Tag Archives: homeowner

Day 1 for President Trump: HUD suspends FHA mortgage insurance premium cut

And yes, the FHA insurance will go up and will hurt low income and middle class homeowners…

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it suspended the reduction of Mortgage Insurance Premiums, effective immediately.

HUD sent out an announcement just an hour after President Trump was sworn in on Friday, stating that the cuts have been suspended indefinitely.

The letter, found here, stated that the FHA will issue a subsequent Mortgagee Letter at a later date should this policy change.

“FHA is committed to ensuring its mortgage insurance programs remains viable and effective in the long term for all parties involved, especially our taxpayers,” the letter stated. “As such, more analysis and research are deemed necessary to assess future adjustments while also considering potential market conditions in an ever-changing global economy that could impact our efforts.”

Right before leaving office, the Obama administration cut FHA mortgage insurance premiums, marking the second time it reduced premiums in two years.
Read on.

Wells Fargo, You Can Run but You Can’t Hide: A Homeowner’s Testimony

Truthout:

Lainey Hashorva: Please tell me a bit about your work background, and what brought you to apply for assistance through the HAMP or HARP programs with Wells Fargo?

Therese Crowley: I was a Series 7 (securities industry) employee registered in the 1980s, and have been a managing real estate broker for more than 20 years in Illinois. After two back to back surgeries in 2008-9 — with 800 FICO scores and 62 percent LTV on my home — I was inundated with large medical bills coupled with the collapse of the real estate market. Current on my mortgage, I proactively reached out to Wells Fargo for a home loan modification in an effort to reduce my expenses. What I encountered was nothing short of a nightmare that is ongoing today as I mark seven years in this fight for my home. I stepped into the very carefully laid trap of Wells Fargo — which led me into a now my sixth year of litigation.

On all four of my applications for a loan modification over the course of 12 months (in 2009-10), Wells Fargo personnel, up to and including the executive office of John Stumpf, repeatedly used false data entry in the loan software, made misleading and fraudulent representations to me, and when identified, Wells employees refused to correct it and simply continued with ongoing delays. According to their own employees, I would have certainly been cleared for a modification had they used the correct data and followed the guidelines. Yet Wells continued to issue denial letters, falsified data in appraisals stating I had $120,000 in equity, delays and requests for more documents. They said I “failed to meet investor guidelines,” and that in fact was fraud and a misrepresentation. My “investor” is Fannie Mae. With each application, it got worse. Wells said, in writing, that my home was below the mortgage amount, when Wells had multiple appraisals reflecting a minimum of a 68 percent loan amount to actual value (LTV.)

Wells Fargo added monthly credit card debt into their calculations of my income and expenses. I had no credit cards! Wells used incorrect property tax data, more than 2.5 times the amount. When they had the current county tax bill, they used incorrect income numbers even though they had all my bank statements and income information that I had submitted per their request. In March 2010, the bank notified Fannie Mae that they were foreclosing on my home as of April 1, thought I was current on the mortgage! This was against the law in Illinois, not to mention unconscionable theft. I learned that based on the false statements the bank made to Fannie Mae, Wells Fargo was able to collect on the default insurance of nearly $115,000.00, all under false representations to the government, as my mortgage was not in default.

I was told by Wells Fargo that I was denied a modification by Fannie Mae, though months later I discovered that I had in fact been approved twice through the Chicago office of Fannie Mae. I have the documents that verify the approvals, tho the false statements by Wells Fargo — both to me and the government entity, Fannie Mae — reflect the opposite. While my applications were under review by Wells Fargo, and unbeknownst to me, Wells had conducted four or more hard credit checks which brought my 800 credit score down below 660.

When your credit is harmed and diminished, it puts you in a tight box. I was unable to obtain alternative mortgage options as I was in this trap carefully constructed by Wells Fargo. I was livid! It was so overwhelming. When I confronted Wells Fargo, they tried to coerce me into signing an in-house “proprietary modification” which included an additional $15,000, though there was no accounting or justification for that, and it made no sense.

