Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

[moretrouble]

There must have been some high fives going on at the corporate office a few weeks back. They finally got me after 25 scheduled sales. I slipped up on a simple matter of timing. I though 365 days had past and they needed to refile the notice of sale before they could post a sale but it hadn't. I checked the site expecting to see the sale again postponed but it said "reverted to beneficiary" . My house was sold. That took some digestion. Never expected that. Good thing it didn't go to a bonafide purchaser. I've had to regroup and begin to study wrongful foreclosure as a cause of action.

Courts are more sympathetic to homeowners who've been foreclosed on. The elements are simple, the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or oppressive and you were harmed. The tender requirement is not a problem as I fall into a few exceptions.

I'm trying to see this as potentially a positive though of course it's scary. The pieces on the chess board have just been rearranged. I've always asserted the non-existence of default and that's ideal for wrongful foreclosure.

On the upside a recent jury awarded foreclosed on homeowners $3.9 million because the servicer wasn't as cooperative as they might have been and the woman developed a skin condition. The award didn't stick for some technicality but still.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Money though had never been what this was about. It's about justice and corporate greed and this nonsensical system that allows banks to steal homes.

They got the foreclosure judgment on me 6 years ago and I am still here. You just lost a battle. The war still going.

 

[razmik]

They got the foreclosure judgment on me 6 years ago and I am still here. You just lost a battle. The war still going.

Hello isisis, you are one of the top reasons I am still living in my house after 15 years. You can not give up. If you give up we all have to to the same. I am sure you will find a new way to stay in your home. MY sale date is postponed to August 28 now. This is almost the 8 or 9 times already. I keep submitting the LOAN MOD application and the keep rejecting for the same reasons. The loan mod they are talking about is calling for 14 years amortization and 7 percent interest rate. It makes my payments almost $14,000 a month. They say because the amount is more that what you were paying then we can not approve the loan mod. Of course it will be higher with 7 percent interest and not having a 30 years loan.
They said it is owned by a private investor. It does not owned by any one and as you know it is part of GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-OA1 with over 5000 loan in there.
I am hoping and wishing the best for you. Keep fighting and posting.
Thank you very very much for being there for all of us. I wish I could do something for you....YOUR FAN, RAZMIK

 

[Survivor_IN]

There must have been some high fives going on at the corporate office a few weeks back. They finally got me after 25 scheduled sales. I slipped up on a simple matter of timing. I though 365 days had past and they needed to refile the notice of sale before they could post a sale but it hadn't. I checked the site expecting to see the sale again postponed but it said "reverted to beneficiary" . My house was sold. That took some digestion. Never expected that. Good thing it didn't go to a bonafide purchaser. I've had to regroup and begin to study wrongful foreclosure as a cause of action.

Courts are more sympathetic to homeowners who've been foreclosed on. The elements are simple, the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or oppressive and you were harmed. The tender requirement is not a problem as I fall into a few exceptions.

I'm trying to see this as potentially a positive though of course it's scary. The pieces on the chess board have just been rearranged. I've always asserted the non-existence of default and that's ideal for wrongful foreclosure.

On the upside a recent jury awarded foreclosed on homeowners $3.9 million because the servicer wasn't as cooperative as they might have been and the woman developed a skin condition. The award didn't stick for some technicality but still.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Money though had never been what this was about. It's about justice and corporate greed and this nonsensical system that allows banks to steal homes.

They were waiting and ready. GRRRRRRR.

I do believe you can take it back. You are exactly right, you now have a new cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. I think with the housing shortages the lenders are biting at the bit to take up the foreclosure properties as a flip or rental and make a sweet profit. It's really good news that it wasn't a bonafide sale. You get to keep fighting and you haven't lost your home.

I consider the "filing to foreclose" as the wrongful act, especially where there is no default or the action is based on the lenders errors. It strangles your credit and equity. I know now it has to be sold to be considered actual "harm." I used the term (wrongful foreclosure) in one of my filings but my state doesn't have that as an actual cause of action. I'm going with lack of good faith and fair dealing instead.

YOU CAN DO THIS!

 

[kraftykrab]

They were waiting and ready. GRRRRRRR.

I do believe you can take it back. You are exactly right, you now have a new cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. I think with the housing shortages the lenders are biting at the bit to take up the foreclosure properties as a flip or rental and make a sweet profit. It's really good news that it wasn't a bonafide sale. You get to keep fighting and you haven't lost your home.

I consider the "filing to foreclose" as the wrongful act, especially where there is no default or the action is based on the lenders errors. It strangles your credit and equity. I know now it has to be sold to be considered actual "harm." I used the term (wrongful foreclosure) in one of my filings but my state doesn't have that as an actual cause of action. I'm going with lack of good faith and fair dealing instead.

YOU CAN DO THIS!

It doesnt necessarily have to be sold to constitute harm. In most cases, I agree, but I do recall a case where a single mom was forced to move herself and her children out of the home because of the imminent threat of seizure, and she went after them for all the expenses she incurred. The foreclosure was overturned on appeal, finding that the documents filed in support of foreclosure were intentionally back dated and other problems too. The end result was that the foreclosure ended up getting dismissed and the COA ordered the pretender plaintiffs to pay the costs the homeowner incurred in the process of making sure she and her children didnt get put out on the street. Apparently, you CAN sometimes make the argument that if not for their fraudulent actions, you would not have incurred those expenses, so since they were a direct result of the fraud attempt, they had to reimburse her for her rent, moving costs, etc that she was able to substantiate.

 

[moretrouble]

So I sued the default servicer (BOfA), the trustee (bank of NY), the previous servicer (Ocwen), the new servicer and MSRs owner (NewRez), and the law firm. BOfA and NewRez filed a MOD, Ocwen and BONY file another MOD. Then I filed a motion for default order against the law firm because it has not filed a response. BOfA, NewRez, PHH, and BONY all joined in their MOD asserting claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and statute of limitations. It looks like corporate America bands together throwing the poor foreclosure mill law firm under the bus for screwing up the purported foreclosure.

 

[cookiemom]

Well i am back again...with another transfer. Now to Shellpoint from sls. So lets see what they do on the second I have never paid on (part of NY MELLON trust), that was included in BK in 2008. I've continued to pay first. SLS just had me waste money for an attorney to email stating they had no claim and went dark.

 

[moretrouble]

I filed the response yesterday:

 

[OneHugeMess]

There must have been some high fives going on at the corporate office a few weeks back. They finally got me after 25 scheduled sales. I slipped up on a simple matter of timing. I though 365 days had past and they needed to refile the notice of sale before they could post a sale but it hadn't. I checked the site expecting to see the sale again postponed but it said "reverted to beneficiary" . My house was sold. That took some digestion. Never expected that. Good thing it didn't go to a bonafide purchaser. I've had to regroup and begin to study wrongful foreclosure as a cause of action.

Courts are more sympathetic to homeowners who've been foreclosed on. The elements are simple, the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent or oppressive and you were harmed. The tender requirement is not a problem as I fall into a few exceptions.

I'm trying to see this as potentially a positive though of course it's scary. The pieces on the chess board have just been rearranged. I've always asserted the non-existence of default and that's ideal for wrongful foreclosure.

I just saw this and wanted to post. How are you doing and holding up? You are in my thoughts, and please let me know if I can do anything for you. I am so sorry.

 

[OneHugeMess]

Well i am back again...with another transfer. Now to Shellpoint from sls. So lets see what they do on the second I have never paid on (part of NY MELLON trust), that was included in BK in 2008. I've continued to pay first. SLS just had me waste money for an attorney to email stating they had no claim and went dark.

On your 2nd Mortgage - they are required by Federal Law to send regular periodic statements about the debt. It's part of Regulation-Z, which is federal law. For some reason though, almost no servicer bothered to do so.

Bank of America, RTR, SLS and Nationstar/Mr.Cooper all seem to be guilty of this. The law is clear though, if they send no statements, they are NOT allowed to charge interest. In addition, if the loan was originally a HELOC - in many cases they can NOT charge interest or fees after 6 months of delinquent payments, as they are required in many cases to charge it off.

