In February 2012, 49 state attorneys general, including Nevada’s AG, and the federal government announced a historic joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest mortgage servicers:

Foreclosure Problems

 

•Ally/GMAC

•Bank of America

•Citi

•JPMorgan Chase

•Wells Fargo

 

This is the largest consumer financial protection settlement in US history.

The agreement settles state and federal investigations finding that the country’s five largest mortgage servicers routinely signed foreclosure related documents outside the presence of a notary public and without really knowing whether the facts they contained were correct.  Both of these practices violate the law.

If you lost your home to foreclosure in Nevada between 2008 and 2011, you have probably already been notified that you may be eligible to participate in Nevada’s settlement with the National Mortgage Settlement Administrator.  THE FINAL DAY TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM TO BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IS FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2013.

To see if you are eligible, you may visit www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com.

 

National Mortgage Settlement — You May Be Eligible for a Distribution

Federal Regulations

Nevada’s Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, is contacting Nevada residents who are eligible to receive a portion of the settlement reached by Nevada with various mortgage servicers, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, GMAC, Allied, and J.P. Morgan Chase.  If your mortgage was serviced by one of these institutions, and you lost your primary residence to foreclosure between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011, you are likely eligible to participate in the Settlement.

The Attorney General’s Office is contacting claimants by mail.  If you have not heard from their office and believe you may be eligible, you should visit ww.nationalmortgagesettlement.com to inquire.  To participate and receive the payment as part of the settlement, you must file a claim by January 18, 2013.

Flag_of_California.svg

 

The California Department of Housing has released a memorandum detailing the laws that went into effect relating to lending servicers and foreclosure requirements.

The 9 page memo is a brief outline of the mandates California lawmakers imposed as a result of the mortgage crisis, robo-signing and poor performance in borrowers services.

California’s “Borrower’s Bill of Rights” is far more reaching and punitive that recent laws passed in Nevada affecting non-judicial foreclosure. Starting January 2013, offenders of any of the various requirements ranging from documentation and customer service, could pay the greater of $50,000 or trebled damages.

The memo can be viewed here.

In a recent news release, The Federal Housing Financing Agency gave word of new short sale guidelines for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac servicers.  The changes are set to go into affect November 01, 2012 and are meant to clarify and expedite the short sale process.  The announced alterations are as follows:

1)      Homeowners with a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage will be permitted to sell their home in a short sale even if they are current on their mortgage if they have an eligible hardship, such as death of a borrower or co-borrower, divorce, disability, or relocation for a job, unemployment, business failure, etc., all without special approval from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac;

2)      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will waive the right to pursue deficiency judgments in exchange for a financial contribution when a borrower has sufficient income or assets to make cash contributions or sign promissory notes, whereby servicers will evaluate borrowers for additional capacity to cover the shortfall between the outstanding loan balance and the property sales price as part of approving the short sale;

3)      Special treatment will be provided to military personnel with Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders; and

4)      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will offer up to $6,000 to second lien holders to expedite a short sale.

All of the changes hint to incredible strides forward for borrowers, especially the provision that indicates borrowers will be considered without default and the limit on contributions to second lien holders.  They are claimed to create a single, uniform short sale procedure, with specific rules or timelines when a foreclosure sale is looming. Borrowers that short sell will not be eligible for a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan for two years thereafter.

Homeowners can determine if they have a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan by going to:

http://www.FannieMae.com/loanlookup or calling 800-7Fannie (8 am to 8 pm ET)

https://www.FreddieMac.com/corporate/ or 800-Freddie (8 am to 8 pm ET)

Kristy Black, JD MBA

Black & LoBello on AM720 KDWN

Tune in as Black & LoBello offers free legal advice on a wide range of topics

Click here to listen to the Legal Hour on KDWN AM720 from August 1st, 2012 in which Managing Partner, Tisha Black Chernine, Esq., discusses her debate with Laurie Anne Maggiano of the US Treasury Department regarding strategic defaulters (2:45), modification solution fatigue (5:40),  the difficulty of defining financial hardship (6:20), Bank of America’s principal reduction programs (7:50), LIBOR rigging scandal (11:00), right of redemption (14:30), how to recoup retainer fees (20:50), why banks won’t release  foreclosed properties back into the market (24:15), how to use the Multi-State Settlement to get out of a HELOC (30:10) and what you can learn from your mortgage servicer (37:10). .

