Archive | March, 2009

HOPE NOW: 134,000 Mortgages Modified in February

31 Mar

Carrie Bay | 03.31.09

HOPE NOW announced on Monday that its members and the larger mortgage lending industry modified 134,000 home loans in February that were in danger of foreclosure, a nine percent increase over the number of mortgages modified in January.

The industry alliance also said that modifications last month made up 55 percent of all workout solutions completed, representing the highest modification percentage since HOPE NOW began collecting data – a positive stat, considering HOPE NOW and its members have historically come under fire from consumer advocacy groups for employing primarily repayment plans, which some experts say are more susceptible to re-default.

In addition to the 134,000 modifications, HOPE NOW said 110,000 repayment plans were executed, meaning that last month, HOPE NOW members and the larger mortgage lending industry helped 244,000 at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. This is the first time since HOPE NOW began to compile data in July 2007 that the number of foreclosure preventions has exceeded 200,000 for six consecutive months.

According to Faith Schwartz, HOPE NOW’s executive director, the mortgage lending industry is working hard to provide multiple options for borrowers to avoid foreclosure. “We expect the trend to continue as many companies expand their offerings to include the administration’s Making Home Affordable refinance and modification programs,” she said. “The mortgage lending industry is responding to the needs of its customers and offering solutions that are appropriate to the current market and economic conditions,” Schwartz added.

Despite the positive monthly trend in mortgage workouts, HOPE NOW reported that the number of foreclosures started in February increased to 243,000, up from 217,000 in January. Completed foreclosure sales also increased, from 68,000 in January to 87,000 in February.

The HOPE NOW February data does not yet reflect the impact of the Obama administration’s recently announced, but not yet implemented, Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.

Schwartz said, “Currently 5.5 percent of the total mortgage market is 60 days or more delinquent. Because of this, HOPE NOW members are working hard to help the administration implement its recently-announced foreclosure prevention initiative as well as working on additional ways we can be more efficient in helping at-risk homeowners.”


31 Mar


Eviction defense no declaration no valid sale no eviction

30 Mar


Plaintiff claims they have complied with civil code 2924 in paragraphs 4 thru 7 of their complaint that they have met the burden of proof in that a sale had occurred and the trustees Deed establishes this presumption that the sale was “duly Perfected” and Civil Code 2924 has been complied with.
Defendant would claim that they have not defendant will submit to the court a certified copy of the Notice of Trustees Sale and ask the court to take judicial notice of said document.
If the Trustees sale had occurred prior to Sept 6,2008 plaintiff would prevail but for other procedural defects in the assignment of the Deed of Trust in Civil code 2932.5 prior to sale.
For our purposes we need not look any farther than the Notice of Trustees Sale to find the declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury; as mandated by new Civil code 2923.5. (c) . (Blum v. Superior Court (Copley Press Inc.) (2006) 141 Cal App 4th 418, 45 Cal. Reptr. 3d 902 ) This lender did not adhere to the mandates laid out by congress before a foreclosure can be considered duly perfected.
As a general rule, the purpose of the unlawful detainer proceeding is solely to obtain possession, and the right to possession is the only issue in the trial. The title of the landlord is usually not an issue, and the tenant cannot frustrate the summary nature of the proceedings by cross-complaints or affirmative defenses.
A different rule applies in an unlawful detainer action that is brought by the purchaser after a foreclosure sale. His or her right to obtain possession is based upon the fact that the property has been “duly sold” by foreclosure proceedings, CC1161a (b) (3) and therefore it is necessary that the plaintiff prove each of the statutory procedures has been complied with as a condition for seeking possession of the property.
When the eviction is by a bona fide bidder at the sale the defendant has no defenses to eviction. However as in this case a beneficiary that is the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action must prove that it has duly complied with each of the statutory requirements for foreclosure, and the trustor can put these questions in issue in the unlawful detainer proceeding. Miller and Star 3rd 10:220.

California Real esate blogs

27 Mar

California real estate blogs

United First Bankruptcy Stay

14 Mar

On March 9, 2009 an involuntary bankruptcy was filed by some of the victims of the unconscionable contract of United First Inc. While I make no warranty and you should seek the advise of counsel before undertaking this action. The Stay applicable to United First may be applicable to the 2000 plus victims of the United First Inc. there pending cases and pending evictions. See Notice of Stay Form united-first-bankruptcy-notice-of-stay

United First Class Action

9 Mar

On Saturday March 7,2009 a meeting was held for 200 plus victims of the United First equity save your house scam. At that meeting it was determined that a class action should be filed to recover the funds lost by the victims of the unconscionable contract.

