Search | Views |
---|---|
timothy mccandless | 1,564 |
substitution of trustee | 861 |
http://www.timothymccandless.wordpress.com | 599 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc | 481 |
timothy mccandless attorney | 342 |
california civil code 2923.5 | 318 |
california civil code 2923.6 | 300 |
mortgage electronic registration system | 292 |
timothy mccandless blog | 260 |
tim mccandless | 259 |
mers mortgage fraud | 227 |
timothymccandless.com | 222 |
loan audit checklist | 196 |
timothymccandless | 176 |
2923.5 | 158 |
mortgage audit checklist | 155 |
mers mortgage | 155 |
california civil code 2932.5 | 153 |
motion to consolidate california | 152 |
when does a substitution of trustee have to be recorded in california | 131 |
mortgage electronic registration systems | 131 |
sue your lender | 128 |
substitution of trustee california | 124 |
tim mccandless attorney | 117 |
civil code 2923.5 | 115 |
aurora loan services complaints | 115 |
http://www.timothymccandless.com | 109 |
california civil code 2823.6 | 91 |
2923.6 | 84 |
mers | 82 |
sb 1137 | 80 |
aurora loan services v. stella d. onyeu | 80 |
substitution of trustee foreclosure | 76 |
wrongful foreclosure california | 72 |
what is substitution of trustee | 70 |
california civil code section 2923.5 | 69 |
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer | 68 |
civil code 2932.5 | 68 |
tila complaint | 64 |
california civil code section 2923.6 | 63 |
foreclosure class action | 62 |
civil code 2923.6 | 61 |
timothy mccandless wordpress | 61 |
law offices of timothy mccandless | 60 |
foreclosure class action lawsuit | 60 |
timothy mccandles | 60 |
california motion to consolidate | 58 |
beating foreclosure | 58 |
ccp 1161a | 54 |
ca civil code 2923.5 | 54 |
truth in lending checklist | 53 |
loan compliance checklist | 50 |
california civil code 2924 | 50 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc registered agent | 49 |
promissory note holder | 48 |
civil complaint template | 48 |
what is a substitution of trustee | 48 |
ccp 2923.5 | 47 |
mers problems | 45 |
how to fight an unlawful detainer | 45 |
how to sue your lender | 45 |
motion to consolidate | 44 |
motion to consolidate cases california | 43 |
sample wrongful foreclosure complaint | 41 |
mers foreclosure california | 41 |
ca civil code 2923.6 | 40 |
2932.5 | 40 |
mers california | 39 |
sb1137 | 38 |
civil code section 2923.5 | 38 |
niel garfield | 38 |
timothymccandless.wordpress.com | 38 |
tim mccandless blog | 37 |
eloise figueroa | 37 |
livinglies.wordpress.com | 37 |
mortgage loan audit checklist | 37 |
mers class action | 37 |
mers florida | 36 |
lasalle bank v. lamy | 36 |
substitution trustee | 35 |
securitized mortgage litigation | 35 |
mers issues | 34 |
invalid foreclosure | 34 |
california substitution of trustee | 33 |
how to fight unlawful detainer | 33 |
timothy mccandless weblog | 33 |
fighting unlawful detainer | 33 |
ca civil code 2932.5 | 33 |
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. | 32 |
how to stop an unlawful detainer | 32 |
ccc 2923.5 | 31 |
tim mccandles | 30 |
mers law | 30 |
wrongful foreclosure | 29 |
truth in lending audit | 29 |
ccp 2932.5 | 29 |
mortgage electronic recording system | 29 |
respa audit checklist | 28 |
problem with mers | 27 |
mers problem | 27 |
respa compliance checklist | 27 |
timothy mcandless | 27 |
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc | 26 |
what is mers | 26 |
foreclosure defense checklist | 26 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc california | 26 |
the problem with mers | 25 |
motion to consolidate cases | 25 |
senate bill no. 1137 | 24 |
california civil code 2923 | 24 |
civil conspiracy lender broker california | 23 |
truth in lending audit checklist | 23 |
wrongful foreclosure action | 23 |
ccp 2015.5 | 23 |
mers litigation | 23 |
civil code section 2923.6 | 22 |
template of a injunction and stop foreclosure in west virginia | 22 |
predatory lending checklist | 22 |
california code 2923.6 | 22 |
how to stop unlawful detainer | 22 |
california civil code section 2932.5 | 22 |
mortgage compliance checklist | 22 |
tro foreclosure | 22 |
sample tila complaint | 22 |
tim mccandless lawsuit | 21 |
aurora loan complaints | 21 |
california wrongful foreclosure | 21 |
what is mers mortgage | 20 |
mabry 2923.5 | 20 |
the law offices of timothy mccandless | 20 |
2923.5 california civil code | 20 |
what are the technical circumstances that can be used to stop the evictionon bankruptcy filed after the unlawful detainer case is lost the last day if we filed for bankruptcy in california | 20 |
motion to stay unlawful detainer | 20 |
foreclosure attorney fees | 20 |
mortgage electronic registration | 20 |
wells fargo wrongful foreclosure | 19 |
promissory note enforcement | 19 |
attorney timothy mccandless | 19 |
civil code section 2932.5 | 19 |
fighting mers | 19 |
law office of timothy mccandless | 19 |
civil code 2924 | 19 |
mortgage electronic systems | 19 |
2923.5 civil code | 18 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc flint mi | 18 |
mers registration | 18 |
class action foreclosure | 18 |
ca civil code section 2923.6 | 18 |
california 2923.6 | 18 |
duly perfected | 18 |
california code 2923.5 | 18 |
mers service of process | 18 |
aurora loan services v. stella d. onyeu. | 17 |
mortgage electronic | 17 |
garcia v. homeq servicing corp. | 17 |
2823.6 | 17 |
timothy mccandless esq | 17 |
2923.6 california civil code | 17 |
produce the note illinois | 16 |
respa violations | 16 |
ccp 2923.6 | 16 |
foreclosure cases, 521 f. supp. 2d 650, 2007 | 16 |
truth in lending audits | 16 |
strategic bankruptcy | 16 |
mers california foreclosure | 16 |
amhsi mortgage company | 16 |
mccandless timothy | 16 |
california code section 2923.5 | 16 |
“timothy mccandless” | 16 |
california civil code 2823.6(a) | 16 |
hoepa checklist | 15 |
timothy mccandless.com | 15 |
mers real estate | 15 |
wrongful foreclosure complaint | 15 |
mers issue | 15 |
ca civil code section 2932.5 | 15 |
mortgage registration systems | 15 |
fight unlawful detainer | 15 |
eb5 visa processing time | 15 |
invalid substitution of trustee | 15 |
californin 2932.5 | 15 |
servicer substitution fo trustee | 15 |
“substitution of trustee” | 15 |
mers attorney | 14 |
cal civil code 2923.5 | 14 |
foreclosure ways to stay in house after eviction | 14 |
timothy mcandles | 14 |
cal civ code 2923.5 | 14 |
mers mortgages | 14 |
wrongful foreclosure class action | 14 |
holder promissory note | 14 |
mccandless foreclosure | 14 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc. | 14 |
foreclosure class action suits | 14 |
mers short sale | 14 |
2923.5 declaration | 14 |
california civil cde 2923.5 tro | 14 |
unlawful detainer delays | 14 |
pretender lenders | 14 |
wrongful foreclosure complaint california | 13 |
perata mortgage relief act | 13 |
renters in foreclosure what are their rights | 13 |
where does the fraud begin | 13 |
oliver@ipa.net | 13 |
http://www.mariokenny.wordpress.com | 13 |
subsitution of trustee | 13 |
calif civil code 2923.5 | 13 |
holder of promissory note | 13 |
linda harris de novo financial solutions | 13 |
respa predatory loan remedy lawsuit instructions | 13 |
california assignments must recorded | 13 |
mers officers | 13 |
california complaint template | 13 |
brett mearkle | 13 |
california 2923.5 | 13 |
ex parte application for stay of execution | 13 |
how to sue mers | 13 |
sb 94 | 13 |
stop unlawful detainer | 13 |
timothy mccandless attorney ca | 13 |
mortgage electronic recording systems | 13 |
11 usc 362 | 13 |
electronic mortgage registration system | 13 |
related:www.mersinc.org/ mers | 13 |
sue lender | 12 |
california 2932.5 | 12 |
tila foreclosure | 12 |
ca civil code 2924 | 12 |
mark brajnikoff | 12 |
civil code 2823.6 | 12 |
can fight unlawful detainer | 12 |
produce the note california style | 12 |
tender foreclosure california | 12 |
how do i sue predatory lender in california | 12 |
substituion of trustee: code violation | 12 |
foreclosure class actions | 12 |