Please tune in to AM720 KDWN’s “Legal Hour,” every Wednesday, from 9 AM to 10 AM.  Listen live on the radio or online.   Feel free to call in with your comments or questions at 702-257-5396.

To listen to past shows, visit our Media page.

Black & LoBello on the Radio

Click here to listen to the Legal Hour on KDWN AM720 from March 21st, 2012 in which Managing Partner, Tisha Black Chernine, Esq., hosts special guest, Mark Baker from Sierra Pacific Mortgage.  Ms. Black Chernine and Mr. Baker discuss what the HARP program does and how it can help people (1:50), the limits to the  HARP (12:45), the pros and cons of strategic default vs. short sale (16:45), financing reverse-mortgages (29:50), why Bank of America no longer works with Fannie Mae (31:50) and the Shared Appreciation Modification Program (34:40).

Please tune in to AM720 KDWN’s “Legal Hour,” Wednesdays, from 9 AM to 10 AM.  Listen live on the radio or online.   Feel free to call in with your comments or questions at 702-257-5396.



The Nevada Association of Realtors (hereinafter “NVAR”) recently released a report entitled “Face of Foreclosure.”  This report paints a rather grim picture.  It reports that more than 20% of Nevada homeowners have strategically defaulted and allowed a foreclosure to occur rather than pursuing other alternatives.

The NVAR report explored the reason that people went to foreclosure as opposed to seeking other financially distressed property alternatives such as a loan modification or short sale.  Apparently, many Nevadans are unaware of programs available to assist them in the aforementioned pursuits.  However, the report does not seem to adequately address one major reason that homeowners throughout Nevada are walking away.  It seems rather clear that for some, the fear of being pursued on a deficiency judgment may be a major factor in the decision making process.

In Nevada, deficiency judgments can be incredibly burdensome as the property values have dropped dramatically over the last several years.  If a borrower presents a short sale, making every attempt to mitigate losses incurred by the lender, they are often provided with an approval letter that does not afford a deficiency release.  Accordingly, for loans originated prior to October 2009, the lender may pursue the borrower after a short sale for six years.  If the borrower instead allows the property to be foreclosed upon, the foreclosing lender only has six months to pursue them.  Inasmuch as most people do not like a dark cloud that looms for six years, if the lender forecloses, that dark cloud may be eliminated in a six month period.   That being said, it is still advisable to work with your lender and make every attempt to mitigate the damages for all parties while making them aware that a release of the debt in its entirety is of utmost importance.  Therefore, for Nevadans to know all their options it is still best to seek the counsel of a trusted source who will properly advise as to the laws and procedures available in this state.

Carlos L. McDade, Esq.
Kelle L. Kuebler, Attorney*
*Licensed only in New York and Connecticut

Homeowners Given False Hope

Following the purchase of a property, whether it is your home or an investment, an owner would like to believe that the property will increase in value over time.  The past few years have shown quite the opposite trend and most Nevadan’s are aware of the decrease in the value of their home or investment property.  This is far from surprising, considering it is nearly impossible to miss the foreclosure signs all across the valley.  It’s just as hard to miss the newspaper, radio and TV news that report the sad state of our economy and fallen real estate prices.  Still, many borrowers do not realize how much value their property has lost.  How can a borrower know the reality when many are given false hope due to inaccurate home value websites and other unrealistic assessed values?

Nearly every day we meet with a borrower who believes his or her house is worth tens of thousands of dollars more than it truly is.  It is not that the homeowner is uninformed, but rather, they are being improperly informed.  For instance, a local realtor recently advised that her client had researched the value of their home on the web and the client believed their property should be listed for approximately $145,000.  However, upon receiving comparables for the community the realtor noted that the home could not be listed for that price but rather should be listed closer to $135,000.  That same home, one month later, still received no activity at $135,000 and is now listed at $129,000.  This situation is not uncommon.

In order to avoid the inflated home value predicament, borrowers should contact a realtor and ask them to provide the borrower with “comps.”  This information will afford a borrower the opportunity to review an appropriate approximation of the true value.  In real estate, a true value can only be reflected by what the market can bear.

Carlos L. McDade, Esq.
Kelle L. Kuebler, Attorney*
*Licensed only in New York and Connecticut

Tagged with:
 

Foreclosure Outlook 2011

The outlook for the New Year is grim if you own a home in Las Vegas and are not paying attention to your legal rights. Likely, you are one of the two-thirds of our valley’s property owners who are in an underwater position, most being more than 50%. Since property values are expected to drop further in 2011 along with demand and ability to purchase, it seems that local property values are in a death spiral.