As a first step an involuntary Bankruptcy is being filed today March 9, 2009. To be considered as a creditor of said Bankruptcy please Fax the Joint Venture agreement and retainer agreement to 909-494-4214.
Additionally it is this attorneys opinion that said Bankruptcy will act as a “stay” for all averse actions being taken by lenders as against said victims. This opinion is based upon the fact that United First maintained an interest in the real property as a joint venture to 80% of the properties value(no matter how unconscionable this may be) this is an interest that can be protected by the Bankruptcy Stay 11 USC 362.

Banks Refusing To Take Back Foreclosed Properties

9 Mar

Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2009 11:56:28 PM by Chet 99
All Things Considered, March 3, 2009 • Let’s say you’re one of the millions of Americans facing foreclosure. You made mistakes, borrowed more than you should have — or maybe you lost your job — and now have to walk away from your house. In some parts of the country, simply walking away isn’t so simple — especially if the bank doesn’t want your house.
At 8:30 nearly every Monday morning, employees from the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office stand in a windowless room in Cleveland’s Justice Center to auction off hundreds of foreclosed houses.
Hoping to buy are a few investors, bargain hunters and the rare person trying to save his or her house. Most often, it’s lawyers from local law firms representing global financial institutions who claim property here. Although these days, that’s starting to change.
When there’s no bid, the lender can either try to sell at another sheriff sale or do nothing. Doing nothing means the foreclosure is not complete. And Cleveland foreclosure attorney Larry Rothenberg says doing nothing is becoming more popular.
Lenders Not Bidding
“Lately, lenders are finding that the costs to purchase property at the sheriff sale and resell it, and the likelihood of finding a buyer weigh against a decision to buy the property. And so it’s become more likely than before that lenders are not entering bids at sheriff sales,” Rothenberg says.
That changes the foreclosure equation. Rick Sharga of RealtyTrac says employees at his online foreclosure sales company have heard of other cities where lenders are walking away from foreclosures, and he worries it could spread.
“There are some urban areas where you’ve had rapid price depreciation, where you also have extreme unemployment issues, and nobody’s buying the properties,” Sharga says. “All those conditions need to be in place before a lender is going to be motivated to do what you’re seeing happen now.”
And when lenders don’t complete a foreclosure action at a sheriff sale, the house stays in the homeowner’s name.
‘It’s Not My House’
Sharon Little says she was shocked to find out she was still listed as the owner of a rental property on a busy Cleveland street. She walked away from the house in 2006 when she declared bankruptcy. Since then, thieves have stripped the house of siding, copper plumbing, and even windows. She found out her name was still on the deed only when she got a summons last October to appear in housing court.
“Eventually, they’re going to tear this house down,” Little says. “Somebody’s going to have to foot the bill, and frankly I think it should be the bank because it’s their house. It’s not my house really, so …”
Begging For Foreclosure
But the city of Cleveland is writing tickets for housing code violations to whomever is listed on the deed.
Bus driver Curley Jackson has been on the phone with his loan servicers trying to persuade them to foreclose on property he can no longer afford.
“I surrendered these properties back to you all. I said, ‘You keep leaving them in my name, I’m getting these tickets.’ They don’t care. They’re not getting a ticket. They’re not getting threatened with jail,” Jackson says.
Cleveland Housing Court officials say they are now seeing homeowners take matters into their own hands. Little, for instance, wrote up a deed and gave her house to her lender.
“That’s because it was their house from the jump, so that’s what we do — give it right back to them. You can keep your house. I don’t want it,” Little says.
Untouchable Real Estate
Bankruptcy attorney Richard Nemeth has asked state lawmakers to propose a bill that would force lenders to completely follow through with foreclosure or forgive the homeowner’s debt.
“It’s a really sad set of affairs when people don’t want to touch a piece of real estate with a 10-foot pole,” Nemeth says.
County officials in Cleveland hope a new land bank will help solve this problem by giving lenders a place to dump unwanted property. In the meantime, the city is forced to use scarce tax dollars to maintain or demolish some of these unwanted foreclosed houses.

%d bloggers like this: