Need feedback from what others know of mort. mod processing

[socalgal]

Mishandling of my mortgage modification has me seeking information here. I have read on some threads that others have been assured that if a mod package was offered by the bank and you accept it and submit it with the stipulated documents, that the lender then can not back out.

My loan is not a fannie or freddie. Is there actually any regulation that says they have to complete the mod? BofA kept assuring me that the mod was taking place, even with them selling the note while the mod was being processed.

I called and was assured NUMEROUS times that the mod was going into effect.

Even after Litton had taken ownership of the note, BofA said the modified note would be getting to Litton. It was also, "Litton will honor this mod even if we have not properly handled it".

Litton says they have no evidence that BofA was processing the mod. Even though I have faxed in copies of the notarized agreement.

Oh, and Litton SAYS that about having no evidence of the mod. THEN WHY, on the Notice of Default, is the date of the 'NOTE' shown to be a particular date from 2009? Strangest clerical error to MIRACULOUSLY use the EXACT date of the MODIFICATION agreement. (They sent that letter before I faxed copies of the mod agreement to their research department.)

Meanwhile a BofA supervisor has expressed the notion that they have done nothing wrong. Other BofA employees have expressed surprise that this was allowed to happen. One said it appeared to be a mistake.

Neither lender EVER sent any notice to me that the modification was not being implemented.

I have an attorney. We are trying to determine if there is any legality to this. (The lawyer, of course is using his sources, I'm checking here.) I know others on other threads have been assured by their lawyers that this does not happen. Does anyone know any regulation that BofA & Litton are not complying with?

It just does not feel right to have a lender able to just ignore processing of a package they offered to modify a loan.

Disgusted SoCalGal

[justbroke]

Sounds like just a complete mess up. If the loan was actually sold, I don't see how the buyer is obligated in any way, by contract law, to honor that if the loan wasn't modified prior to the sale.

In other words... Bank of America overstated the ability for the loan modification process to continue with the new owner of the note. Have you tried working with Litton on a new modification, or are you just trying to pursue the old terms?

In most contract or even looking at just mortgages... until that modification is signed by the lender, and then recorded, it doesn't exist.

[socalgal]

JustBroke,

I, along with many others, have run into Litton having some major flaw in how they calculate your ability to pay the existing level of the loan(s).

I have my form letter from Litton telling me that I make enough to pay the original loan. Hmmm, take 5K gross, subtract 4050 for their loan and another 885 for the HELOC loan. Since neither of those have ANY IMPOUND for Taxes and Insurance, you have to subtract another $115 for taxes AND $80 for Insurance. My calculator has that as a negative number, and remember we are starting with GROSS income. Then if you are trying to keep the electric and water paid you are even FURTHER into the red. They must have given their people a really special calculator. I have seen other forums where this problem with litton's "You make too much money" form letter has occurred routinely.

I even know of another case of them sending that same form letter and the other guy here in town that got it is even more in the red when you try the numbers.

LITTON REALLY DOES NOT WORK WITH PEOPLE. They apparently even lied to the other guy when they told him verbally that they would delay the sale a few days. It was HOGWASH.

Since BofA never gave reason to stop the processing, the real question is, can they even DO that? We were in a process that, per the agreement I signed, DID NOT give them any out regarding the implementation of the plan. It gave me a deadline to submit the package and certain papers to submit with it. I complied to the letter and they agreed they had completed the verification.

WHAT GROUNDS does BOFA have to sell the note during that part of the process? I have seen other threads here where attorneys have told their clients that once the package is offered, the lender can not just walk away from it if you take them up on the offer.

We need to here from those that have had loan mods offered and the attorneys have made those comments.

Also, there are situations where BofA, as the SELLER could STILL be liable for this. I realize that Litton may not be the venue. BofA, well, they may have a problem.

Oh, and Litton has a bit of a problem with the date of the loan. See, if they DID know of the mod when they bought the note, then they do have some explaining to do. AND, they just said the date of the 'NOTE' that they want to enforce is dated the this year, on the very DATE of the Modification package.

Litton has provided some interesting fodder to the idea that they DID know.

Contract law application to this case may get the loan crammed back to BofA WITH THE MOD.

I could not pull off doing anything similar in failing to abide by any agreement I present to someone and get their signature on.

BofA needs to have grounds to walk away and they never did nor did they EVER send notice that the mod was not being implemented. Even without their signature on the mod, there is NOTHING in all the clauses that gives any out to just stop processing the mod. If you are working with a bank on a new loan and a problem occurs, they end up contacting you about the problem and what should be done. They never even CALLED to inform me that the loan mod was not going to be implemented. They, in fact, continued to claim that it would take effect or that it already 'was modified', even beyond the date that Litton took ownership of the note. Only those that checked the actual processing progress saw that nothing happened after the stage where they flagged 'completed' on the verification processing.