Pundits predict that nationally, 1 in every 5 mortgages could be foreclosed on in 2011.  Though the foreclosure crisis has persisted for the last three years, they say we are only one-fourth of the way through the troubled loans. Using that statistic and the, until now, popular dead beat borrower argument, 20% of our home-owning population is an irresponsible sub-prime borrower who should have never bought a home in the first place! Seriously, should the blame and the cure all be loaded on the tax-paying borrower?

What about the suspicious loans that were handed out freely, the documents the originators botched or left out all together, the securitization process that created huge pools of loans to be sold to trusting investors, the fabricated foreclosure fees and documents, and the filing of hundreds of thousands of false court documents?  Is this the non-paying borrowers fault as well? Will we never call these banks to participate in the foreclosure crisis that they helped to create?

One can be optimistic only in the respect that there is beginning to arise a general understanding of how the banks function and why they are not incentivized to do anything other than position borrowers for foreclosure. As an originator bank (in charge of creating and processing the loan documents and sales), as well as the servicer bank, foreclosure serves several very important purposes: 1) it hides faulty and fraudulent documentation; 2) it avoids put-backs from investors who bought the securitized loans the banks sold;  and 3) it creates default servicing revenue. In reality, the bank controls the process from start to finish and therefore, has opportunities to hide and avoid liability while earning a fee to do so.

The large number of foreclosures we continue to experience in Nevada does nothing other than breed more foreclosure and loss.  Foreclosures must be avoided either through mutual consent between the lender and borrower or by enforcing legal foreclosure standards.  The “dead beat borrower” argument is nothing more than an easy diversion from the real problems such as banks’ reverse-engineering loan documents, “robo-signing”, deliberately pursuing improper foreclosures, and manufacturing “junk fees” that cause or add to the pain of foreclosures. To date, the banks have enjoyed the diversion.

There is a ground-swell against these practices in small and large scale. Not only have borrowers begun to voice their disgust at bank practices, states have begun to take formalized action against the biggest offenders. Attorney General Masto filed a lawsuit against Bank of America for misleading and deceptive trade practices, making Nevada the second state to take such a stand.

Our local politicians, however, cannot be the only elected officials paying clear attention to the problem.  We must all face this problem head on, and those we send to Washington must not continue to have their understanding clouded by politics and pockets. There can be no hope and no change unless we pay attention and demand that every player in this crisis be held accountable for their portion of the problem.

Servicer banks have created false and faulty documents, they have foreclosed on homes improperly and without right, they have preyed on the lethargy and ignorance of consumers, and they have been caught doing so in Nevada. By uncovering deceptive practices, faulty documents, improper procedures, and other technical and obvious arguments, you may be able to modify your loan, short sale with a release of the deficient amount, or gain other favorable results. But you must be willing to get involved. We have helped many clients who are frustrated and unable reach closure.

If you are a borrower who has failed to pay, you do have rights that can and should be protected.  Sitting idly by is what the banks expect from you, what do you expect of yourself?

Tisha Black Chernine, Esq.

Tagged with:
 

Click here to read Katherine Porter’s testimony before the Congressional Oversight Panel at the Hearing on the TARP Foreclosure Mitigation Program in which she describes how the allegations of legal errors in the foreclosure process may impact the housing markets, the soundness of banks, and the overall financial markets.

There are approximately 850,000 Americans with top secret security clearance and hundreds of thousands of others who have varying degrees of clearance as the result of government, quasi-government or contract employment.  In order to obtain security clearance, one’s credit score and financial stability are considered by an administrative board.  These clearances are renewed several times, if not dozens of times, during the course of employment.  The foreclosure crisis in this country is having an unforeseen, adverse effect on the security clearances of thousands of security clearance holders.  Considering that there were 332,172 default notices, scheduled auctions, and bank repossessions nationwide in October 2010, it is no wonder that the ability to maintain security clearance is on the forefront of many citizens minds.  Without clearance, these individuals may lose their livelihood and be forced to seek out new employment in an already incredibly weakened job market.