tim mccandless, attorney at law | 12 |
substitution of trustee in california | 12 |
mabry v. aurora loan services, case number g042911 | 12 |
wrongful foreclosure cases | 12 |
mortgage loan compliance checklist | 12 |
timothymccandless’s weblog | 12 |
jeffrey dembicer | 12 |
motions to avoid foreclosure eviction | 12 |
pretender lender | 12 |
american broker conduit respa tila violations | 12 |
mers registered agent | 12 |
banks summary judgement for unlawful detainers | 12 |
john mendaros | 11 |
moore v. munger unlawful detainer demurrer | 11 |
timothy mccandless foreclosure | 11 |
https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com | 11 |
ccc 2932.5 | 11 |
taylor v deutsche bank | 11 |
fight mers | 11 |
template adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court-fight foreclosure | 11 |
injunction to stop foreclosure in california | 11 |
mers litigation california | 11 |
countrywide property | 11 |
foreclosure sample civil discovery california | 11 |
stay of execution eviction | 11 |
lending compliance checklists | 11 |
sample complaint for wrongful foreclosure | 11 |
problems with mers | 11 |
vella v. hudgins | 11 |
predatory lending audit | 11 |
carter v. deutsche bank | 11 |
how to stop a unlawful detainer | 11 |
litigation against mers | 10 |
ccc 2923.6 | 10 |
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer california | 10 |
california civil code 2823.6(b) | 10 |
california civil code 2923.5 effective date | 10 |
california code 2932.5 | 10 |
motion to consolidate ca | 10 |
wrongful foreclosure damages | 10 |
class action mers california | 10 |
tim mcandless | 10 |
temporary restraining order to stay the eviction | 10 |
tort wrongful foreclosure | 10 |
timothy mccandless law | 10 |
mers fraud | 10 |
mortgage electronic re | 10 |
tila sample complaint | 10 |
california mers rulings | 10 |
invalid notice of default | 10 |
tim mccandless foreclosure | 10 |
section 2923.5 | 10 |
unlawful detainer trial | 10 |
mers violations | 10 |
motion to quash unlawful detainer | 10 |
aurora loan services lost note | 10 |
sue the lender | 10 |
no assignment no foreclosure | 10 |
what is mortgage electronic registration systems inc | 10 |
aurora loan services | 10 |
cal civil code 2932.5 | 10 |
johnny mendaros | 10 |
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. californa legal cases | 10 |
unlawful detainer motion to consolidate | 10 |
invalid trustee substitution | 9 |
mortgage fraud mers | 9 |
timothy mccandless, attorney at law | 9 |
foreclosure defense george gingo book | 9 |
issues with mers | 9 |
hoepa audit | 9 |
assignee liability respa | 9 |
tim mc candless blog | 9 |
injunction foreclosure california | 9 |
eviction timothy | 9 |
mers california court | 9 |
affirmative defenses unlawful detainer | 9 |
individual foreclosure stories | 9 |
2923.5 effective date | 9 |
trout v trout 220 cal 652 | 9 |
wrongful foreclosure tort | 9 |
tim mccandless esq | 9 |
mers electronic | 9 |
california civil code 1161a | 9 |
substitute trustee california | 9 |
how to stop foreclosure timothy mccandless e | 9 |
https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/join-the-class-action-to-enjoin-wrongful-foreclosures/ | 9 |
save your home post foreclosure!! facing unlawful detainer action? | 9 |
timothy mccandless esq. | 9 |
california civil code 3301 | 9 |
california civil complaint template | 9 |
complaint for non-compliance 2923.5 | 9 |
lending audit | 9 |
motion summary judgment template | 9 |
ex parte app for tro template ca | 9 |
app for tro for foreclosure | 9 |
maher soliman | 9 |
attorney fees for foreclosure | 9 |
where’s the note who’s the holder | 9 |
california class action wrongful foreclosures | 9 |
service of process on mers | 9 |
sample predatory lending complaint | 9 |
california civil code §2932.5 | 9 |
pcu2008032 | 9 |
mers and mortgage fraud | 9 |
mers in california | 9 |
how to sue your mortgage company in federal court and get your deed | 9 |
greenpoint brokers targeted by new york | 9 |
mortgage electronic reg sys | 9 |
