More Posts

FORECLOSURE FIRM FIRES ITS EMPLOYEES FOR NO REASON. REAL NICE.



Check out this article in the Ft. Lauderdale sun-sentinel, reporting that Elizabeth Wellborn PA--a firm doing, shall we say, a large volume of foreclosure work--hearlessly fired its employees...for wearing orange.
 
 
You know, I hear a lot of these foreclosure firms crying that they're not really heartless, that they're just doing their job, that they actually do want to help people work things out with the bank, in stead of kicking them out...then you hear stories like this and you wonder how management that could do anything like this, could have any good intentions at all.

ABOUT THAT HUGE $25BIL AG/BANK SETTLEMENT....

You may have heard that there was a recent settlement between numerous banks and attorneys general of 47 states, as "punishment" for the whole robo-signing/forged documents scandal that's plagued the foreclosure process for the previous few years. We've been getting a lot of questions about it, mostly because of the sizeable settlement amount--$25 billion--which is being hailed as a huge victory for homeowners, a savior of our economy, and a victory of righteousness over the evils of bank shanenigans. Oh...they're also saying it will be used to reduce homeowners' mortgage balances.
 
Before you start hailing victory, there are a number of things you should know about this great "victory."
 
The fist thing to know about the settlement is that foreclosures will increase. That's right. Increase. Many banks had been purposely delaying or slowing foreclosures while this settlement was being negotiated. Now that it's completed, you can expect to see many of these cases pressing forward much faster, or people who haven't been sued, being sued for foreclosure. The settlement did not prevent or bar anybody from foreclosing.
 
Second, the total settlement dollars are underwhelming, despite the seemingly large total amount. If you've already lost your home, the government and the banks wish to extend to you their most sincere apology, in the form of a whopping $2,000. Yes, more than 2 million owners have lost their homes to foreclosure during the last four years; this deal will provide 750,000 with a payment of $2,000 each.
 
What if you're still in your home? Well, if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have any interest in your property, you're not included in the settlement at all. That includes the majority of you, but if you're curious, you can go http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/ or https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/ to check if they own your loan. And, your property must be serviced by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Ally Financial or Citigroup (that means, if you're in a foreclosure, don't look at your foreclosing Plaintiff, look at who sends you letters, bills, or correspondence).
 
Still in the game? Well if so, hang on. In Florida, 7.6 billion has been allocated to those of you with properties that are underwater (that's upside down in value), if you've already fallen behind. If you're current, you won't get a principle reduction but may qualify for a refinance.
 
So...you qualify for a principle reduction after all this....ready for the payoff? Ok. Florida has about 1.9 million homes currently underwater, and the average homeowner is underwater by $65,000, meaning Florida's negative equity total comes in at more than $123 billion. Except Florida's only getting 7.6 billion. The numbers aren't clear yet, but most estimates are that if you qualify, you'll get about $20,000 in principle reduction. So, you'll still be upside down, probably considerably so, although admittedly for some, it still may be enough to convince them their home is worth keeping.
 
(Incidentally, for those of you thinking of voting Republican anytime in the future, your Republican Attorney General, Pam Biondi, lobbied against inclusion of principal reduction as part of the settlement. Thank goodness, she lost.)
 
Anyway, the bottom line is that I'm sure that this settlement will finally put an end to the bank's days of fuzzy math and fudging numbers and falsifying information, now that they were forced to pay Florida 8.4 billion (http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/94816CAD8E86B0778525799F00595D98), and California 18 billion (http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2625), which together equals the sum total of 26.4 billion. On a settlement that was officially being announced as a total of 25 billion dollars. Oh...and that was for 47 states.... 
 
Wait a minute.... 

 

SHOULD YOU SEND "LEAVE ME ALONE" LETTERS TO COLLECTORS?

You may or may not know that the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) allows you to send a cease and desist letter to your creditors, telling them to stop contacting you about your debt. Assuming your creditors follow the law--a large assumption--your letter will stop creditors from writing you, or calling you. If your creditors violate or ignore your letter, they are liable under the FDCPA.
You will be left alone. No annoying phones. No annoying messages. Peace and serenity, at last. Sounds good. Right?

Well, there are pros and cons to sending such a letter to your creditors or collectors:


PROS

-You'll be left alone.

-If they violate your letter, they're violating the law, and you can sue them.

CONS

-If they can't call you or write to you, and they see you've cut off the lines of communication, they may just go straight to suing you.

-Most creditors violate the law through what they say or write to you, or when they contact you. So if you cut that off, you're limiting their opportunity to violate the law, and thus, your ability to sue them and try to get your debt erased or minimized.

-No communications means no settlement offers. So if you can pay a portion of the debt, you'll never know what their offers to settle may be.

So, think about whether you want to use the FDCPA's powerful "leave me alone" tool of a cease and desist letter. This is especially true if you are not a bankruptcy candidate, and thus, need to have some avenue to defend yourself on these debts, because you won't be able to discharge them.


Questions? Call us at 954 987-0515 or check us out at www.sunshinelawgroup.com

CAN I SUE THE BANK FOR DENYING MY MODIFICATION?

In the mess of people wrongfully denied modifications under the government's HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program), the question invariably presents itself...if you're wrongfully denied a HAMP modification, can you sue the bank?

First, what do we mean by "wrongfully denied a HAMP modification"? We're talking about situations where:

1) You send in your paperwork and the bank loses or ignore it or asks that it be sent over and over
2) The bank denies you when you should have qualified under the terms of the HAMP program
3) The bank puts you on a "trial modification," you make your trial modification payments on time, but the bank never converts the trial modification into a permanent modification.
(Of course, there are a million other scenarios--we've heard bizarre stories of what banks do when it comes to HAMP mods. These are just three major categories).

Can you sue? The answer is yes, and no.

You can't sue the bank for money damages. HAMP does not provide what's known as a "private right of action." That is, it doesn't provide an avenue for the Average Jane to hold the bank responsible in Court if it doesn't comply with HAMP.

What we here at Sunshine Law Group have done, is sue the bank under what's known as a Declaratory Judgment Action (a "dec action"). A dec action is an action that simply asks the Court to determine a party's rights under laws, contracts, ordinances, etc. It's an action that says "Court, we have a dispute over the meaning of this law/contract, we want you to tell us what our rights are under the law/contract and tell us which of us is right or wrong." So, we request that the Court determine whether our clients should rightfully have qualified for a loan modification and if so, what the modified payment should be. We're not actually suing the bank for any damages. We're just asking the Court to make a determination of rights--namely, the right to a modification.

This is an effective technique that avoids HAMP's lack of a private right of action. It forces the Court to look at the HAMP program and apply it properly--nothing more, nothing less. And for clients like you (maybe), it's an effective way to get the Court involved in seeing what kind of garbage the banks are pulling on people, and to get a judicial determination of your modification if the bank won't do it on their own.

Another avenue is suing under state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. HAMP may not have any private right of action for violating its terms. But if the bank's actions go beyond simple noncompliance, and become unfair or deceptive (which they all do), then it falls under the state's consumer protection statutes, which do provide a private right of action. Unlike the dec action however, the state consumer protection laws won't necessarily compel a modification.

Questions? Call us today at 954 987-0515.
-Jason Weaver, esq.