hydraruzxpnew4af onion <a href="https://hydraruzxpnew4af.darknet-store.com/"> актуальные зеркала гидры</a>
Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II
- Thread starter isisis
- Start date
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Agreed. Under secured creditors should not deserve appreciation over delayed actions and subsequent improvements not attributable to the debt in question. These are basically grunge debt collectors hoping to convert bad notes on these old seconds. I wander if you can convert chpt 7 to chpt 13 and then do a cram down. Or just do a chpt 13. It might force them to settle based on value. I'm thinking they will lose all interest minimum. Much better than prior "advice" to pay in full.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
memories on having "bk in the back pocket"... 2022 is the new 2012 
Thought about that as well and wondered if I can take previous petition and convert to 13 off those numbers versus today. As stands now it would not pan out i don't think but if I could be allowed to go back in time and reopen to convert then yes...that would be of interest. I understand less and less of the law the more I read. It is built from the top down and what should be logical is not. At the time I was insolvent and they were undersecured...them coming back 14 years later no way justifies a "clean start" approach as chapter 7 is intended.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I found this doing historical research. See how lender is to treat party in bankruptcy? They effectively should have revised the debt according to bankruptcy *at that time" and then proceeded with negotiations based on the "bk adjustment." I really don't see another interpretation. So you DO have claim and I would use MY calculations on it if those calcs were done at the time of bankruptcy. I don't think it requires re-opening a bk and converting as to file a 13 you would have a verfiable amount already predetermined based on past caculation. At least that's my thought because I have re-analyzed this one being in similar situation (but its not relevant to me any more).
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Expands Foreclosure Protections | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov)
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Expands Foreclosure Protections | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov)
Hmmm...I don't see where you are referencing. Essentially you are suggesting they should have done their own *lien stripping"? SLS has so many loop holes to support "oh that's not my job". Different departments for everything, they have not even acknowledged that I have an attorney. Found the attached that can maybe support them using home value on Petition date
I can't submit a motion to lien strip because it was not wholly unsecured. If it were and since petition date is prior to 2015 that would have been granted, but partially secured was not allowed starting 1979.
Anyway, the below (attached) supports determination of market value is of the petition date, not current market. Its not a set rule but can definitely help. Although again, they can still foreclose but this could help in negotiating
"Bankruptcy courts have utilized various approaches in resolving this issue. Some courts, a seeming majority, have held that the petition date is the correct date for valuation, while a few others have held that the confirmation date is the correct date. Compare TD Bank, N.A. v. Landry (In re Landry), 479 B.R. 1, 7 (D. Mass. 2012) (concluding that the petition date is the proper date for valuation) with In re Williams, 480 B.R. 813, 817 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2012) (concluding that the confirmation date is the proper date for valuation). Courts utilizing the petition date also vary in deciding whether to make the rule a bright line test applicable in all future cases, or to adopt a flexible approach based on certain equitable factors. Compare Hegeduis, 525 B.R. at 84-86 (holding that test is the date of filing of the petition date with adjustments to be made based on weight of evidence) with In re Cooper, 11-02804-8-JNC, 2016 WL 3344839, at *5 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. June 8, 2016) (applying a flexible approach requiring courts to consider several equitable factors). See also In re Fuqua, 12-52348, 2015 WL 5678361, at *4 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. June 10, 2015) (creating a rebuttable presumption that the petition date is the proper date of valuation, which the non-moving party can overcome by persuading the court to apply a different date based on equitable factors such as the debtor converting the case multiple times). For the reasons below, the Court determines the date of valuation in this case is the petition date, August 30, 2014.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Nice job on supportingt refs. This sorta supports that you would file the 13 as you don't want to advance the valuation and lose your evidence. I have seen people use the 13 soley as to mortgage issues as well. You might very well be able to strip it. I'm sure SLS would deny disclosing any of that and will continue to attempt collection, but you also can bring the claim that they are beyond statute of limitations in BK too.
This sorta supports that you would file the 13 as you don't want to advance the valuation and lose your evidence. I have seen people use the 13 soley as to mortgage issues as well. You might very well be able to strip it. I'm sure SLS would deny disclosing any of that and will continue to attempt collection, but you also can bring the claim that they are beyond statute of limitations in BK too. Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Hoping 2022 provides some resolutions!!!
Hoping 2022 provides some resolutions!!!
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Hoping 2022 provides some resolutions!!!
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I believe you have equitable factors in your favor. That CFPB thing is also in your favor. Also SOL.
I cannot get them to negotiate what so ever. Its flipping bizarre. I purchase for a living...and never have i said to someone...we only accept offers over phone, your settlement letters that you mailed us we have not submitted. "Send me the payoff of your first and we can get started" GRRR...They are annoying and my attorney is starting to get annoyed with them as well. They sent me today 3 letters. Two letters letting me know they are reviewing my request and fedex with a home restoration plan since my loss mitigation application (that I've haven't even submitted yet) was declined.
I want more personal information relating to just me from them. An actual response to my QWR and they continue to ignore that I have legal counsel.