foreclosure tro | 9 |
mers california litigation | 9 |
substitution document | 9 |
substitution of trustees | 9 |
mers foreclosure problems | 9 |
does an nod have to be notorized | 9 |
substitution of trustee foreclosure california | 9 |
melissa tomlin mers | 9 |
timothy mccandless california attorney | 9 |
timmothy mcandles | 9 |
mers in florida | 9 |
tro foreclosure california | 9 |
ca civil code section 2923.5 | 9 |
california civil code section 2923.5(b) | 9 |
pharns genece | 8 |
unlawful detainer demurrer sample california | 8 |
downey savings foreclosures | 8 |
ex parte motion to consolidate unlawful detainer action | 8 |
stopping unlawful detainer | 8 |
501-228-0877 | 8 |
ca duly perfected title after foreclosure | 8 |
jeff dembicer | 8 |
motion to consolidate california superior court | 8 |
mortgage electronic registration systems foreclosure | 8 |
sample wrongful foreclosure complaint, 2923.5 | 8 |
mortgage electronic registry system | 8 |
cal. civ. code § 2923.5 | 8 |
california civil code 2923.5(c) | 8 |
timothy mccandless legal documents in all motions in foreclosure | 8 |
class action wrongful foreclosure | 8 |
respa checklist | 8 |
timothy candless | 8 |
truth in lending compliance checklist | 8 |
badbizfinder | 8 |
mers corporate charter | 8 |
cc 2923.6 | 8 |
bankruptcy unperfected mortgage | 8 |
ca 2923.6 | 8 |
ca civil code 2823.6(b) | 8 |
foreclosure defense options | 8 |
how do you present issues of standing in court when your lender has filed foreclosure on your home | 8 |
lime financial tila respa violations | 8 |
how much are attorney fees for foreclosure | 8 |
after the short sale i have second loan heloc purchase money chase bank put to the collection agency but is c .a law | 8 |
mers cant no foreclosure in californai | 8 |
unlawful detainer defense to 1161a | 8 |
2046 balance sheet as it relates to the original loan | 8 |
foreclosure cases+countrywide+california | 8 |
california tender rule | 8 |
tro to stop foreclosure | 8 |
complaints against aurora loan services | 8 |
truth in lending audit program | 8 |
timothy l. mccandless esq | 8 |
pro value properties inc v quality loan service corp | 8 |
kevin lamson | 8 |
mers loses in court | 8 |
mortgage mers | 8 |
sue my lender | 8 |
ex parte application | 8 |
california civil code 2932 | 8 |
petition to cancel note and mortgage, claim in recoupment, | 8 |
napa county procedure to evict tenant after sheriff’s foreclosure sale pursuant to a writ of execution, california | 8 |
timothy mccandels | 8 |
bank of america foreclosure fraud | 8 |
mccanless complaint for illegal foreclosure | 8 |
site:timothymccandless.wordpress.com tim mccandless attorney | 8 |
when was 2923.5 enacted | 8 |
timothy mccandless law firm | 8 |
foreclosured and facing eviction | 8 |
wrongful foreclosure california complaint | 8 |
california vs mers | 8 |
fight foreclosure california | 8 |
timothy mccandless motion for summary judgement | 8 |
mortgage electronic registry systems | 8 |
timothy mccandless class action no assignment no foreclosure | 8 |
ccp 1162 | 7 |
timothy mccandless defendants motion for summary judgement ud | 7 |
wrongful foreclosure template | 7 |
mortgage electronic registration system california | 7 |
california civil code 2932.5. | 7 |
cause of action wrongful foreclosure | 7 |
mortgage electronic registration systems inc mers | 7 |
countrywide rico | 7 |
(916)361-6583 | 7 |
ca civil code 2823.6 | 7 |
aurora loan services fraud | 7 |
foreclosure complaint template | 7 |
how to fight tender rule in california | 7 |
foreclosure fraud | 7 |
complaint to enjoin trustee’s sale ca | 7 |
timothy mccandless removal of beneficiary | 7 |
mers ocala florida | 7 |
california civil code 29241 | 7 |
mers mortgage problems | 7 |
mortgage electronic recording service | 7 |
nielgarfield.wordpress .com | 7 |
timothymccandles | 7 |
678-380-3752 | 7 |
plaintiff must produce note at unlawful detainer | 7 |
complaint form california stop foreclosure | 7 |
is mers a creditor | 7 |
california mccandless sample of notice of lis pendens | 7 |
