Need feedback from what others know of mort. mod processing

[Hodgini66]

SoCalGal:

Read section 2983.6:

2923.6.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, not to any particular parties, and that a servicer acts in the best interests of all parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following apply:

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably foreseeable.

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan exceeds the
anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan
modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is
consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,
that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=90453524952+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Essentially, the Legislature enacted this as a "just short" of its own State level "cram-down" Legislation.

So, while JustBroke may be right on the "Agreement" issue, the question for your attorney to research is Case Law supporting whether ONLY the borrower need sign & have Notarized the documents, in order for the agreement to take effect.

If he can find SEVERAL Appellate case opinions without any or few contra-cases, you have a great case for a lawsuit AND at least, an injunction.

In any case, timely make the payments based on the MODIFIED payment plan, as an act of Good Faith. Everything you do from this point forward will/may be scrutinized, so watch your P's and Q's!

Good Luck!

[justbroke]

... the question for your attorney to research is Case Law supporting whether ONLY the borrower need sign & have Notarized the documents, in order for the agreement to take effect.

I agree with this tactic. I like this law. However, and not trying to be negative, I'm sure the kinks in that new legislation is still being litigated.

[socalgal]

BofA Stranded my Modification by Selling the NOTE!

The lawyer has not used SB 1137 yet.

There is enough fodder in just the way the MOD package had a section worded. It seems that the wording fully spelled out what I had to do (and I followed the instructions to the LETTER) to have the modification implemented by CW/BofA. It was not an 'application' or a 'trial period' agreement.

It just plain states, you, the borrower do, 'thus and such' by 'this date' in order for the enclosed modification to take effect.

He also had some fun with the fact that the ALLEGED NOD cited the mortgage as dated this year, on the exact date of the modification.

He had some other comments about Litton's tactics.

I realize this is likely to just be the first round of letters.

[socalgal]

SoCalGal:


In any case, timely make the payments based on the MODIFIED payment plan, as an act of Good Faith. Everything you do from this point forward will/may be scrutinized, so watch your P's and Q's!

Good Luck!

On that wonderful recorded line of Litton's (as a debt collector), their reps have told me not to send anything short of one of the ORIGINAL payments. That it will only be sent back.

I have also seen other cases where payments that were in a disputed amount were not applied to the loan as the borrower intended. They were simply stuck in a 'suspense' account or used up in other ways by the lender.

I have informed my lawyer about this facet from the first meeting.

[DeadManCrawling]

Glad you are pursuing this. If everyone did, who could, we would see a wave of litigation that might bring lending to a grinding halt and raise so many flags that the Justice Dept would have to get involved. It would be nice to see ALL of the cockroaches dragged from their slimy holes and but under a blazing microscope for the world to see.

[socalgal]

Glad you are pursuing this. If everyone did, who could, we would see a wave of litigation that might bring lending to a grinding halt and raise so many flags that the Justice Dept would have to get involved. It would be nice to see ALL of the cockroaches dragged from their slimy holes and but under a blazing microscope for the world to see.

Thanks, DMC!

The attorney has not used CA SB 1137 at this point. He had other law including basic contract law that he did cite (regardless of some people claiming that as a WEAKNESS in the case, it is the reverse.).

Also, an earlier poster was pointing out the section of SB 1137 that covers WHEN a mod is to be offered.

GIVEN THAT I ALREADY was OFFERED the mod and that the OFFER occurred AFTER SB 1137 was in effect for several months, there should be no need to look to that clause to decide, again, if the mod was in their best interests. That decision is to happen BEFORE they offer the mod.

We should instead be at the clause that addresses the lender group offering a mod. AFTER they do offer a mod, the BORROWER is the only one with a decision to make.

Even the document that I signed gave ME no way out after I signed the doc and conformed with the requirements. It did not even allow a 3-day recision. This made me believe that it was a much different process than an original loan or purchase doc. It was more similar to signing a lease (there is no 3-day recision in my state for leases at least). You sign, you are both on the hook. [The only real way to immediately break such a lease is proof of substantial deception on the application.]

Anyway, SB 1137, with regard to a lender who DOES OFFER a mod does not give the lender a way to retract such an offer. I'm not trying to force a NEW mod out of them, I'm trying to get them to HONOR what they offered.

At this date, given the refusal to accept the lower payments, they may have to UPDATE the mod.

[steve2008]

Hello everyone.

My 61 year old mother now deceased mortgaged our property in 1997 to move a house on that I have lived on since 1972.In 2004 Litton Loan took over so-called servicing the mortgage note.Litton Loan from 2004 to 2006 three different times claimed my mother was late paying her note and hit her with letters demanding $1300.00 in 2004 and $1500.00 in 2005 and march 16th the day she had a heart attack and died in 2006 $1700.00.

My mother would send her payments on the 3rd of every month by western union quick collect and the note was due on the 10th of every month.Litton Loan would get my mothers payment 7 days before the actual due date but at times would not post it until close to the end of the month so she would look as if she were late.

My mother received a letter from them on march 16th 2006 telling her she had withing 45 days to pay them $1700.00 or they would be forced to foreclose on her.She called them and was on the phone for over 2 hours with several different employees that jacked her around and upset her so bad that she had a massive heart attack after she got off the phone with whoever it was she last spoke with.

My mother had never been late always early and she was robbed twice before she died.My wife contacted Litton Loan and told them of mothers death because my wife was co-signer on the mortgage and then they realized my mother was dead and claimed there was actually $2500.00 owed to them.

I rapidly had a succession done and me and my wife carried the murdering robbers bankrupt.Its the only way to keep them off your back and from robbing you and they will try and rob you in a bankruptcy by hiding the numbers while they wait like buzzards to pick your bones after you are discharged by making bogus claims on you unless you are aware of them so you can get your Attorney to file a motion with the court at the end of your case so the Judge can order them to apply all monies received through your trustee to bring it current.

Me and my wife filed in April of 2006 and shortly after Litton was sending us statements and I decided to not report them but save their statements to compare their numbers to the yearly periodical from the Trustee.

Low and behold we noticed last years periodical compared to Litton Loans statement was thousands of dollars higher than our Trusttes periodical report.They were putting money out of the Trustee`s payment into escrow for forced insurance that we have provided personally since we filed in 2006.

Yes Litton Loan is a criminal organization guilty of murder that I suspect is protected by our Government because Larry Litton I suspect pays them under the table as dont bother me money so I can rob them to or take their home.

Someone needs to bring this evil empire down.I wonder how many other elderly people have they killed by getting them so mad over being robbed?

I sure miss my precious dear mother that would go hungry to feed a poor soul and never harmed noone.

Take care and thanks for reading.

Steve.