Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer. He has helped hundreds of New Yorkers stay in their homes. He fights foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area and helps his clients obtain mortgage modifications. Elliot and his staff of attorneys can be reached 7 days a week. He and his associates can be reached by calling 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
A recent case in Kings County before Justice Yvonne Lewis sitting in the Supreme Court, Foreclosure Part, deals with the 90 day notice of default. New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1304 requires that a financial institution must serve a 90 day notice accelerating the mortgage and calling it due and payable before a foreclosure proceeding can be initiated.
In this case the bank sought to confirm the appointment of a referee granting a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The lawsuit alleged the defendants defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage. In addition, the suit claimed it was not a “high cost” or “sub-prime” loan and it was actually a commercial mortgage made to a commercial borrower. The financial institution claimed the mortgage was made for investment purposes.
Bank’s Failure to Serve A 90 Day Notice
The defendant maintained the bank had failed to comply with Section 1304 concerning the serving of a 90 day notice of default. Counsel for the plaintiff presented arguments alleging there was no need for service of a notice of default under Section 1304. They claimed they were exempt from this requirement because this was a commercial loan and not a residential loan. The bank’s position was that Section 1304 only applied to residential mortgages. The defendant contended the loan was a personal loan and the mortgaged property was used as his place of principle residence.
Judge Yvonne Lewis found there was a question as to whether the 90 day notice was required, and if it was required, was it properly served upon the defendant. Due to her concern regarding this issue, she denied the bank’s request for a judgment of foreclosure.
Conclusion
The 90 day notice needs to be served in all residential foreclosure proceedings. The failure of financial institutions to serve it can be plead as an affirmative defense in the defendant’s Answer to a foreclosure lawsuit brought by a bank.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney who helps homeowners fight foreclosure lawsuits and obtain mortgage modifications. He and his associates are available for consultation by calling 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or send an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Foreclosure rates for both Nassau and Suffolk Counties, on Long Island, are the highest in New York State. Approximately 3% of the homes in Suffolk County are in foreclosure. In Nassau County, approximately 2 ½% of all homes are in foreclosure. There are more than 27,000 pending foreclosure cases in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
The Housing Crisis
The housing crisis has hit Long Island homeowners harder than homeowners in other areas of the State. Superstorm Sandy contributed to this problem by devastating many homes on Long Island. Thomas DiNapoli, the Comptroller of New York State, recently stated “if you are on Long Island and you have a huge mortgage, based on a price that no longer was attainable, you could easily get ‘underwater’.” Underwater refers to homes which owe more money on their mortgages than the home is worth.
While in many other areas in New York State the foreclosure crisis is easing, it continues to get worse in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In January of 2015, the number of homes going into foreclosure in Nassau County jumped by almost 20%. Some of this increase in homes being foreclosed upon was related to the delayed impact of Superstorm Sandy, which hit Long Island in 2012, has had on homes going into foreclosure. In the State of New York, approximately 1 in every 90 homes is in foreclosure. While in Nassau County 1 out of every 40 homes are in foreclosure, and in Suffolk County 1 out of every 35 homes are in foreclosure. Comparing this to the foreclosure rate in New York City which has only 1 out of every 116 homes in foreclosure shows the huge problem faced by homeowners in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer. He has helped hundreds of New Yorkers stay in their homes. He fights foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area and helps his clients obtain mortgage modifications. Elliot and his staff of attorneys can be reached 7 days a week. He and his associates can be reached by calling 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or by sending an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
A financial institution has standing to foreclose on a mortgage when it is the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage. In addition, the financial institution must be the holder or assignee of the underlying note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action which is initiated by the filing of the Summons and Complaint in the County Clerk’s office of the County in which the action is initiated. When the note is accepted by the assignee the mortgage passes to the new institution. It should be noted the transfer of a mortgage without the accompanying note does not validly transfer the mortgage.
How the Bank Becomes the Holder or Assignee of the Mortgage
For a bank to obtain standing to initiate a foreclosure lawsuit, it must be the holder or assignee of the note as well as have the original note and mortgage in its possession.