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
In my free time, I read a few cases where the owners lost in the trial court, appealed and lost , petition denied (nobody wins against the banks) but similar to mine, the purported plaintiffs never tried to enforce the foreclosure judgements. I guess is once you understand the fraud of how these crooks make their money, they have second thought about continue with their acts.
As a pro se you would never expect to win. Take my case, I was arguing against four attorneys, one of them went to the same law school with the judge. If I had won, what would the result have told about the worthiness of their law school education, zero (learn how to steal legally). That was not going to happen.
Happy New Year and for those who are still fighting, keep up the fight.
As a pro se you would never expect to win. Take my case, I was arguing against four attorneys, one of them went to the same law school with the judge. If I had won, what would the result have told about the worthiness of their law school education, zero (learn how to steal legally). That was not going to happen.
Happy New Year and for those who are still fighting, keep up the fight.
isisis
LoanSafe Member
Something I'd like to include in my lawsuit is to establish a pattern and practice of using the modification process a a mechanism to foreclose. One clearly exists, I'm far from the only borrower to be the beneficiary of their opportunist abuse and examples of similar treatment are scattered throughout the past dozen years of foreclosure litigation. It's also good to bring up as it's associated with SCOTUS' goalposts of reprehensibility in determining punitive damages. But it does require a higher standard of proof, clear and convincing evidence.
I'm wondering if anyone knows or knows where to find info about the legal definition of pattern. It may be something determined on a individual basis but would the conduct need to has been proven or would numerous allegations suffice?
What I can easily show is multiple lawsuits where the servicer actively hindered performance and induced a default in payments then frustrated performance further with various shenanigans. It might also be shown the homeowners suffered injury though that would involve some speculation in quantifying the damage. Well, a lot of speculation.
Beyond that as we all know the vast majority of homeowners don't litigate. What would be handy is if I had some statistic, like only one out of 10,000 borrowers takes their lender to court but I have no idea how to find that. Ideas anyone?
Here are SCOTUS goal posts.
"We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident."
Here's the SCOTUS case.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BFgQFnoECAQQAQ&usAOvVaw1PtFayxefx5gZBLJubokh2 EN
I'm wondering if anyone knows or knows where to find info about the legal definition of pattern. It may be something determined on a individual basis but would the conduct need to has been proven or would numerous allegations suffice?
What I can easily show is multiple lawsuits where the servicer actively hindered performance and induced a default in payments then frustrated performance further with various shenanigans. It might also be shown the homeowners suffered injury though that would involve some speculation in quantifying the damage. Well, a lot of speculation.
Beyond that as we all know the vast majority of homeowners don't litigate. What would be handy is if I had some statistic, like only one out of 10,000 borrowers takes their lender to court but I have no idea how to find that. Ideas anyone?
Here are SCOTUS goal posts.
"We have instructed courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant by considering whether: the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident."
Here's the SCOTUS case.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BFgQFnoECAQQAQ&usAOvVaw1PtFayxefx5gZBLJubokh2 EN
I was always shocked as to why nothing was mentioned about my 2nd when I was pulling this house out of foreclosure and getting a loan mod approved on my first mortgage (hamp) back in 2010. The mortgage(s) which were both with the same company. It might be a moot point but based on the below, they should have offered it.
August 13, 2009, the Treasury Department published supplemental directive 09-05 for the Making Home Affordable Program, which discusses in detail the procedure for modifying second-lien mortgages, known as the Second Lien Modification Program (2MP).20 Under this program, "when a borrower's first lien is modified under HAMP and the servicer of the second lien is a 2MP participant, that servicer must offer either to modify the borrower's second lien according to a defined protocol or to accept a lump sum payment from Treasury in exchange for full extinguishment of the second lien. The 2MP offer will be made in reliance on the financial information provided by the borrower in conjunction with the HAMP modification and without additional evaluation by the second lien servicer."
That phrase "must offer [...] or accept a lump sum payment from the Treasury". I was told the payment was $1,000 from the treasury. Is there a way to see if such payment was accepted by the loan's owner or servicer at that time?
https://consumercomplianceoutlook.org/2009/third-quarter/q3_02/
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I think the pattern and practice are established by pointing to the multitude of evidence of "errors" committed which are in fact contrary to accepted law... The breaking of law, whether it be State or Federal, tends to prove a breach. These contracts always have clauses as to prevailing law. Although I'm not fond of mixing in breaches in a tort action, the sum contract breaches give rise to the tort of the (lack of) a convenant of good faith and fair dealing. Important to note that these breaches are material to performance and impair performance.
However, the caveat is that in general, evidence is held exclusively by the party doing the wrong.
Pattern-or-Practice Case Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Pattern-or-Practice Case Law and Legal Definition
Pattern-or-practice case means a lawsuit, often a class action, in which the plaintiff attempts to show that the defendant has systematically engaged in discriminatory activities. Also that such engagement in discriminatory activities was especially by means of policies and procedures. Typically, such a case involves employment discrimination, housing discrimination, or school segregation. A plaintiff needs to show that a defendant's behavior forms a pattern of actions or is embedded in routine practices; however, inferences of executive or official complicity may be drawn from a consistent failure to respond to complaints or implement corrective measures.