Judge sues foreclosure defendant who filed $2.4 million “criminal complaint” against him

Last year, Judge Thomas Minkoff issued an order that a house owned by Leslie and Martin Armstrong be auctioned at a foreclosure sale.

That order sparked a legal saga that saw Mrs. Armstrong filing a “criminal complaint” against Minkoff, his legal staff, Wells Fargo and its attorney that alleges they deprived her of her constitutional rights. Mrs. Armstrong alleges that they civil value of the 242 counts in her complaint add up to $2.4 million that she’s owed. Minkoff is a civil court judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pasco and Pinellas Counties.

In the latest chapter, Minkoff, who is represented by sAttorney General Pam Bondi’s office, filed suit Friday alleging that the criminal complaint is full of false representations. He’s asking the court have them expunged from the record and that an injunction be issued preventing Mrs. Armstrong from filing any more “false documents.”

Neither Minkoff nor Mrs. Armstrong could be reached for comment. But the court documents tell the story.

Read on.

Siding With Foreclosure Victim, California Court Exposes Law Enforcement Failure

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously in favor of a fraudulently foreclosed-upon homeowner in a case that should serve as a wake-up call to state and federal prosecutors that mortgage companies continue to use false documents to evict homeowners on a daily basis.

“A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands,” the justices wrote.

But maddeningly, practically nobody in a position of authority has stepped up to prevent those injurious invasions.

The case, Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, sends a powerful signal from the nation’s biggest state that the massive false document scandal, first discovered nearly a decade ago, is not over, despite mortgage company promises to the contrary.

Read on.

Illinois Judge Affirms $2M Award for Wrongful Foreclosures

An Illinois district court judge affirmed a $2 million verdict against a Texas-based mortgage servicer for its collection activities against an elderly homeowner.

Alena W. Hammer filed suit in 2013 after Residential Credit Solutions filed two wrongful foreclosures, although Hammer had previously completed a loan modification with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

In April 2015, a federal jury found in Hammer’s favor on all claims of breach of contract, violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Read on.

Wells Fargo confuses homeowner with conflicting letters

All Jackie wanted was a helping hand from her mortgage company, Wells Fargo, when seven months ago she lost a substantial part of her income and was temporarily unable to make her full house payment. Instead, what she got was a bunch of confusing letters and a foreclosure complaint.

 

WHO’S ON FIRST?

The letters leading up to the foreclosure together were reminiscent of the old comedy skit, “Who’s on First?” In other words, they painted a confusing portrait as to what exactly Jackie needed to do to work her way out of the dilemma and save her home.

For example, one letter from Wells Fargo lamented that it was unable to reach an agreement with Jackie as to her options while going on to state, “We have several options which may help you.”

Even more confusing was when Wells Fargo sent a letter saying Jackie may qualify for a loan modification, only to be followed two days later by another letter demanding payment of her entire $75,000 mortgage balance or foreclosure would follow.

Read on.

15 -Year Battle: Connecticut Homeowner Claims Bank Of New York Wants To “Steal” Home Through “Fraudulent” Foreclosure

Roman standing in front of the home BNY has been fighting for since 2000

[Black Star News Investigative Report]

After holding off the Bank of New York for 15 years Louis Roman, a Connecticut homeowner, claims the giant corporation could “fraudulently” foreclose on the house he’s lived in for 47 years, tomorrow.

The bank filed a lawsuit seeking to foreclose in 2000 and won a summary judgment. Somehow Roman, who owns the home in Bridgeport that he bought with his then wife Diane, has managed to hold off the bank, representing himself through most of the years, by filing extensions on the foreclosure dates, appeals, counterclaims and bankruptcies.

The bank eventually won a judgment for a strict foreclosure with a law date of September 22.

“How can Bank of New York foreclose when they don’t own the note and mortgage on the property,” Roman, a former banker himself who says he earned an MBA from Harvard, says. “I’ve been demanding for a trial for years so I can introduce the evidence of fraud but no judge in Connecticut wants to give me my day in court. The bank wants to steal my home through a favorable ruling on a motion, from the judges.”

“These aren’t just my words, I have documentation to back it all up,” Roman adds.

