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.
If you are behind on your mortgage payments, do not despair. Foreclosure lawsuits can be fought in the courts in New York. If you receive a letter from your financial institution indicating your home is going into foreclosure or you are served with a Summons and Complaint, your best defense is to go on the offense.
Legal action can be taken to protect your home. The first thing which needs to be done is to have the situation properly evaluated. Should you apply for a mortgage modification? Can you qualify for a forbearance agreement? Should you litigate the foreclosure? Has the bank been involved in predatory lending, violations of Truth in Lending Laws, violation of New York State or Federal banking laws? Have they served you with the 90 day notice? Have they acted properly during the course of negotiations for mortgage modifications? There are numerous issues which need to be analyzed and dealt with as part of a foreclosure defense strategy.
Bankruptcy
Is bankruptcy the right solution for you? Should you file for bankruptcy now or wait until later stages of the foreclosure proceeding? Is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy the appropriate bankruptcy to file or should you file a Chapter 13 which involves a payment plan? Again, this depends on the circumstances involved in each case. Each family’s circumstances and needs are different.
Victim of Predatory Lending?
Predatory lending generally deals with unfair business practices or unethical business practices which lenders sometimes engage in. If the prospective mortgage holder was deceived or agreed to an unfair or abusive mortgage term, it may involve predatory lending. Due to the nature of predatory lending, most homeowners who have been subject to predatory lending end up having their homes foreclosed upon, and if appropriate action isn’t taken, lose their homes.
Predatory lending practices can be exposed as part of a foreclosure defense during the course of a foreclosure lawsuit. When served with a Summons and Complaint the homeowner can allege in his Answer the defense of predatory lending.
Conclusion
Should you find yourself behind on your mortgage, facing a foreclosure lawsuit or in the middle of a foreclosure lawsuit, the best way to protect your interests and keep your family in your home is to hire an experienced, dedicated foreclosure defense attorney.
In the case of Federal National Mortgage Association v. Singer, Index No. 850039/2011, Justice Moulton sitting in a Supreme Court Foreclosure Part in New York County, ruled the two banks involved should forfeit more than $100,000 in interest on loans to Mr. & Mrs. Singer. This was a sanction for the failure of the banks to act in good faith with regard to negotiating a mortgage modification with the Singers.
History of the Case
In 2004, the Singers bought two apartments in Manhattan which were next to each other. They gutted and renovated the apartments. When they purchased each of the apartments they took out a separate mortgage on each of the two apartments. After the apartments were renovated, New York taxed the two apartments as a single residence. In 2008, the Singers had a downturn in their income. They used all of their savings to try to keep up with the mortgage payments, taxes, common charges, and expenses which totaled in excess of $5,000 per month. The mortgages totaled more than $500,000 and had interest rates of 7.4% and 6.75%.
Mortgage Consolidation
Mrs. Singer, on numerous occasions, tried to consolidate the two mortgages at a lower interest rate. Initially, she applied to Countrywide, the original lender on the mortgages. Countrywide refused to extend the term or lower the interest rates on the mortgage. Countrywide took the position the Singers did not qualify as distressed borrowers. Their monthly payment on each loan did not exceed 31% of their combined monthly income. In response to this argument Judge Moulton said the bank’s analysis “resulted in an absurd result.” He said this was symptomatic of “many of the faults that plague the current system of refinancing residential property that is in default and/or in foreclosure.”
The loans were eventually sold to Bank of America and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Approximately a year and a half later a foreclosure lawsuit was initiated. The Singers again applied for a loan modification. Five months later their modification request was denied. The Singers also offered to pay $18,000 in accumulated interest as part of the loan modification.
Counsel for the Singers had on various occasions suggested balloon mortgages. These mortgages enable residents to make their mortgage payments and help the banks to receive the total amount due and owing to them. This is especially true in light of the fact the apartments owned by the Singers were worth substantially more than the $500,000 in combined mortgages.
Settlement Court Conference
The Singers had attended 5 court settlement conferences. At each of these conferences both Bank of America and Fannie Mae refused to meaningfully negotiate mortgage modifications.
Conclusion
Banks who do not cooperate in negotiating mortgage modifications in good faith can be punished by the courts.
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.