I hope this helps.

 

[moretrouble]

Well i am back again...with another transfer. Now to Shellpoint from sls. So lets see what they do on the second I have never paid on (part of NY MELLON trust), that was included in BK in 2008. I've continued to pay first. SLS just had me waste money for an attorney to email stating they had no claim and went dark.

Rithm, NewRez's parent owns both SLS and Shellpoint so it's just a internal streamlining move. Shellpoint is also trying to collect on my HELOC which I know It acquired for nothing from GreenTree. I knew my HELOC was in an HSBC equity trust, called and terminated by HSBC, sold the collection rights to GreenTree, then NewRez when they acquired Greentree thru Walter Assets. Now they want the full $50K for $300. That's how Rithm made 5 billions.

 

[OneHugeMess]

Rithm, NewRez's parent owns both SLS and Shellpoint so it's just a internal streamlining move. Shellpoint is also trying to collect on my HELOC which I know It acquired for nothing from GreenTree. I knew my HELOC was in an HSBC equity trust, called and terminated by HSBC, sold the collection rights to GreenTree, then NewRez when they acquired Greentree thru Walter Assets. Now they want the full $50K for $300. That's how Rithm made 5 billions.

Have they been sending you monthly statements on the HELOC this whole time? I am just curious for reference purposes.

 

[moretrouble]

Have they been sending you monthly statements on the HELOC this whole time? I am just curious for reference purposes.

No, they sent me a letter threatened to attach a lien to my property a couple years back. I wrote them back I would sue them for violation of FFDPCA for doing something they did not have a right to. They still robocall me once a while saying the same thing but I ignore them.

 

[Survivor_IN]

On your 2nd Mortgage - they are required by Federal Law to send regular periodic statements about the debt. It's part of Regulation-Z, which is federal law.

Okay you've got me curious on these things because while in bankruptcy, this may possibly effect my homestead exemption on the house. I don't want the trustee to miraculously say, wow she's got something we can now sell with all that newfound equity! So I looked around a bit and found this on the internet by foreclosing servicing and mortgage servicing attorney org. It might explain things and it might also assert the expected lender's rights being that these folks are looking everywhere for supporting precedence to benefit their clients.

Pitfalls of the Periodic Statement Exemptions Under TILA’s Regulation Z

https://www.usfn.org/blogpost/1296766/489364/Pitfalls-of-the-Periodic-Statement-Exemptions-Under-TILA-s-Regulation-Z

Posting without fully digesting, but I do believe this may have something to do with prior bankruptcy or deeming debt uncollectable in a charge off status. As always consider this a one sided opinion by banks legal counsel trying to defend or not get sued. Onward fellow travelers!