commercial holdover owner after foreclosure defenses to unlawful detainer in california | 7 |
timothy mccandless sepora | 7 |
mortgage electronic system | 7 |
wrongful foreclosure california trustee sale | 7 |
timothy maccandless | 7 |
senate bill 1137 california civil code | 7 |
duly perfected title | 7 |
north american mortgage company correspondent lenders | 7 |
civil code section 2923.6 lawsuits | 7 |
aurora loan services lawsuit | 7 |
california state\’s latest help for homeowners | 7 |
complaint template | 7 |
mers standing florida | 7 |
notice of non-compliance ca stop foreclosure | 7 |
chapter 11 bankruptcy individual | 7 |
stop eviction attorneys in fresno, ca | 7 |
enjoining foreclosures in probate | 7 |
forclosure class action | 7 |
timothy mccandless federal action for attempted theft | 7 |
mccandless tim | 7 |
can i sue mers | 7 |
california foreclosure mers | 7 |
timothy mccandless complaints | 7 |
tila compliance checklist | 7 |
sb 1137 declaration | 7 |
substitution of trustee quality loan service | 7 |
can mers foreclose in california | 7 |
servicer of the loan liable for the fraud of the originator of the loan tila | 7 |
timothy mccandless loan modifications | 7 |
ccc 2823.6 | 7 |
notice of motion template | 7 |
“mortgage electronic registration systems” | 7 |
wrongful foreclosure settlement | 7 |
timothy mc candless | 7 |
asuncion case re unlawful detainer | 7 |
lawyers guide for defense to an unlawful detainer | 7 |
sample form complaint california produce the note | 7 |
complaint to enjoin trustee’s sale, california | 7 |
california commercial code 3301 | 7 |
2932.5 foreclosure | 7 |
mortgage electronic registry | 7 |
carter vs. deutsche bank cal 1-27-2010 | 7 |
sample form complaint respa tila violation note | 7 |
timothy mccandless bank vs. martin, a – plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment – denied. the plaintiff as moving party has established a | 7 |
kalima robertson | 7 |
tila mortgage complaints | 7 |
forecloser news | 7 |
key elements in securitization mortgage foreclosure defense | 7 |
lawyer timothy mccandless | 7 |
-lamy a nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by the nominee.”) | 7 |
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer in california | 7 |
substitution of trustee california foreclosure | 7 |
what does the the new vito mean for mortgages under mers |
Category: United First
SB 94 and its interferance with the practice
CA SB 94 on Lawyers & Loan Modifications Passes Assembly… 62-10
The California Assembly has passed Senate Bill 94, a bill that seeks to protect homeowners from loan modification scammers, but could end up having the unintended consequence of eliminating a homeowner’s ability to retain an attorney to help them save their home from foreclosure.
The bill, which has an “urgency clause” attached to it, now must pass the State Senate, and if passed, could be signed by the Governor on October 11th, and go into effect immediately thereafter.
SB 94’s author is California State Senator Ron Calderon, the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with the bigger picture. Sen. Calderon, while acknowledging that fee-for-service providers can provide valuable services to homeowners at risk of foreclosure, authored SB 94 to ensure that providers of these services are not compensated until the contracted services have been performed.
SB 94 prevents companies, individuals… and even attorneys… from receiving fees or any other form of compensation until after the contracted services have been rendered. The bill will now go to the Democratic controlled Senate where it is expected to pass.
Supporters of the bill say that the state is literally teeming with con artists who take advantage of homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure by charging hefty fees up front and then failing to deliver anything of value in return. They say that by making it illegal to charge up front fees, they will be protecting consumers from being scammed.