In recent years there have been reports of massive fraud against homeowners by major banks including BNY; in one case the bank reportedly filed foreclosure proceeding on a property three months before it had even been assiged the note and mortgage.

Roman says a Connecticut Superior Court Judge granted BNY strict foreclosure even after the IRS placed a federal tax lien on the property.

– See more at: http://www.blackstarnews.com/money/news/15-year-battle-connecticut-homeowner-claims-bank-of-new-york-wants-to#sthash.BbC7QpU5.dpuf

Homeowner beats HOA in lawsuit over purple backyard playground

The swingset can stay. A Missouri judge has ruled that a suburban Kansas City family’s purple swingset won’t need to have its color changed, following repeated threats from their homeowners’ association. Per Fox News:

“We’re super excited, we’re very happy,” Marla Stout, who owns the swingset, told Fox4KC at a neighborhood barbecue Sunday celebrating Friday’s ruling.

The article explained that after an initial hearing on Aug. 21, the court ruled in the Stouts’ favor.

But after eveyrthing that has happened, the article said that Stout believes the homeowners’ association should apologize to the entire neighborhood.

“It’s been very embarrassing for our community and its cost every resident in this community a lot of money and reputation,” she told Fox4KC.

The news first came out in mid-August that the family wasbeing sued with jail time by the HOA over a playground they put up in their backyard.

“We got a notice that we were being fined by the HOA,” Stout said.

That was last year. The family fought it and won, but the dispute wasn’t over yet. The family received more letters outlining more serious consequences.

“(The letters said) that if we didn’t remove the swing set from the subdivision in a couple of weeks, we go to jail,” Stout said.

Source: Fox News

Foreclosure Sales and Deficiency Judgments in Tennessee

When a lender forecloses on a parcel of property, it is not unusual for the property to sell for an amount that is less than the amount owed. In that instance, the lender often seeks a judgment for the difference or the deficiency. In Tennessee, a statute directs that the deficiency judgment shall be the total amount of the debt less the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale. (Tenn. Code Ann. Section 35-5-118.)

The sale price at the foreclosure is presumed to be the fair market value absent fraud or irregularity in the sale process. But, the debtor can overcome that presumption by showing that the sale price is “materially less” than the fair market value of the property.

In Cutshaw v. Hensley, No. E2014-01561-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2015), the court of appeals held that a price at the foreclosure sale that was 78% less than the fair market value of the property was “materially less.” That conclusion is not surprising. The court of appeals found that the fair market value was the price that the lender (who purchased the property at the foreclosure sale) sold the property 49 days later.

Read on.

Valbuena v. Ocwen: Homeowner beats Ocwen on foreclosure appeal

ocwen1

The Soap Box:

California appeals court  slaps down servicer’s attempt to require payment of the entire mortgage loan a condition of homeowner protection.

Nice try, Ocwen.

But no, says an intermediate California appeals court.

Such an interpretation would gut theCalifornia Homeowner’s Bill of Rights.

Facing foreclosure

The facts in Valbuena v. Ocwen  are common:  Ocwen became the servicer of the Valbuena’s mortgage loan when the loan was in default.

Ocwen filed a notice of foreclosure sale and sent the homeowners a letter offering to consider a loan modification.  The homeowners submitted an application and supplemented it when Ocwen told them it was missing necessary documents.

Two days later, Ocwen foreclosed.

Dual tracking prohibited

California’s homeowners bill of rights forbids a foreclosure sale while the mortgage servicer is considering an application to modify the loan in default.

Nonetheless, Ocwen solicited a loan modification application and barreled right along to foreclosure.

Ocwen sent the homeowners a letter promising to consider a loan modification application on March 13;  the letter, received by homeowners March 18, required submission of an application by march 18.  An application was submitted March 21 and supplemented on March 22.

On March 25, Ocwen wrote that the modification was denied and conducted a foreclosure sale the same day.

The servicer attempted to import into HBOR a requirement of older California mortgage law requiring the complaining borrower to tender payment in full as a condition of getting legal relief.

No such tender requirement is found in HBOR, said the appeals court.

Such a requirement would completely eviscerate the remedial provisions of the statute.