------ content in case link becomes inoperable

Article Library

​ Blog Home ​ All Blogs ​ RSS

Search all posts for: 1. The debtor has requested the servicer stop sending periodic statements; 1. Each post-petition payment received, and the total amount of all such payments received; (i) Has charged off the loan in accordance with loan-loss provisions; and (ii) Will not charge any additional fees or interest on the account; and (iii) Provides, within thirty (30) days of charge off or the most recent periodic statement, a periodic statement clearly and conspicuously labeled “Suspension of Statements & Notice of Charge Off – Retain This Copy For Your Records.” If a servicer complies with the foregoing but later fails to treat the loan as charged off or charges any additional fees or interest on the account, the servicer must resume sending periodic statements to remain compliant with the Regulation and may not retroactively assess fees or interest for the period of time during which the exemption applied. This has become significant recently because of the increase in foreclosures on dormant second mortgages; that is, loans held subject to one or more senior mortgages, which were long considered uncollectible because of a lack of equity in the secured property but are now being transitioned to foreclosure status because of the sharp escalation in home values. This practice has come under special scrutiny among consumer attorneys, in the press, and even before Congress. Because of this increased visibility, problems may arise if servicers take steps to accelerate and foreclose on mortgage loans that have been treated as exempt under section 1026.41(e)(6) when they have failed to resume sending periodic statements for those loans to the consumers. Liability and Damages There is potential liability under both TILA and the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (“RESPA”) for failure to comply with Regulation Z, but it is severely limited. A consumer who files a civil action for a knowing violation under TILA section 108 is entitled to actual damages, including charges and interest that could have been avoided, claims for emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees. However, there is a one-year statute of limitations for such actions, which begins to run on the date the violation occurred. RESPA provides for additional statutory damages of $2,000.00 for violations, but only if a servicer displays a pattern or practice of noncompliance (12 U.S.C. §§ 2605(f)(1) & (f)(3)). Despite the short statute of limitations and the narrow circumstances under which statutory damages are available, class action litigation is not off the table and has actually been initiated against certain entities. Final Thoughts Despite relatively limited statutory liability, consumer attorneys are becoming more interested in identifying these violations as a way of interrupting foreclosures, which may increase costs, liability, and other types of exposure. Servicers need to understand the exemptions and modifications to the periodic statement requirements under Regulation Z and the potential liability for failing to comply, while recognizing that perfect compliance may impose an additional burden and create commensurate costs. Even servicers that implement exemplary procedures may experience errors on their periodic statements. But it remains prudent to make best efforts to comply, as independent, accidental errors presumably will not rise to the level of a ‘knowing’ violation or a pattern of noncompliance. In the current climate, every lending institution and mortgage servicer should examine its periodic statement practices for opportunities to minimize liability exposure. Copyright @2023 Spring USFN Report - Read this article here on our digital magazine platform Tags: #RegZ #TILA

 

[moretrouble]

Here we go again.

UBS sues Bank of America

UBS sues Bank of America for $200 million over crisis-era mortgage costs

UBS sued Bank of America for $200 million on Wednesday, saying the second-largest U.S. bank refused to cover its legal costs related to risky mortgages issued before the 2008 global financial crisis. The Swiss bank bundled mortgages from Countrywide Financial, which Bank of America bought in...

finance.yahoo.com

 

[cookiemom]

On your 2nd Mortgage - they are required by Federal Law to send regular periodic statements about the debt. It's part of Regulation-Z, which is federal law. For some reason though, almost no servicer bothered to do so.

Bank of America, RTR, SLS and Nationstar/Mr.Cooper all seem to be guilty of this. The law is clear though, if they send no statements, they are NOT allowed to charge interest. In addition, if the loan was originally a HELOC - in many cases they can NOT charge interest or fees after 6 months of delinquent payments, as they are required in many cases to charge it off.

I hope this helps.

Thank you. I have been unsuccessful in finding anything to back up the fact that they are not allowed to charge interest as you have stated. SLS at one point listed $102k due from the borrowed amount of $42k

 

[isisis]

I got a three day notice to quit three days ago and something jogged in my brain. Way back when Freedomwon started this thing and I joined in with this thread it was about the law but also about standing up for our rights, speaking truth to power, not becoming victimized, not being a sheep etc. Over time I've come to rely on the law and the courts and lost some of the chutzpah. I've become more tame because the law isn't always correctly applied and the courts are often incorrect. In this situation were at a disadvantage so to approach justice sometimes the law needs to be sidestepped.

Anyway, I won't be evicted. I'll use whatever means necessary but I won't give up my home to them. I think we need to try not to assume they have power because I think that's part bluff. That's what we found out back when we stated writing letters telling them not to foreclose. They're so used to having everyone assume they're right that they don't know what to do when we stand up to them, throws them off.

I've been studying constitutional law lately, specifically color of law violations. That might come in handy.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Isisis,
Three days? WOW.
I sincerely hope you make it through this crisis. Sending positive vibes your way!

I too find it difficult to get past "the gatekeepers of the courts" when trying to stand up for my rights. All I want is what's due according to law. I have paid until payments were rejected and refused unless I PAID IN ADVANCE because they reversed payments to increase the next payment due. Hence the courts appear to view material breaches by lenders as nominal. It's all inequitable. I am willing to pay the principal after the proper payment applications and calculations due according to the HAMP program.

