This is more of a "what do you think" question... personal experience is welcome of course!
In many cases, a petitioner is not behind on their mortgage when filing for a C-13. In my district, if the petitioner is not behind on the mortgage, the trustees allow the petitioner to pay outside the plan (thereby not paying the trustee's 6% markup.)
But more and more there are situations where the mortgage service companies are abusing the fact that the petitioner filed: new "fees", misapplied payments (generating more fees) and lost correspondence. The big banks (Bank of America comes to mind) are infamous for refusing to fix their errors until a lawyer is involved.
So... thinking out loud... if the petitioner is paying the mortgage through the trustee, is the bank more likely to play by the rules? Would this be a legitimate reason to pay the mortgage through the trustee, even though the petitioner has the option not to?
Thanks!
In many cases, a petitioner is not behind on their mortgage when filing for a C-13. In my district, if the petitioner is not behind on the mortgage, the trustees allow the petitioner to pay outside the plan (thereby not paying the trustee's 6% markup.)
But more and more there are situations where the mortgage service companies are abusing the fact that the petitioner filed: new "fees", misapplied payments (generating more fees) and lost correspondence. The big banks (Bank of America comes to mind) are infamous for refusing to fix their errors until a lawyer is involved.
So... thinking out loud... if the petitioner is paying the mortgage through the trustee, is the bank more likely to play by the rules? Would this be a legitimate reason to pay the mortgage through the trustee, even though the petitioner has the option not to?
Thanks!
Comment