Oh, and BofA, with the assurances and delays due to the assurances, have caused me to make financial decisions that would have been done differently otherwise. There is some fancy legal term for it. Could make it more attractive for BofA to do something.

[justbroke]

I hear you... and I agree with your sentiment. However, I don't think that Litton has any "obligation" to follow through or to accept that modification because it was never "executed". I would still keep poking around and just become annoying to Litton. Call every day. Fax them everyday too (if you have your own fax machine and there's no cost to you).

[socalgal]

The lawyer is starting in on CW/BofA. Questioning them about their lending practices. I believe there is a bigger exposure on their part.

My lawyer is a real estate lawyer. Also practiced with the city. He is not one of the scam 'modification lawyers' out there. I had already gone for this mod originally on my own. I've just hired the lawyer. He has done mods, so he knows the lay of the land. In my case, he wants to force the existing mod to honored. He is certainly aware of contract law. That little 'clerical error' that we have not yet pointed out to litton actually dirties their hands in this particular case though. I does make people believe there is grounds to say Litton DID know of the modification being, regardless of whether it had completed. The Litton staff have twice said on a recorded line, that if the modification was already agreed to before they got the loan, that they would honor the modification.

It may be that the contract where they bought the package of notes has a clause covering this but they just will make more money if they manage to take it by foreclosure. We may end up with BofA/Litton having to produce the document where they sold the note. What do you want to bet they will not want that document made public?

[justbroke]

It may be that the contract where they bought the package of notes has a clause covering this but they just will make more money if they manage to take it by foreclosure. We may end up with BofA/Litton having to produce the document where they sold the note. What do you want to bet they will not want that document made public?

Well, the only way you're getting the terms of this "bulk" transfer of assets, is by subpoena. Even in the Bankruptcy context, they generally only show assignment letters with the "price" and "details" redacted. The only way to get the un-redacted copies are by subpoena in a Complaint proceeding.

Since they sell/buy in bulk, the terms apply to all loans in the deal. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in there, but I think you may find that the fight will only go so far, before you need to, basically, go "all-in". When I write all-in, I mean... taking it to Court and actually fighting it in that forum.

I am glad that you have a qualified real-estate Attorney doing this, as the lenders tend to treat the individual debtors like they are nobody. I hope you're able to convince Litton without spending too much money on attorney fees.

[socalgal]

I was just looking over my original note. It is a jumbo which means it is a non-conventional, non-freddie/fannie loan. It specifies arbitration. Describes it as less costly/less time-consuming but having the same results as court proceedings.

Other than trying to get Larry at the top of BofA to intercede as has apparently happened to some other cases I've found in forums about BofA, it may be to push this mess into arbitration.

[Hodgini66]

This should be simple for your Atty.

Cause of action: fraud, breech of contract, etc.

You want to sue BofA AND Litton for performance per the contract, meaning, you simply want them to perform pursuant to the terms of the contract. If you get greedy or your attorney is looking for some silver lining, there likely is none.

File a lawsuit ASAP & they'll know they stepped in it.

[Hodgini66]

Oh yeah, fraud claim MIGHT open the door to lawsuit instead of arbitration.

[justbroke]

Cause of action: fraud, breech of contract, etc.

What fraud? What contract? There is no contract except for the original mortgage terms. The "modification" wasn't executed.

In the Real Estate biz, the saying goes, it's not over until the fat lady sings. The poster never had an executed agreement at all.

At least that's what I would say, as the lender's attorney. What Contract? What fraud?

[socalgal]

BofA stranding of modification by selling NOTE

What fraud? What contract? There is no contract except for the original mortgage terms. The "modification" wasn't executed.

In the Real Estate biz, the saying goes, it's not over until the fat lady sings. The poster never had an executed agreement at all.

At least that's what I would say, as the lender's attorney. What Contract? What fraud?

The contract was offered, I accepted and fully complied. They verifiied. There is no clause in the contract allowing for them to ignore the contract they offered, once I agreed to it and complied with it.

So regardless of THEM not signing, THEY WERE NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH when they stranded the agreement.

[justbroke]

The contract was offered, I accepted and fully complied. They verifiied. There is no clause in the contract allowing for them to ignore the contract they offered, once I agreed to it and complied with it.