The courts will not address any bad acts which cause a loss of (lender's) ability to collect the amounts claimed in foreclosure. (their extremely inflated credit bit which guarantees repossession in a sale) No one addresses the ability to resolve and that it would be inequitable to foreclose. They simple want to use the INFLATED demands as a means to foreclose without any liability on erroneous recordkeeping. Technically they are wanting to seize the property BEFORE addressing any recoupment and offsets. This is simply wrong. If the principle balance were CORRECT I could easily refinance and dispose of them.

Okay, yeah, my credit is toast so and I can't refinance at the moment because I had to bankrupt to prevent the sale of my home! This is one of the many ways this lender has strangleholded my credit and freedom to use credit.

It's almost as if, by virtue of the extended foreclosure, that they have prevented me from curing the loan. The foreclosure affects both my income/employability and an ability to refinance. I could otherwise dispose of them had they not preemptively reported falsely to credit bureaus. I really would like ideas on what type of cause of action this might come under. FCRA and FDCPA have

Hugs dear Isisis, I'm with you in these battles.
Survivor

PS hello cookie mom, please fight on the interest reduction! Try looking into state law on usuary.

I got a three day notice to quit three days ago and something jogged in my brain. Way back when Freedomwon started this thing and I joined in with this thread it was about the law but also about standing up for our rights, speaking truth to power, not becoming victimized, not being a sheep etc. Over time I've come to rely on the law and the courts and lost some of the chutzpah. I've become more tame because the law isn't always correctly applied and the courts are often incorrect. In this situation were at a disadvantage so to approach justice sometimes the law needs to be sidestepped.

Anyway, I won't be evicted. I'll use whatever means necessary but I won't give up my home to them. I think we need to try not to assume they have power because I think that's part bluff. That's what we found out back when we stated writing letters telling them not to foreclose. They're so used to having everyone assume they're right that they don't know what to do when we stand up to them, throws them off.

I've been studying constitutional law lately, specifically color of law violations. That might come in handy.

 

[Survivor_IN]

I'm see some very aggressive lender actions during this current climate of low housing stock. We can't let them absorb our homes into inflated rentals and flips for profit.

My actions and expenses counter the lender's expenses in bringing and prosecuting this action. I'm the one maintaining the property and holding its value! Otherwise property would have squatters. Ironically, it had squatters when I bought it. I've protected the property from fire, explosion and collapse. Ironically it was at risk of those things when I bought it. I'm not willing to accept liability without credit for my expenses and ongoing personal risks during lender's "delay" in prosecution. This lender is dancing around the issues of holder in due course and the court lets them be duplicitous. They know they are merely "holder" and are subject to claims and defenses.

 

[Survivor_IN]

Thank you. I have been unsuccessful in finding anything to back up the fact that they are not allowed to charge interest as you have stated. SLS at one point listed $102k due from the borrowed amount of $42k

PS hello cookie mom, please fight on the interest reduction! Try looking into your state law on usuary

 

[cookiemom]

This by far is the most educated group in this subject matter. I've turned to Lawyers whom I end up paying for me to provide my discovery. Would anyone be willing to chat via email on my situation?

2006 purchased home. Not one payment was ever made towards the 2nd ONLY the 1st

2008 chp 7 filed and discharged but remained in home and continued to pay 1st

2010 notice of sale due to foreclose that is documented on u.s. title records database

2010 HAMP loan mod approved and reaffirmed on 1st.

2018 2nd on county deed owner changed to BONY

Questions
How can they process the HAMP loan on the first and not acknowledge the 2nd? I would not be able to refinance this without doing so, why is that any different?

There was also a second government assistant program that should have been offered to me for the 2nd since I was successfully payed the HAMP. I think it was called mp2. Would this be a basis of lien release?

When would the court recognize when SOL started? When 1st payment was miss (18 yrs ago)? At BK discharge (does that restart the clock) or when HELCO was due to mature?

How do I find out if my trust pool was included in any of the BAC settlements that then would extinguish this claim?

Typically with chp 7 bk the second lien could not be stripped but exceptions have been made. Is this worth investigating?