Get FREE Help in the Inland Empire, CA. with Your Loan Modification or Foreclosure from Moe.

Brighter tomorrow

LoanSafe Member
Dec 6, 2008
17
0
0
As embarrasing as it is...I am willing to be "one of the 10". It is more umiliating to loose my home. PLUS, my story is slightly off the norm out there, therefore will benefit that group of individuals who got in this situation as I did.

Moe...I am "Brighter tomorrow". If you have the capability to pull my story from my threads as opposed to my repeating the whole horrid story,please let me know. Otherwise I can repeat the whole thing. I made a recent input just prior to reading this offer to participate.
 

mantri2003

LoanSafe Member
Jan 3, 2009
13
0
0
I am in Sacramento CA. Which loan modification agent is good? All agents are asking more money to process the LM case minimum $3500. I am looking for agent who has got success and charges below $1000. Any one can help me?

My both laons from Patelco. First at 4.5% for 5 ARM(upto June 2009) Second at 7.25% fixed for 15 years. I am behind from this month onwards.
 

Brighter tomorrow

LoanSafe Member
Dec 6, 2008
17
0
0
Hi

I found FREE help with NACA. Google them and read what they are about. Their # is 888.302.6222. Their reording while you are waiting to speak live also will explain who they are. The only problem is it takes "time" but if you don't have much time and are in an immediate situation, they speed up the process by priorty. You can speak to a counsler over the phone by appointment as early as 6am PST. They are extremely helpful and are FREE.
 

mikestrek

LoanSafe Member
Aug 18, 2008
4
0
0
Hey all, I've been reading some of the posts in here. I checked out this site several months ago. Great site. I will tell you that both my first CitiMortgage and my second B of A. worked with me. I was able to modify both loans. I was never late on one payment but because my wife lost her job I pro-acted and called both Mortgage companies and just let them know my situation. Had they not modified my loans I would have gotten behind. My second was done quick in about a month but my first took about five months just because citimortgage is way overloaded with customers now.
If anyone wants any details let me know. I'd be glad to share. Best of luck to all of you and hang in there. I just kept reminding myself I'm not the only one dealing with financial problems.

MIKE
 

Bridget

LoanSafe Member
Feb 10, 2009
6
0
0
Hi there, I am sure you have more persons signed up than you need. Anyways, I am in the IE and am in a situation with HomeEq. Let me know if this offer still stands.
Thanks!
 

Shakota

LoanSafe Member
May 6, 2009
1
0
0
Are you still looking for people. I need the help of a lawyer. I am in Perris, CA. I have done everything myself for the last 18 months and now I am out of options. I hope you can help thank you Leslie
 

California Patriot

LoanSafe Member
Jul 23, 2010
1
0
0
I would greatly appreciate any free help offered. We have lived in Colton, CA. now for 24 yrs. and bought our home new in 1986. We still have the original 'Corporation Grant Deed'. We refinanced with Countrywide at the end of 2007 (consolidation and reduced yrs. to 15) all of which was handled over the phone.

The appraisal was a walk through and I believe was over-inflated (to eventually steal our equity). We later discoved mistakes on the appraisal (6/2010) upon researching the documents.

We had to request a hard copy after paying $400.00 for it, and then received it after the loan had closed (1/2008). We have also discovered other mistakes on the loan documents (husbands birth date, and stated income) as we have recently gone through these documents.

We had provided them (Countrywide) with our bank statements as well as tax returns so they should have accurately recorded the income, but it was not stated correctly on the loan documents.

We signed papers on 12/24/2007 and the loan closed on 12/31/2007. In the original note, Countrywide Bank, FSB is listed as the lender; ReconTrust Company, N.A as a trustee; MERS as the beneficiary for $186,900. Note: Countrywide was purchased by Bank of America Corporation on July 2, 2008.

The loan went through LandAmerica/Lawyers Title Company and we received a letter/documents on 1/2/2008 from them. This loan was insured for $186,000. LandAmerica Financial Group Inc. went bankrupt in 2008, and eventually Fidelity National Financial Inc. ended up acquiring the remaining assets of LandAmerica and its subsidiaries.