While there’s no question that there have been some unscrupulous people that have taken advantage of homeowners in distress, the number of these scammers is unclear. Now that we’ve learned that lenders and servicers have only modified an average of 9% of qualified mortgages under the Obama plan, it’s hard to tell which companies were scamming and which were made to look like scams by the servicers and lenders who failed to live up to their agreement with the federal government.
In fact, ever since it’s come to light that mortgage servicers have been sued hundreds of times, that they continue to violate the HAMP provisions, that they foreclose when they’re not supposed to, charge up front fees for modifications, require homeowners to sign waivers, and so much more, who can be sure who the scammers really are. Bank of America, for example, got the worst grade of any bank on the President’s report card listing, modifying only 4% of the eligible mortgages since the plan began. We’ve given B of A something like $200 billion and they still claim that they’re having a hard time answering the phones over there, so who’s scamming who?
To make matters worse, and in the spirit of Y2K, the media has fanned the flames of irrationality with stories of people losing their homes as a result of someone failing to get their loan modified. The stories go something like this:
We gave them 1,000. They told us to stop making our mortgage payment. They promised us a principal reduction. We didn’t hear from them for months. And then we lost our house.
I am so sure. Can that even happen? I own a house or two. Walk me through how that happened again, because I absolutely guarantee you… no way could those things happen to me and I end up losing my house over it. Not a chance in the world. I’m not saying I couldn’t lose a house, but it sure as heck would take a damn sight more than that to make it happen.
Depending on how you read the language in the bill, it may prevent licensed California attorneys from requiring a retainer in advance of services being rendered, and this could essentially eliminate a homeowner’s ability to hire a lawyer to help save their home.
Supporters, on the other hand, respond that homeowners will still be able to hire attorneys, but that the attorneys will now have to wait until after services have been rendered before being paid for their services. They say that attorneys, just like real estate agents and mortgage brokers, will now only be able to receive compensation after services have been rendered.
But, assuming they’re talking about at the end of the transaction, there are key differences. Real estate agents and mortgage brokers are paid OUT OF ESCROW at the end of a transaction. They don’t send clients a bill for their services after the property is sold.
Homeowners at risk of foreclosure are having trouble paying their bills and for the most part, their credit ratings have suffered as a result. If an attorney were to represent a homeowner seeking a loan modification, and then bill for his or her services after the loan was modified, the attorney would be nothing more than an unsecured creditor of a homeowner who’s only marginally credit worthy at best. If the homeowner didn’t pay the bill, the attorney would have no recourse other than to sue the homeowner in Small Claims Court where they would likely receive small payments over time if lucky.
Extending unsecured credit to homeowners that are already struggling to pay their bills, and then having to sue them in order to collect simply isn’t a business model that attorneys, or anyone else for that matter, are likely to embrace. In fact, the more than 50 California attorneys involved in loan modifications that I contacted to ask about this issue all confirmed that they would not represent homeowners on that basis.
One attorney, who asked not to be identified, said: “Getting a lender or servicer to agree to a loan modification takes months, sometimes six or nine months. If I worked on behalf of homeowners for six or nine months and then didn’t get paid by a number of them, it wouldn’t be very long before I’d have to close my doors. No lawyer is going to do that kind of work without any security and anyone who thinks they will, simply isn’t familiar with what’s involved.”
“I don’t think there’s any question that SB 94 will make it almost impossible for a homeowner to obtain legal representation related to loan modifications,” explained another attorney who also asked not to be identified. ”The banks have fought lawyers helping clients through the loan modification process every step of the way, so I’m not surprised they’ve pushed for this legislation to pass.”
Proponents of the legislation recite the all too familiar mantra about there being so many scammers out there that the state has no choice but to move to shut down any one offering to help homeowners secure loan modifications that charges a fee for the services. They point out that consumers can just call their banks directly, or that there are nonprofit organizations throughout the state that can help homeowners with loan modifications.
While the latter is certainly true, it’s only further evidence that there exists a group of people in positions of influence that are unfamiliar , or at the very least not adequately familiar with obtaining a loan modification through a nonprofit organization, and they’ve certainly never tried calling a bank directly.
The fact that there are nonprofit housing counselors available, and the degree to which they may or may not be able to assist a given homeowner, is irrelevant. Homeowners are well aware of the nonprofit options available. They are also aware that they can call their banks directly. From the President of the United States and and U.S. Attorney General to the community newspapers found in every small town in America, homeowners have heard the fairy tales about about these options, and they’ve tried them… over and over again, often times for many months. When they didn’t get the desired results, they hired a firm to help them.
