another challenge you could have is the foreclosure charges included in the new loan amount. You might want to start by sending a QWR asking for an account history. This should show the various charges assessed. Compare the charges to Fannie Mae's allowable foreclosure fees for California. While you're not with Fannie Mae you could request an explanation for why it was reasonable and appropriate to assess fees in excess of the industry standard and how it conforms with the terms of the DOT in protecting the Lender's interest in the Security Instrument. In s notice of error request they correct the overcharges. They are unlikely to do so but a dispute has arisen because according to the FTC overcharging in default services violates the loan contract and - in theory - prevents them from enforcing the contract. You of course could inform them of that fact.

If they did anything to induce you not to make payments you could dispute the fees altogether using Civil Code §1511-12 which states:

The want of performance of an obligation, or of an offer of performance, in whole or in part, or any delay therein, is excused by the following causes, to the extent to which they operate:

3. When the debtor is induced not to make it, by any act of the creditor intended or naturally tending to have that effect, done at or before the time at which such performance or offer may be made, and not rescinded before that time.

If your performance was excused the provisions of the DOT regarding loan charges are not applicable.

For that matter you could use the same argument to request that the arrears be removed as your performance was excused and did not accrue.

Another angle is if they made false promises of improved loan terms and then delayed so as to allow high interest rate arrears to accumulate - particularly if their misrepresentations prevented you from finding affordable terms elsewhere by refinancing - you could assert that they failed to mitigate damages to your detriment.

You could claim a violation of the FDCPA for misrepresenting the amount and legal status of the debt in violation of 15 USC 1692e (A). FDCPA violations have some teeth. In a recent case Castillo v. Nationstar, the homeowner settled with $250,000 and the other side paid her attorney fees.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13042702498054129575&q=castillo+v+nationstar+mortgage+llc&hl=en&as_sdt=2003

There's also a possible Chapter 13 angle with an adversary preceding that I'm looking into involving TILA.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
643
63
28
MT, - I ran into another homeowner with similar issues regarding clerk's inability to produce file and transcripts. (took months then they foreclosed without the file even) Same boat, different State. Filed for reconsideration. It's a bitch to undo. I know you are busy but have or did you file any official complaint on the Circuit Court Clerk involved? I think it's a shame that both Judges and Clerks are involved in these shenanigans.

It's so much extra effort to make bar complaints, judicial complaints, clerk complaints, magistrate complaints, lender complaints ... but if these are not done, they win and continue same undeterred.

Razmik/Isisis - yep, yep, yep and yada - Just loving how Isisis clarifies issues.

Krafty - discovery is like pulling teeth over here, I'm tired of waiting for the bank to get their day first as a means to avoid regular process of discovery, have you gotten any traction on motion to compel?

Wanda - YO!
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
590
53
28
My loan was $970,000 and with unpaid balance they calculated, which I am not sure it is correct, they claim it is somewhere around $1,600,000 and not offering principle reduction. My payments were below $4,000 before
I was going to answer your question, but I can't find the original post to quote.

Here is my advice for you...

First off -- What is the home even worth? Would it ever in a million years, be worth trying to get a refinance? In my case, my home is still not even fully worth the Beginning Principal Balance of the loan, let alone the deferred and delinquent interest. So -- unless they were willing to settle everything for like 90-95% of actual value -- I would not consider squat.

I know you had a PayOption Loan too. Is it worth the original principal balance of the loan? What about the outstanding amount due today? Is there any equity in the home at all, after a complete payoff?

If there is --- I think you should consider a refinance. Southern California has historically done quite well. I would imagine, you would do quite well -- if you could afford the refinance payments, and hold onto it for a while.

Beyond that, to answer the original question at hand. I WOULD TAKE THE MOD. I would be jumping up and down, and signing anything they send to you (after carefully reading it of-course).

Here is something -- I don't think you've considered.