Upon my own discovery at the San Bernardino County Hall of Records 5/26/2010, I found the last two documents filed we both filed on the same day:

The first was for a 'Substitution of Trustee', recording requested by GMAC Mortgage, LLC, lender. "Whereas, the undersigned is the present Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust described belows as follows: Original Trustor: husbands/my names; Original Beneficiary: MERS, AND WHEREAS, the undersigned desires to substitute a different Trustee for the purpose of reconveying said Deed of TRUST; NOW THEREFORE the undersigned hereby substitutes EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES,LLC as Trustee under said Deed of Trust." (Removing MERS as beneficiary)

The second was a "Full Reconveyance", again recording requested by GMAC Mortgage, LLC, lender. "Executive Trustee Services, LLC as present Trustee for the Deed of Trust executed by (husbands/my name), dated 09/12/2003, recorded 09/25/2003 as instrument No,# of official Records in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino, California having been requested in writing, by the holder of the obligations secured by said Deed of Trust, to reconvey the estate granted to trustee under said Deed of Trust, does hereby reconvey to the person or persons legally entitled thereto, without warranty, all the estate, title and interest acquired by Trustee under said Deed of Trust." In witness whereof, Executive Trustee Services, LLC....

My questions are many, however I think this states that WE own our property? Is this correct? Bank of America is the current servicing agent and has recently sent us a Notice of Intent to Accelerate. 7/19/2010.
We have made some calls and have not been able to find any help.
Sincerely,
California Patriot
 

mimi123

LoanSafe Member
Jul 27, 2010
2
0
0
4 months Late on FHA Loan in NJ-Morgtgage Company Freedom Mortgage

Hi Even,
We are 4 months behind on our FHA Loan. Our mortgage company is Freedom Mortgage and Loan Care is servicing the Loan. We had refinanced the Loan last year from BOA and were paying 7% 30 years fixed to BOA. After refinanceing now with 2 points, our interest rate is 4.5 with 30 years fixed. My husband lost his job and now it is very difficult for us to pay the monthly installment $2,197.40 per month with other obligations. Please let me know my options. Can I apply ofr partial claim so that I can be current on my mortgage and then apply for Loan modification? Please help Thanks...Mimi
 

soccermom

LoanSafe Member
Mar 18, 2010
162
1
0
I would love help! WF has said no help other that SFA that is $20 less a month then to possibly be reviewed after trial...we know how trials go! I am ready to fight foreclosure with the whole MERS fraud strategy! have someone else who is in a pick a payment with BOFA and they were turned down
 

danschez

LoanSafe Member
Aug 11, 2010
16
0
0
Can you help people post foreclosure sale still living in the property? The house was taken back by the bank...not sold to 3rd party. (B Of A) to (Fannie Mae)
 

BabyBlue

LoanSafe Member
Nov 23, 2010
149
1
0
California
Truth in Lending Act and illegal loans

Good Day All, If help is available I would like to request it. Also I would like to mention something I just learned that may save me. I refer to the Truth in Lending Act. Pasting in here: If one has a fraudlent loan that is less than three years old I think you may want to read this.