Until a contract is countersigned and executed, it's not a contract. No one has to accept a contract even after you sign it. I went through an entire closing before, signed all the documents, and the Bank chose NOT to loan the money. Perfectly fine for them.

You are right, that there's (probably) no clause in the contract allowing them to ignore it, but did they sign and record the contract? Sounds like no.

If I could make a bank do something, just because I signed a contract, and they didn't countersign it.. I'd have lots of money right now.

I just don't see anywhere you indicate that the Bank countersigned the Contract. Did you know that in Banking, the loan specialists/officers create lending contracts all the time. That based on the amount, they may need another signature from a senior lending officer? That the loan specialist may offer you something, even send you the documents, you sign them, but then the senior officer won't sign? That does not obligate the bank. Actually, that's the way it works... it's not a deal until it's actually signed by the person with authority to sign it.

If you have a contract with only your signature on it... that's what you have. A contract with only your authorization/signature.

I think the best course is to still attempt to first get Litton to "find" your paperwork for the modification. If they can't find it, then you'll have to work with Litton since they own the loan. I don't see how you pressure BofA into doing anything... however, it never hurts to try. I'm just trying to say that pursuing an unsigned deal as an actual "executed" deal, is probably a non-starter.

[Hodgini66]

The fraud cause of action stems from "offering" somethey had no intention of fulfilling. They enticed her.... Look up constructive fraud.

I SAID to sue for Performance.... I agree it is a real mess. The question is whether Litton knows anything about the supposed mod. Write a QWR and fax it one hundred times a day to BOTH of them using freeFax type websites until they Send it.

Only after you receive it from BOTH ends would I then sue.

The point of filing the action is they now must spend $ 300 an hour trying appease somebody who wants to remain a paying customer, under terms THEY (BofA) offered.

I'd do it for educational/ training value alone, much less the entertainment value.

[socalgal]

The fraud cause of action stems from "offering" somethey had no intention of fulfilling. They enticed her.... Look up constructive fraud.

I SAID to sue for Performance.... I agree it is a real mess. The question is whether Litton knows anything about the supposed mod. Write a QWR and fax it one hundred times a day to BOTH of them using freeFax type websites until they Send it.

Only after you receive it from BOTH ends would I then sue.

The point of filing the action is they now must spend $ 300 an hour trying appease somebody who wants to remain a paying customer, under terms THEY (BofA) offered.

I'd do it for educational/ training value alone, much less the entertainment value.

Litton made a very 'interesting' clerical error in the notice of default. You see the mod package had a certain date this year that it was originated, right? Well, guess what date Litton put on the notice of default letter as the date of the NOTE I was supposedly defaulting on? Actual original NOTE is a completely different date. And, at the time of the 'interesting' default notice, I had never attempted to present the BofA mod to Litton. Litton reps said to fax it in but that only happened AFTER Litton sent the default notice with the clue that they did not actually NEED a copy of the modification agreement.

So, Litton would have receive that date in materials directly acquired from BofA.

Does it come as ANY surprise that Litton is BOTH refusing to honor the existing mod AND claiming that I 'make too much' to qualify for a mod (WHICH IS UNTRUE).

Litton is in it up to their gills. Yeah, fish have gills.

I have been told that even with Litton claiming to own the note, that their company is just the servicer for an investor. It is surmised that some investor bought the note from BofA. A former mortgage broker claims she knows that investors are giving the banks the list of notes they want to buy

Smells of low tide when a big school of fish are stranded. [Very apt since I view the modification as 'stranded'.]

[Hodgini66]

Hmmm... just a theory here... One COULD allege "ACTUAL FRAUD". How?

They enticed you into negotiations, requiring you supply current financial data and used the data you supplied to render an assesment and decision on the "value" of your Note.

Example: BofA saw it as a "loser", not something they wanted in their portfolio.

After they received your info, they sold the Note to Litton because Litton has different qualifying criteria (long term goals) than BofA does.

The REAL question is "What is the legal remedy to your situation"?

This IS a sticky one and you'd have an uphill battle either way.

Only a competent attorney can give an opinion based upon the FACTS.

Send your letters today for the QWR's (search for examples here & elsewhere) from BOTH parties, gather up everything you have and present to an atty for a cursory review.

If you got into a MOD situation because you cannot afford the house payment anyway and were already in default (i.e. for short or non-payment), you might consider falling back to whatever you were doing in the first place.

In other words, start all over again with Litton.

Look on the bright side: At least you now have an idea of what types of Permanent MODS are available at a similar bank, which is a LOT more information than the rest of us have had, walking in the door.

Have a great one and keep us posted on your progress, that way we can all learn from each other. Thanks!