Thanks to Corona -- everyone is entitled to Forbearance. And guess what. They are not allowed to ask for documentation. So... the moment after you've paid three months of mortgage payments, and you've signed the loan mod packet, you can request a forbearance on your account. They'll likely give it to you in 3-Month Increments. You can get FOUR of them, for a full YEAR period.

That would mean, at the very least... you would get 15 Months, for the Price of 3 in your home. But... WAIT, there's more!

In California -- servicers are unable to begin proceedings, until your 120 Days Delinquent in payments. So, what would actually happen is this.

You would make your 3 Trial Payments. Sign the Loan Mod. Request Foreborance. 1 Year Later... when payments are due. You could pay nothing. And 4 months later, only then... would they begin the proceedings again. And with your resources, you could probably keep them at bay for a while.

Or.... if you're like me, during that one year period, you could wait for the new version of HAMP -- which I believe is on the way. So many people are delinquent right now, that the government is going to have to come in and do something, to prevent another housing market collapse.

I'm personally waiting for the HOPE/HAMP/HARP Shuffle to start over. I want new 40-Year Loan Mods. And since I have all this free time, this time around, I'm going to fight until I get it.

Be Clever. That Loan Mod is a Saving Grace. Don't waste the gift.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,810
254
83
North bay
I was going to answer your question, but I can't find the original post to quote.

Here is my advice for you...

First off -- What is the home even worth? Would it ever in a million years, be worth trying to get a refinance? In my case, my home is still not even fully worth the Beginning Principal Balance of the loan, let alone the deferred and delinquent interest. So -- unless they were willing to settle everything for like 90-95% of actual value -- I would not consider squat.

I know you had a PayOption Loan too. Is it worth the original principal balance of the loan? What about the outstanding amount due today? Is there any equity in the home at all, after a complete payoff?

If there is --- I think you should consider a refinance. Southern California has historically done quite well. I would imagine, you would do quite well -- if you could afford the refinance payments, and hold onto it for a while.

Beyond that, to answer the original question at hand. I WOULD TAKE THE MOD. I would be jumping up and down, and signing anything they send to you (after carefully reading it of-course).

Here is something -- I don't think you've considered.

Thanks to Corona -- everyone is entitled to Forbearance. And guess what. They are not allowed to ask for documentation. So... the moment after you've paid three months of mortgage payments, and you've signed the loan mod packet, you can request a forbearance on your account. They'll likely give it to you in 3-Month Increments. You can get FOUR of them, for a full YEAR period.

That would mean, at the very least... you would get 15 Months, for the Price of 3 in your home. But... WAIT, there's more!

In California -- servicers are unable to begin proceedings, until your 120 Days Delinquent in payments. So, what would actually happen is this.

You would make your 3 Trial Payments. Sign the Loan Mod. Request Foreborance. 1 Year Later... when payments are due. You could pay nothing. And 4 months later, only then... would they begin the proceedings again. And with your resources, you could probably keep them at bay for a while.

Or.... if you're like me, during that one year period, you could wait for the new version of HAMP -- which I believe is on the way. So many people are delinquent right now, that the government is going to have to come in and do something, to prevent another housing market collapse.

I'm personally waiting for the HOPE/HAMP/HARP Shuffle to start over. I want new 40-Year Loan Mods. And since I have all this free time, this time around, I'm going to fight until I get it.

Be Clever. That Loan Mod is a Saving Grace. Don't waste the gift.
Razmik seems to be in a position similar to mine in which the servicer used the offer of improved loan terms as a mechanism to foreclose. It's more commonly used if a property has a good amount of equity to begin with though it's happened all over. Default is strategically induced to "qualify" for a modification then foreclosure charges are added on while the homeowner is told to be patient during the lengthy modification process. The modification is then denied and the homeowner told to reapply. Meanwhile payments accrue and charges add up and the servicer earns special servicing fees. This is a very profitable scheme as it makes it nearly impossible for the homeowner to catch up and avoid being foreclosed on but in the meantime equity increases. The servicer can either sell the house or capitalise the new loan balance and receive a far greater return. In my case the principal nearly doubled so that even a lower interest rate resulted in the total payments owed increasing by $500,000.