Yet, even the State Bar of California is supporting SB 94, and even AB 764, a California Assembly variation on the theme, and one even more draconian because of its requirement that attorneys only be allowed to bill a client after a successful loan modification has been obtained. That means that an attorney would have to guarantee a homeowner that he or she would obtain a modification agreement from a lender or servicer or not get paid for trying. Absurd on so many levels. Frankly, if AB 764 passes, would the last one out of California please turn off the lights and bring the flag.
As of late July, the California State Bar said it was investigating 391 complaints against 141 attorneys, as opposed to nine investigations related to loan modifications in 2008. The Bar hasn’t read anywhere all of the complaints its received, but you don’t have to be a statistician to figure out that there’s more to the complaints that meets the eye. So far the State Bar has taken action against three attorneys and the Attorney General another four… so, let’s see… carry the 3… that’s 7 lawyers. Two or three more and they could have a softball team.
At the federal level they’re still reporting the same numbers they were last spring. Closed 11… sent 71 letters… blah, blah, blah… we’ve got a country of 300 million and at least 5 million are in trouble on their mortgage. The simple fact is, they’re going to have to come up with some serious numbers before I’m going to be scared of bumping into a scammer on every corner.
Looking Ahead…
California’s ALT-A and Option ARM mortgages are just beginning to re-set, causing payments to rise, and with almost half of the mortgages in California already underwater, these homeowners will be unable to refinance and foreclosures will increase as a result. Prime jumbo foreclosure rates are already up a mind blowing 634% as compared with January 2008 levels, according to LPS Applied Analytics.
Clearly, if SB 94 ends up reducing the number of legitimate firms available for homeowners to turn to, everyone involved in its passage is going to be retiring. While many sub-prime borrowers have suffered silently through this horror show of a housing crisis, the ALT-A and Option ARM borrowers are highly unlikely to slip quietly into the night.
There are a couple of things about the latest version of SB 94 that I found interesting:
1. It says that a lawyer can’t collect a fee or any other compensation before serivces have been delivered, but it doesn’t make clear whether attorneys can ask the client to deposit funds in the law firm’s trust account and then bill against thsoe funds as amounts are earned. Funds deposited in a law firm trust account remain the client’s funds, so they’re not a lawyer’s “fees or other compensation”. Those funds are there so that when the fees have been earned, the lawyer doesn’t have to hope his or her bill gets paid. Of course, it also says that an attorney can’t hold any security interest, but money in a trust account a client’s money, the attorney has no lien against it. All of this is a matter of interpretation, of course, so who knows.
2. While there used to be language in both the real estate and lawyer sections that prohibited breaking up services related to a loan modification, in the latest version all of the language related to breaking up services as applied to attorneys has been eliminated. It still applies to real estate licensed firms, but not to attorneys. This may be a good thing, as at least a lawyer could complete sections of the work involved as opposed to having to wait until the very end, which the way the banks have been handling things, could be nine months away.
3. The bill says nothing about the amounts that may be charged for services in connection with a loan modification. So, in the case of an attorney, that would seem to mean that… well, you can put one, two and three together from there.
4. Lawyers are not included in definition of foreclosure consultant. And there is a requirement that new language be inserted in contracts, along the lines of “You don’t have to pay anyone to get a loan modification… blah, blah, blah.” Like that will be news to any homeowner in America. I’ve spoken with hundreds and never ran across one who didn’t try it themselves before calling a lawyer. I realize the Attorney General doesn’t seem to know that, but look… he’s been busy.
Conclusion…
Will SB 94 actually stop con artists from taking advantage of homeowners in distress? Or will it end up only stopping reputable lawyers from helping homeowners, while foreclosures increase and our economy continues its deflationary free fall? Will the California State Bar ever finishing reading the complaints being received, and if they ever do, will they understand what they’ve read. Or is our destiny that the masses won’t understand what’s happening around them until it sucks them under as well.
I surely hope not. But for now, I’m just hoping people can still a hire an attorney next week to help save their homes, because if they can’t… the Bar is going to get a lot more letters from unhappy homeowners.
United First Class Action
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.