A plaintiff has standing to foreclose on a note if they are the holder of the note under the New York Uniform Commercial Code, if a person has possession of the note by delivery “from a person entitled to enforce it for the purposes of giving the plaintiff the right to enforce it”, the note was assigned to the plaintiff “by a person entitled to enforce it, for the purpose of giving the plaintiff the right to collect the debt.”
Lack of Standing Defense
It is important in every foreclosure case for a defendant to allege the plaintiff, financial institution, doesn’t have standing to bring the lawsuit. At the time the Answer is interposed, the defendant will usually not know whether this is true or not. The defendant will thereafter, through discovery demands to obtain copies of notes, mortgages and other original documents and/or review records at the County Clerk’s office, ascertain whether this defense has any merit to it. However, the way pleadings work in the State of New York, you must plead any potential affirmative defense whether you know the defense is valid or not. Thereafter you try to obtain records during the discovery process to validate your defense.
Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer representing individuals in foreclosure cases throughout the Metropolitan New York area.
President Obama established the HAMP program in 2009. The purpose of the program was to help 4 million mortgage holders who were in financial difficulty. However, a recent report by Christie L. Romero who was authorized by the Obama administration to monitor the program indicates the program has not accomplished its goal. The report indicated during the six years after the HAMP program was established 887,000 home owners are participating in loan modifications. The purpose of these loan modifications is to reduce the monthly costs of the mortgage to allow the homeowner and their families to continue to reside in their residence.
4 Million HAMP Mortgage Modifications Turned Down by Banks
The report indicates that instead of helping the 4 million borrowers obtain loan modifications, banks participating in the program have rejected more than 4 million borrowers’ requests for mortgage modifications. 72% of all applications for mortgage modifications have been denied. The report indicates there are two major flaws in the program. The first is the HAMP program is a voluntary program for banks. The second major flaw of the program is that banks who participate in the program process all applications based on whatever standards they decide to set up. The report on the HAMP program indicates that if you apply to CitiMortgage for a loan modification you only had a 13% chance of success. If you applied to Chase Manhattan Bank you had approximately a 16% chance of success, and if you applied to Bank of America, you had only a 20% chance of being successful.
Incomplete Mortgage Modification Applications?
The banks involved in the program claim there are numerous reasons why so many mortgage loan modifications are declined by them. They claim that in almost 40% of the cases the homeowner either does not fill out the application completely or provide the requisite documents. My office’s experience is that the banks lose or misplace the applications and the documentation even if it is provided to them several times.
HAMP Applications Rejected Without Just Cause
The report by Ms. Romero indicates that the Treasury Department is responsible for making sure that banks involved in the HAMP program are not rejecting homeowner’s requests for mortgage modifications without just cause. However, Ms. Romero says that is not taking place. She stated “we are constantly seeing problems with the way servicers are treating homeowners and are not following the rules.” She went on further to state “I don’t understand why there hasn’t been a stronger policing from the Treasury on servicers.”
Wrongful Denial of Mortgage Modifications
Jacob Inwald, the Director of Foreclosure Prevention at the Legal Services NYC which represents troubled homeowners, recently stated “virtually never does one get a loan modification application evaluated the first time.” He went on further to state “we deal with these issues every single day. It requires constant push back and challenging wrongful denials.”
There are a variety of reasons why banks are turning down mortgage modifications. However, before they are rejected the homeowner must get through the process. The process which should be relatively quick and efficient is not. Instead it can take many months and numerous requests to provide banks with the same documents over and over again before a mortgage loan modification application can be viewed by the financial institution. The delaying of the prospective homeowner’s mortgage loan modification request can be profitable for a financial institution. The more time that is involved in the modification process, the more interest, penalties and fees the bank can charge the homeowner. This can cause a drastic increase in the amount owed on the mortgage.