Yes, courts know about this scheme and it's been condemned by many though without any real benefit to the borrower. In one case however, the judge as so incensed by the treatment received by the homeowners he awarded $45 million. The case was Sundquist v. Bank of America, NA, 566 B.R. 563 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2017)
in which judge Christopher Klein gave a scathing indictment of Bofa's business practices and also provided the financial reasoning behind their actions.

"Why on Earth would Bank of America be so passive aggressive with the Sundquists and so reluctant to reach closure with them?

First, a finance professional would point out that the 6 percent contract interest rate on the note that keeps accruing at an annual pace of $35,093.64 on the $584,893.97 principal balance is higher than what would result if the note were to be paid in full and the funds lent to another borrower.

Second, the collateral is in a premium location in a gated community and is likely to be sufficient to cover the full debt indefinitely. When Bank of America foreclosed in 2010, it bid the full amount of the debt as if it believed the residence was worth at least $584,893.97; property values have since rebounded to a level that likely is greater than the debt.

Bank of America has little financial incentive to kill a goose that keeps laying 6 percent golden eggs when the federal funds rate is 0.39 percent and the average mortgage rate is 3.45 percent for a 30-year fixed rate."
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,498
270
83
I don’t know about trusts with Countrywide (now Bank of America) as master servicer but with RFC (now Ocwen) master servicer, the master servicer simply liquidated defaulted loans from the trusts and assume control of the loans, collecting all the foreclosure proceeds. That fact was validated by a few Certificate holder reports showing defaulted loans liquidated but none was repurchased. In my case that is a misrepresentation because the loan was long gone from the trust. The judgment must be set aside due to fraud and misrepresentation. I have a feeling they (the banks and the courts) will push me to the limit but I won’t quit. I will file a motion for reconsideration but ready to file a petition for review to the state SC. Then federal, then the 9th circuit, then the U S suprem Court (probably review denied). By that time, I will be ready to leave.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,238
164
63
I was going to answer your question, but I can't find the original post to quote.

Here is my advice for you...

First off -- What is the home even worth? Would it ever in a million years, be worth trying to get a refinance? In my case, my home is still not even fully worth the Beginning Principal Balance of the loan, let alone the deferred and delinquent interest. So -- unless they were willing to settle everything for like 90-95% of actual value -- I would not consider squat.

I know you had a PayOption Loan too. Is it worth the original principal balance of the loan? What about the outstanding amount due today? Is there any equity in the home at all, after a complete payoff?

If there is --- I think you should consider a refinance. Southern California has historically done quite well. I would imagine, you would do quite well -- if you could afford the refinance payments, and hold onto it for a while.

Beyond that, to answer the original question at hand. I WOULD TAKE THE MOD. I would be jumping up and down, and signing anything they send to you (after carefully reading it of-course).

Here is something -- I don't think you've considered.

Thanks to Corona -- everyone is entitled to Forbearance. And guess what. They are not allowed to ask for documentation. So... the moment after you've paid three months of mortgage payments, and you've signed the loan mod packet, you can request a forbearance on your account. They'll likely give it to you in 3-Month Increments. You can get FOUR of them, for a full YEAR period.

That would mean, at the very least... you would get 15 Months, for the Price of 3 in your home. But... WAIT, there's more!

In California -- servicers are unable to begin proceedings, until your 120 Days Delinquent in payments. So, what would actually happen is this.

You would make your 3 Trial Payments. Sign the Loan Mod. Request Foreborance. 1 Year Later... when payments are due. You could pay nothing. And 4 months later, only then... would they begin the proceedings again. And with your resources, you could probably keep them at bay for a while.