A recent study by Sheldon Cohen[1], a Virginia based attorney specializing in security cases, has evidenced how security clearance due to foreclosure has been evaluated by the Department of Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).  In fact, the study shows that between 2000 and 2002, there was only one reported case before the DOHA dealing with foreclosure.  In contrast, there were twenty-four foreclosure based cases before the DOHA in 2009 alone.  As the DOHA is only one of twelve such administrative bodies that make rulings on security clearance, it is clear that foreclosures are impacting a number of citizens and it is safe to assume that number will continue to grow over the next several years.

The government has the right to question your financial stability for security reasons.  A person in a difficult financial situation is seen to be more vulnerable to offers of money in exchange for secrets.  Additionally, those who are overextended are considered more susceptible to performing other illegal acts to generate funds necessary to pay their debts.  That being said, the administrative bodies evaluating how financial hardship and foreclosure affect a person’s security clearance take into consideration conditions that were beyond a person’s control.  A downtrodden economy, orders to relocate, and lenders that refuse to work with the borrower, could all be identified as factors by an adjudicator to mitigate the presumption of financial irresponsibility.  However, it should be noted that whether or not mitigating circumstances exist, a person’s security clearance may still be affected.

Persons facing foreclosure and trying to maintain active security clearance should seek the advice of counsel in order to assist them in navigating this complex terrain.  It is difficult enough for a person to lose their home; it is even more harrowing to compound that injury by losing your livelihood as well.


[1] “Report: :Loss of Security Clearances Matches Rise in Home Foreclosures,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20017125-10391695.html

Carlos L. McDade, Esq.
Kelle L. Kuebler, Attorney*
*Licensed only in New York and Connecticut

When one hears the word “insurance,” you automatically think you are “covered” from any and all “qualified” loss that exists under the umbrella of that coverage.  Unfortunately, that does not appear to be true as all types of insurance from medical to long term disability have been the subject of movies and articles slamming the insurer’s failure to pay when the insured comes to collect on a valid claim.  The same also appears to be true in the mortgage industry.  The private mortgage insurance company, Old Republic, was sued last week by Bank of America for failure to pay on purportedly valid claims totaling approximately $160 million dollars.  Bank of America should not be alone in their frustration as borrowers, many of whom have paid monthly for private mortgage insurance, are now liable for a greater deficiency on their short sale as a result of the mortgage insurer refusing to cover any of the difference.  For example, in the event that someone sells their home with a $200,000 mortgage for $100,000 there is a deficient amount of $100,000.  If we assume that the mortgage insurance company covers approximately 30% of the original note, as most cover somewhere between 20%-50%, then the deficiency balance the lender may now pursue the borrower for is only $40,000.  The borrower, once liable for $100,000 loss, is only paying the $40,000 due to the mortgage insurance covering $60,000.00. However, when the mortgage insurance company fails to pay on claims, the borrower may now be facing a $100,000 suit from their lender.  Considering the aforementioned, it is not only Bank of America and other lenders that are suffering from coverage denial but the borrowers who, unlike Bank of America, don’t have in-house counsel.

Carlos L. McDade, Esq.
Kelle L. Kuebler, Attorney*
*Licensed only in New York and Connecticut

Tagged with:
 

Tisha Black Chernine, Esq. speaks on the Heidi Harris Show about mortgages that could be “frozen” by the government and the process of loan modification.   Click here to hear the audio clip.

Tagged with:
 

The nation watched and waited as GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America began announcing their plans to stop foreclosures in 23 judicial states.  This freeze of the foreclosure industry came about largely as a result of the sworn deposition of a GMAC servicing executive who testified that he was signing off on foreclosures without actually checking the documents or having them signed by a notary, both of which are prerequisites to a proper foreclosure.  The other lenders followed suit after realizing that what the media now refer to as “robo-signers” appeared somewhat commonplace.  Bank of America even went so far as to announce that they were suspending foreclosures nationwide.  Newspapers, internet posts, and the word on the street all voiced the same notion evidencing the overwhelming belief that foreclosures instituted by Bank of America near and far were at least temporarily at a standstill so that Bank of America could “do the right thing” and appropriately check their documents.

It seems rather odd then that Bank of America, less than two weeks later, issued a statement that they would be resuming foreclosures in all of the non-judicial foreclosure states.  Did the lender truly review 130,000 foreclosure files in two weeks and fix all the errors? Further, in the absence of any errors and in consideration of a thorough check on the documents, wouldn’t it make sense for Bank of America to resume foreclosures in all states?  It could be argued that they aren’t doing so because the foreclosure process in a non-judicial foreclosure state is rather simple and does not require a judge’s approval.  In the absence of a ‘trier of fact” the lenders’ documents, correct or not, will never be looked at by a neutral party and over 100,000 homes will be back on the chopping block next week.