However, the caveat is that in general, evidence is held exclusively by the party doing the wrong.
It appears this phrase generally reflects class action, but I think it also could apply to civil actions independently.
Pattern-or-Practice Case Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Pattern-or-Practice Case Law and Legal Definition
Pattern-or-practice case means a lawsuit, often a class action, in which the plaintiff attempts to show that the defendant has systematically engaged in discriminatory activities. Also that such engagement in discriminatory activities was especially by means of policies and procedures. Typically, such a case involves employment discrimination, housing discrimination, or school segregation. A plaintiff needs to show that a defendant's behavior forms a pattern of actions or is embedded in routine practices; however, inferences of executive or official complicity may be drawn from a consistent failure to respond to complaints or implement corrective measures.
OneHugeMess
LoanSafe Member
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure, the $1,000 was a incentive payment from the Fed to actually hire on, and get together a staff to actually process and workout these loan modifications.
In the early, early days of this disaster 2006-2007, many servicers had a team of less than 10 People, essentially handling loss mitigation at Countrywide, Aurora, Wells Fargo/ASC, etc. Their excuse was they had never envisioned so many loans souring, had never been bombarded with so many requests. As time moved on, and we moved into 2008, many servicers still didn't have the capacity to handle these delinquent accounts, and process them.
In fact, at one point, a small room in a Wells Fargo corporate office, which was being used to store incoming Mitigation Requests, had a floor completely cave in and collapse, after the weight got to be too much. I still, to this day, do not understand what these banks were thinking. Maybe, if we wait around, the problem will just go away? /S
Anyway... The Fed begin to offer incentive payments to force these servicers to process, and approve "trial offers" for a modification, and than, an additional incentive payment, upon completion of the trial period. Some servicers abused this payment structure, offering garbage or even more expensive ""modifications"" than the borrowers actually started with.
The Fed also offered money for the investors for taking a loss in the form of a reduced interest rate, or principle forbearance. That money was given to the servicer (such as Bank of America) to pay out to the trust (ABC 2006-HE2 or whatever) and it would be on the monthly report as a incentive payment.
I also seem to recall, most of the 2MP program was about reducing the interest rate, and extending out the term. I think most of the people who got "forgiveness", had already had their home foreclosed on in 2007, 2008, and the loan had charged off after the house was sold at Auction.
To answer your original question, you could try and see -- if the Loan Trust that holds your loan, received a incentive payment in a monthly report. Beyond that, maybe some letters requesting records and phone calls would do.
OneHugeMess
LoanSafe Member
Thanks. It really pisses me off now that I was not offer the program...I doubt I'll uncover anything that can really help me now. This was 11 years ago...hmmm..almost as insane as a zombie loan with $60k in interest! Smh
https://www.gao.gov/assets/a305896.html
In March 2010, more than a year after the program was first announced, Treasury issued additional guidelines governing solicitation efforts. Effective June 2010, servicers must prescreen all first-lien loans with two or more mortgage payments are due and unpaid to determine if the loans meet the basic HAMP eligibility criteria (e.g. the home is an owner-occupied, primary residence and a single family one-to-four unit property; the loan originated before January 1, 2009; and the loan balance is within specified limits). Servicers must make a "reasonable effort" to solicit for HAMP any borrower who passes this prescreening--that is, servicers must make a minimum of four telephone calls to the borrower's last known phone number at different times of the day and send two written notices, by different means, to the borrower's last known address within 30 days. Because these are new requirements, we could not determine how effective they might be in standardizing solicitation practices, but standardizing solicitation requirements may help ensure that all potentially eligible borrowers are notified about HAMP in a timely manner.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
"The policy consideration [*36] underlying tort law is the protection of persons and property from loss resulting from injury, while the policy consideration underlying contract law is the protection of bargained for expectations. Thus in the light of these distinctions, to recover in tort a plaintiff must allege facts showing a breach of some duty imposed by law, rather than the parties' contract. In other words, there must be a showing of harm that is distinct from the disappointed expectations evolving solely from an agreement."
This link contains some oldie but goody reminders of contracts and tort restatements applicable to most in at least theory plus some good federal and Bk citations of case law. From Philadelphia PA Legal Aid.
Microsoft Word - Document3 (palegalaid.net)
This link contains some oldie but goody reminders of contracts and tort restatements applicable to most in at least theory plus some good federal and Bk citations of case law. From Philadelphia PA Legal Aid.
Microsoft Word - Document3 (palegalaid.net)
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Just subscribed to a people search/verify service. For fun, I pulled my own search. My own search shows i have had 4 foreclosures (3 non-judicials and one judicial). Looks like everytime my servicer/ debt collector (BOfA) recorded a NOD or filed a suit, it counted as a foreclousre; they strange thing is my house is valued at roughly 450K but the default amount on each foreclosure was listed at over $6,800,0000 (that's right: 6.8 millions). It could be my loan was bounced around to different owner and each of them had to settle their books and write something off. The truth they may not want to expose in Federal Court.