Or.... if you're like me, during that one year period, you could wait for the new version of HAMP -- which I believe is on the way. So many people are delinquent right now, that the government is going to have to come in and do something, to prevent another housing market collapse.

I'm personally waiting for the HOPE/HAMP/HARP Shuffle to start over. I want new 40-Year Loan Mods. And since I have all this free time, this time around, I'm going to fight until I get it.

Be Clever. That Loan Mod is a Saving Grace. Don't waste the gift.
It's only a saving grace if one can afford the payments. Not too many of us could afford a monthly payment of $8400.....for three months....that's a very long shot. I mean, think about it, the original payment was under $4K. If someone could afford $8400 monthly payments, I suspect they would have kept paying the payments when they were less than $4K. That's a ridiculous offer, and truth be told, it is insulting. It's like dangling a carrot in front of someone that, for most of us anyway, we won't ever be able to reach. "Sure you can keep your home....just make these ungodly payment amounts and you'll be fine!".....the banksters are laughing all the way to the $$$ they don't deserve with stunts like this.

I thought a local friend of mine had it bad when BofA tried to foreclose on property that even the deed description didn't match what they were trying to foreclose on----it was two lots, bought individually, and BofA was trying to foreclose on both even though it had nothing to do with one of the lots----BofA offered my friend a loan mod where the payment amount went up by a few hundred dollars. I thought that was insulting enough. But this, this is disgusting. How can any of these clowns even consider going into a courtroom with a straight face and trying to claim that they made an effort to make the home "more affordable"?
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
590
53
28
It's only a saving grace if one can afford the payments. Not too many of us could afford a monthly payment of $8400.....for three months....that's a very long shot. I mean, think about it, the original payment was under $4K. If someone could afford $8400 monthly payments, I suspect they would have kept paying the payments when they were less than $4K.
You are correct -- but here is how I see it. He is in a Million Dollar Home. In my neck of the woods, that would run you about $5k a month, give or take. They are offering to allow him to "rent" the home, for $8,400 a month -- and not owe anything when the loan matures. That's not really a terrible offer -- considering it includes 11 Years of delinquent property taxes, insurance and interest... but besides that.

By using the advice I gave him -- and Paying only $25,000 for three months of rent. This is not a bad deal -- if he gets 19 Months, or more out of the home. That is almost $100k in rent, for 1/4 of the cost. And, given the value of the original loan -- it's probably a nice home at that.

Not that it makes the loan affordable, or is something any of us could do -- I just wanted to give prospective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kraftykrab

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
590
53
28
Razmik seems to be in a position similar to mine in which the servicer used the offer of improved loan terms as a mechanism to foreclose. It's more commonly used if a property has a good amount of equity to begin with though it's happened all over. Default is strategically induced to "qualify" for a modification then foreclosure charges are added on while the homeowner is told to be patient during the lengthy modification process. The modification is then denied and the homeowner told to reapply. Meanwhile payments accrue and charges add up and the servicer earns special servicing fees. This is a very profitable scheme as it makes it nearly impossible for the homeowner to catch up and avoid being foreclosed on but in the meantime equity increases. The servicer can either sell the house or capitalise the new loan balance and receive a far greater return. In my case the principal nearly doubled so that even a lower interest rate resulted in the total payments owed increasing by $500,000.
In defense of the Mortgage Servicers -- I would like to say, I think it's a terrible deal for them. Every single month, they are required to advance Property Taxes, Insurance Payments, Property Inspections, and other miscellaneous costs for the Investor.

They do not collect any of this money, until the loan is finally liquidated, and someone has bought the home either through Auction, or as a REO. The only money they receive, in the meantime, is their standard servicing fees, based on the original servicing contract they entered into with the originator. This may be 0.25% of the current loan amount, or 2% of the current monthly payment.