It appears that Bank of America started out with the right idea in postponing foreclosures nationwide.  Unfortunately, some might argue that their rapid change in course has left the American public looking for answers that the lender still cannot provide.  After two weeks of document review can this lender tell you who owns your loan or who has the right to enforce a foreclosure judgment against you?  Considering the aforementioned, all signs point to “no.”

Carlos L. McDade, Esq.
Kelle L. Kuebler, Attorney*
*Licensed only in New York and Connecticut

Tagged with:
 

A joint investigation by every state and the District of Columbia could force mortgage companies to settle allegations that they used flawed documents to foreclose on hundreds of thousands of homeowners.  To read the full article please click this link.

Click to read Attorney General Catherine Masto’s letter to Bank of America.

Tagged with:
 

Nevada attorney general asks lenders to temporarily halt foreclosures

As politicians complain about potentially massive mortgage fraud around the country, a top state official is calling on all residential lenders to halt foreclosures in Nevada. To read the full story in the Las Vegas Review Journal, click here.

Pursuant to articles in today’s Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and the Washington Post, Bank of America Corporation has placed a moratorium on all foreclosure proceedings across the U.S. to examine its foreclosure documentation problems. This includes all Bank of America owned properties in the state of Nevada.

Bank of America is the first financial institution to stop all foreclosure actions Nationwide, a fall-out from the recent discovery that the banks have been remiss in keeping proper documents. The banking industry has been under fire for its use of “robo-signers”, bank employees who authenticate and certify documents necessary in foreclosure actions. Robo-signers are alleged to have executed thousands of affidavits a day without actually reviewing the corresponding loan files and related documents. The failure to properly certify the documents could lead to the unwinding of many foreclosures. In response to the growing concern, many lawsuits have been filed nationwide, governmental investigations have begun and the title insurance industry has refused to insure REO properties in some states.

Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, GMAC, PNC and Ally Financial Inc. postponed foreclosures in 23 states last week just as the foreclosure press was accelerated.  In August, lenders took possession of a record 95,364 homes and increased foreclosure filings to 338,836 homeowners, or one in every 381 households, according to RealtyTrac.

The decision by Bank of America to extend its ban on foreclosures to all 50 states takes effect Saturday. A spokesperson for Bank of America stated this morning that the bank will not re-commence the foreclosure process until it can properly assess all of its documentation. This may be a bit of reprieve for cash-strapped homeowners but may have an untolled adverse affect on those involved in real estate sales.

If you have recently been foreclosed upon or if your house has been or will be taken as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, call our office for information. Black & LoBello will be updating our website and Twittering with important information related to the foreclosure moratorium and its affect on Nevada residents and real estate professionals.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, or at our website (www.blacklobellolaw.com).

Tisha Black Chernine, Esq.

As foreclosures increase,  the nation’s largest mortgage financier has added 61,929 new REO properties to its inventory in the second quarter. In an effort to step up the unloading of these properties, FANNIE has created its First Look program. See, HomePath.com .

The program is aimed at assisting owner-occupied purchasers and public entities with purchasing the properties.  Once the residence has been foreclosed upon, and assuming it has not been purchased by a third party through the foreclosure process, owner occupants, public entities and their partners can submit offers without competition from investors. The First Look period is typically 15 days.

On Thursday, new incentives were added to this program.  Qualified homebuyers who will be owner-occupants can receive up to 3.5 percent of the final sales price that can be used toward closing cost assistance, including a home warranty, if available.  In addition, selling agents representing owner-occupants will receive a $1,500 bonus.  However, the bonus will be hard earned.  Eligible offers must be submitted on or after September 23, 2010, and must close by December 31, 2010. The sale must close within 60 days of the offer being accepted.

Tisha Black Chernine, Esq.

Tagged with:
 

A survey by the Pew Research Center found that more than a third – 36 percent – of Americans believe the practice of “walking away” from their mortgage payments and their home is acceptable, at least under certain circumstances.  Of the homeowners surveyed, 48 percent say the value of their home declined during the recession.  It’s these underwater homeowners who are more likely than those whose home did not lose value to say it’s acceptable to renege on a mortgage (20 percent vs. 14 percent respectively).

Joshua D. Carlson, Esq.

Tagged with:
 
Page 1 of 212