Fed wants to strip a key protection for homeowners
McClatchy

WASHINGTON — As Americans continue to lose their homes in record numbers, the Federal Reserve is considering making it much harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures and escape predatory home loans with onerous terms.
The Fed's proposal to amend a 42-year-old provision of the federal Truth in Lending Act has angered labor, civil rights and consumer advocacy groups along with a slew of foreclosure defense attorneys.<O:pThey're not only asking the Fed to withdraw the proposal, they also want any future changes to the law to be handled by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which begins its work next year. <O:p<O:pIn a letter to the Fed's Board of Governors, dozens of groups that oppose the measure, including the National Consumer Law Center, the NAACP and the Service Employees International Union, say the proposal is bad medicine at the wrong time. At the depths of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, we are surprised that the Fed has proposed rules that would eviscerate the primary protection homeowners currently have to escape abusive loans and avoid foreclosure: the extended right of rescission.
Because the public comment period on the Fed's proposal is still open until Dec. 23, a spokesman declined comment on the matter.
But in a September passage in the Federal Register, the Fed said the proposal was designed to ensure a clearer and more equitable process for resolving rescission claims raised in court proceedings" and reflects what most courts already require.
Since 1968, the Truth in Lending Act has given homeowners the right to cancel, or rescind illegal loans for up to three years after the transaction was completed if the buyer wasn't provided with proper disclosures at the time of closing.
Attorneys at AARP have used the rescission clause for decades to protect older homeowners stuck in predatory loans with costly terms. The provision is also helping struggling homeowners to fight a wave of foreclosure cases in which faulty and sometimes-fraudulent disclosures were used.
The violations must be of a material nature to invalidate a loan under the extended-rescission clause. To do so, homeowners — usually those facing financial problems or foreclosure — hire an attorney to scour their mortgage documents for possible violations regarding the actual cost of the loan or payment terms.<O:pIf problems are found, a notice of rescission is sent to the creditor, which can either admit to the alleged violation or contest it in court.
Creditors that end up rescinding a loan are then required to cancel their "security interest," or lien, on the property.
Once that occurs, the homeowner must then pay the outstanding loan balance back to the lender — minus the finance charges, fees and payments already made.<O:pDropping the lien provides homeowners with a defense against foreclosure and allows them to refinance to pay the outstanding loan amount.
Critics say the proposed change by the Fed would render the rescission clause useless. The Fed proposal would require homeowners who seek a loan rescission through the courts, to pay off the entire loan balance before the lender cancels the lien.
"This, of course, would be almost impossible for most consumers to do because they can't come up with the money until they get out of the loan. And they can't get out of the loan until the lien is released," said Barry Zigas, director of housing and credit policy at the Consumer Federation of America. "None of us are quite sure what purpose is being served by this proposal or what prompted it."
The Fed's proposal is part of an ongoing effort begun in 2005 to review and update rules and guidelines for disclosure in the rescission process, said Kathleen Keest, the senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending. That effort, which includes a review and update of the forms used for rescission, pre-dates the housing-market meltdown and the recession, she said.
The Fed "believes this adjustment would facilitate compliance with the Truth in Lending Act," adding that the "majority of courts that have considered this issue" condition the release of a lien on a homeowner's ability to repay the balance.
The Mortgage Bankers Association, the main trade group for the real estate finance industry, hasn't taken a position on the issue or submitted public comment to the Fed. But "we are inclined to support the direction the Fed is headed," said John Mechem, the MBA's vice president for public affairs.
Requiring homeowners to pay what remains of the original loan before a rescission can proceed is tantamount to a "verdict first, trial later" philosophy, Keest said.
"It basically puts the cart before the horse," she said, adding that securing the "right to rescind determines how much you have to (pay)."
David Certner, the legislative policy director at AARP, which also has criticized the proposal, said rescission is an effective tool to make sure creditors follow the rules and are transparent about the true cost of loans.
"It can help put off a foreclosure and give one the leverage in negotiating some other type of appropriate payment or settlement. It's a very powerful tool to help people stay in their homes," Certner said. He called the proposal "egregious."
Read more: Fed wants to strip a key protection for homeowners | McClatchy

<HR class=msocomoff align=left SIZE=1 width="33%">
 

elliott

LoanSafe Member
Aug 7, 2012
1
0
0
The Loan Safe Advocacy Group in association with the Law Offices of Marshall E. Rosesnbach and the media is proud to announce that we are now offering for a limited time FREE help to 10 lucky homeowners that are facing mortgage issues or foreclosure in the Inland Empire of California.

The only catch is that in order to obtain this service for free, we will need you to agree to have your story documented here on Loan Safe and also in the media. Which will include newspaper and TV exposure. Yes, you will be on TV and in the paper.

The purpose of this is to:
  • expose what lenders are "really" doing
  • expose any "scams" and predatory lending to the public
  • expose what people "really" go through
  • educate others so they can save their home
  • hold lenders accountable
You will have exclusive access to have your loan documents reviewed for free and also full homeowner loss mitigation.

Currently we have 2 Loan Safe members that have agreed to participate:
  1. Farawayangel - Christine Paterson form San Bernardino, CA.
  2. Michelle Kraus - Corona, CA.
  3. Who's next?
Please respond here or feel free to email or call me ASAP. Thanks!!!!
HI Moe i like to participate i am in riverside ca Sergio Rodriguez