What I'm saying is --- Servicing Companies like PHH, Mr. Cooper, Select Portfolio Servicing --- do not look forward to delinquent loans. These loans are human personnel and capital exhaustive. The servicing companies have to go into the Debt Markets and borrow money at 5 or 6%, and use that money to advance all this crap. And only after they finally liquidate, do they see a penny of what they advanced four or five years ago. Not to mention, the insane amounts of money that is spent on the employees handling these accounts, paperwork and processing that goes along with it.

I'm not usually on the side of banks, but I am someone -- who realizes there are two sides to every story. I personally, do not believe that these mortgage servicers make a business out of these loans. I think their business is out of pure necessity.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,810
254
83
North bay
In defense of the Mortgage Servicers -- I would like to say, I think it's a terrible deal for them. Every single month, they are required to advance Property Taxes, Insurance Payments, Property Inspections, and other miscellaneous costs for the Investor.

They do not collect any of this money, until the loan is finally liquidated, and someone has bought the home either through Auction, or as a REO. The only money they receive, in the meantime, is their standard servicing fees, based on the original servicing contract they entered into with the originator. This may be 0.25% of the current loan amount, or 2% of the current monthly payment.

What I'm saying is --- Servicing Companies like PHH, Mr. Cooper, Select Portfolio Servicing --- do not look forward to delinquent loans. These loans are human personnel and capital exhaustive. The servicing companies have to go into the Debt Markets and borrow money at 5 or 6%, and use that money to advance all this crap. And only after they finally liquidate, do they see a penny of what they advanced four or five years ago. Not to mention, the insane amounts of money that is spent on the employees handling these accounts, paperwork and processing that goes along with it.

I'm not usually on the side of banks, but I am someone -- who realizes there are two sides to every story. I personally, do not believe that these mortgage servicers make a business out of these loans. I think their business is out of pure necessity.
OHM,

Wholesale defaults present a cash flow problem to banks and I'll grant you that the effort involved in wresting property from a homeowner may be painstaking but it is ultimately profitable. To quote Countrywide CEO and all around gargoyle David Sambol speaking to investors,

"Now, we are frequently asked what the impact of our servicing costs and earnings will be from increased delinquencies and [loss] mitigation efforts, and what happens to costs. And what we point out is, as I will now, is that increased operating expenses in times like this will tend to be fully offset by increases in ancillary income in our servicing operation, greater fee income from items like late charges, and importantly from in - sourced vendor functions that represent part of our diversification strategy, a counter- cycilcal diversification strategy such as our businesses involved in foreclosure trustee default title serviceses and property inspections services."

That's just regarding the ways creditors can sweeten the deal on their end but the fact that it increases the difficulty in affording payments to homeowners and thus the likelihood of foreclosure makes it all the more appealing to them. This increases with time as more of the loan is paid off and equity grows. Fifteen years into a loan the amount loaned has been paid back (given the nature of amortization) and in many cases the value of the property has doubled. What a windfall foreclosure represents under those circumstances. Ah, the joys of secured lending!

It does present some legal issues however because the very thing that provides the means to profit so outrageously is - in theory at least - a legal mechanism intended to protect both parties: the contract.

While legal theory has vacillated over time with respect to the moralistic nature of contract law, it's generally gone against the idea. Nonetheless conduct within the context of a contract requires fairness and cooperation. It's not a wrong to breach if one is willing to pay damages but it is wrong to swindle the other party by increasing the difficulty of performance and force them into default, shifting the liability to the homeowner. In fact this results in a breach on the part of the swindler. The thinking behind this is that society benefits from the efficiency of fair dealing.