Conclusion
My office has been involved in scores of situations involving homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage. It is my experience the HAMP program very rarely works appropriately. Homeowners who apply for mortgage modifications must document everything they submit to the bank making sure it is in writing. I suggest mortgage modifications be sent to banks by email and be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. All follow up on the application should be done in writing either by regular mail or by email. This helps build a case in the event the bank fails to act in good faith with regard to the mortgage modification.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer helping homeowners stay in their homes throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802 or send an email to schlissel.law@att.net.
I have had numerous discussions with potential home buyers with regard to the pros and cons of owning a home. There are many substantial benefits but the foreclosure crisis in recent years is illustrative of some of the major drawbacks in owning a home.
According to Richard Green, a professor at the University of Southern California the following is a rule of thumb as to how much appreciation you will need to make the home a worthwhile investment vis a vis staying in an apartment and paying rent. Professor Green states that house values should not “have to go up more than 3% a year for you to break even.” Professor Green suggests that your home should not be your sole investment. He states “the idea that home ownership doesn’t carry a lot of risk with it is wrong.” “If you are in a mutual fund, with a long term prospective, it is probably going to grow faster than real estate values. Housing can be more volatile than you think (depending on location).”
Buy a Home and You are the Landlord
When you rent, if something breaks you can contact the landlord and/or his representative and request they make the repairs that are necessary. When you own a home, if something breaks, doesn’t function properly, or goes wrong, you are responsible. If you can’t fix it, you have to hire someone at your own expense to fix it. Maintenance costs in a home, generally, are more than most people anticipate. Before you buy a home you should have an engineer inspect the home and advise you whether the boiler, electrical system, roof, foundation or other aspects of the home are in good condition. You don’t want to buy a home and have it fall down shortly after you purchase it.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney. He helps homeowners in the Metropolitan New York area fight foreclosure lawsuits and obtain mortgage modifications.
In the case of Brown v. Nationstar Mortgage reported in the New York Law Journal on June 26, 2015, Brown had brought a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment of foreclosure which resulted in the sale of his home. In addition, he sought to stop a proceeding which attempted to remove him from his home after the foreclosure sale had taken place. His lawsuit requested the court rescind the sale of his property and find a mortgage modification agreement he had previously entered into with Nationstar Bank was effective and enforceable.
The court found the only issue which needed to be dealt with, because all of the other relief requested by Brown had previously been litigated, was whether the mortgage modification agreement should be enforceable.
Justice Daniel Barrett found Brown had reasonable notice of the foreclosure proceedings. He stated, however, he was “perplexed by the inactivity concerning this matter.” Mr. Brown had testified he had received a letter from the respondent offering him a mortgage modification. The letter required he sign a mortgage modification agreement and agree to make a payment for the agreement to become effective. He testified that he complied with all of the requirements the bank had requested. In spite of entering into a valid mortgage modification agreement with the bank, a foreclosure sale was conducted and Nationstar Mortgage bought the property. They thereafter served Brown with a 90 day notice to remove himself from the premises.
Mortgage Modification Agreement is Valid and Mortgage Set Aside
Justice Barrett ruled there was a valid mortgage modification agreement because Brown had complied with all of the required terms of the agreement. He then sought to place the parties in the position they would occupy if the agreement was performed pursuant to all of its terms. The judge therefore directed both parties continue to perform under the terms of the agreement and, in addition, there be a two year interest free period.
Conclusion
The entering into of a mortgage modification agreement does not stop lawsuits from moving forward. Banks usually hold the lawsuits in abeyance to see if the terms of the mortgage modification agreement are complied with. However, sometimes the outside counsel representing banks in foreclosure lawsuits have no idea the banks are entering into a mortgage modification agreement. They therefore continue with the foreclosure process which can result in the sale of the home and eviction of the family that lives in the home. To make sure the attorneys representing the bank in the foreclosure proceedings are aware of what is going on between the bank and the homeowner, it is important to provide documentation to the attorneys for the bank with regard to the existence of the mortgage modification being underwritten and being accepted.