I maintain that a good portion of foreclosures that have taken place in the recent past were the result of an "opportunistic breach" on the part of the servicer. That brings up the possibility of the remedy of restitution but that's a somewhat complicated issue I want to get into later.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,498
270
83
I am using these 2 cases in my motion
Claim disallowed by misrepresentation:
and

unjust enrichment and restitution. You can argue BONY has not sufferred any injury, no free house to the bank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_me

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
598
84
28
Oregon
This big chess game just keeps going on and on. Good to see many of you still here. As most of you know, I am on the Marathon Plan, not the Sprint Plan, and I just take breaks, of setting this all aside for my mental and spiritual health. The toxic filters get turned up, and I do not concern my thoughts with some of the madness out there. Thanks for your concerns Isisis. All is well.... circumstantial delays extend this twelve year Marathon even longer. Now, here we are with a second crisis, or maybe it has really been one long twelve year crisis. I will brush up on the files before the next hearing but nothing will come of it, because of the new restrictions...I guess this is still a Foreclosure issue? It seems as if it is everything but Foreclosure by now. We all have more white or grey hairs, our files are thicker each year, the banks send greenhorn attorneys to deal with us who were in high school when this began. I have been enjoying a lot of reading, music, good cooking and creative projects, and time in the natural world. Prioritizing the quality of life in the time of Covid . I refuse to let this ridiculous situation control everything; it is after all, a frivolous case of breach of contract with no standing. Stay strong, stay with it. Our perseverance alone is driving them crazy. All is well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isisis

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,498
270
83
I paid a Craigslist lawyer cheap to draft me a motion for reconsideration, just to try it out. Also paid a knowledgeable attorney $325 to talk to him for an hour to have a general idea in term of strategy. My conclusion is pro se the best way to go for me. I don’t care if my motion got denied because I will have a chance to file a petition for review with the state Supreme Court, and I don’t care if my petition is denied because I will file a complaint in the Federal court, then appeal, then a petition with the U. S. Supreme Court . I want the world to know how the big banks , so-called investors are ripping-off the home owners and tax payers. I don’t care if I lose the house, I want to go all the courts to find justice. Learning new stuff everyday.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,498
270
83
OHM,

Wholesale defaults present a cash flow problem to banks and I'll grant you that the effort involved in wresting property from a homeowner may be painstaking but it is ultimately profitable. To quote Countrywide CEO and all around gargoyle David Sambol speaking to investors,

"Now, we are frequently asked what the impact of our servicing costs and earnings will be from increased delinquencies and [loss] mitigation efforts, and what happens to costs. And what we point out is, as I will now, is that increased operating expenses in times like this will tend to be fully offset by increases in ancillary income in our servicing operation, greater fee income from items like late charges, and importantly from in - sourced vendor functions that represent part of our diversification strategy, a counter- cycilcal diversification strategy such as our businesses involved in foreclosure trustee default title serviceses and property inspections services."

That's just regarding the ways creditors can sweeten the deal on their end but the fact that it increases the difficulty in affording payments to homeowners and thus the likelihood of foreclosure makes it all the more appealing to them. This increases with time as more of the loan is paid off and equity grows. Fifteen years into a loan the amount loaned has been paid back (given the nature of amortization) and in many cases the value of the property has doubled. What a windfall foreclosure represents under those circumstances. Ah, the joys of secured lending!

It does present some legal issues however because the very thing that provides the means to profit so outrageously is - in theory at least - a legal mechanism intended to protect both parties: the contract.

While legal theory has vacillated over time with respect to the moralistic nature of contract law, it's generally gone against the idea. Nonetheless conduct within the context of a contract requires fairness and cooperation. It's not a wrong to breach if one is willing to pay damages but it is wrong to swindle the other party by increasing the difficulty of performance and force them into default, shifting the liability to the homeowner. In fact this results in a breach on the part of the swindler. The thinking behind this is that society benefits from the efficiency of fair dealing.

I maintain that a good portion of foreclosures that have taken place in the recent past were the result of an "opportunistic breach" on the part of the servicer. That brings up the possibility of the remedy of restitution but that's a somewhat complicated issue I want to get into later.
In ten years, according to BOfA’s own record, on a $250K loan, they collect over 50K in ancillary fees and transferred over $200K from the trust’s fund to Ocwen’s fund. Talking about restitution, times that by 200,000 loans.