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.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. 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.
A foreclosure action was brought by JP Morgan Chase in the Supreme Court of New York County. Justice Francois Rivera was the judge assigned to the case. Chase claimed in their pleadings that Charles had executed a mortgage and note on real property in favor of Fleet Real Estate Funding. They claimed Fleet Real Estate Funding had assigned the mortgage to JP Morgan Chase. They claimed Charles defaulted on making his payments on the note and mortgage, they had accelerated the note and mortgage and served the acceleration notice on Charles.
Charles’ Death
After Chase had commenced this lawsuit they ascertained that Charles had died. It should be noted Charles did not respond to any of the documents served upon him by Chase or the Summons and Complaint. That may have been related to the fact that he wasn’t alive!
Although Chase was aware that Charles had died, the moving papers submitted by them did not contain an original death certificate. The court was never made aware as to when Charles died. Judge Rivera advised Chase that when an individual to a lawsuit dies, the court is divested of jurisdiction to continue legal proceedings until an appropriate substitution is made. In addition, any court order rendered after the date of death of a party and before a legal representative is appointed to represent the deceased party would also be void.
Judge Rivera reached the conclusion since Chase had not submitted a death certificate, and they weren’t aware of the date of death, they could not determine if Charles was ever legally a party to this lawsuit. The court further stated if Charles died after the lawsuit was initiated, the action would be stayed under New York State law. In the end, Judge Rivera found that Chase could not have any relief at all until they resolved the issues concerning Charles’ death.
Conclusion
Dying is a defense to a foreclosure lawsuit! However, there are less painful defenses which can be established by hiring a foreclosure lawyer upon the initiation of legal proceedings against you.
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. 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.
Servicing $10 Trillion Dollars of Mortgage Loans
Non-bank institutions which service mortgages have grown at an incredible rate in the past few years. The largest fifty non-bank mortgage servicing companies handled almost $10 trillion dollars in mortgage loans in 2014. Non-bank servicing organizations accounted for almost 30% of these loans last year. In 2010, they accounted for only 7% of these loans. Ocwen serviced nearly $400 billion dollars in loans in 2014, and NationStar Mortgage serviced more than $377 billion dollars in loans. This is 500% more than they serviced in 2010.
Large Employee Turnover
These non-bank institutions have large turnovers of their employees. It makes it extremely difficult for homeowners to reach the same individual at these institutions to deal with their problem. This can create a gut wrenching situation for the homeowners who are trying to straighten out administrative problems caused by the servicing agencies.
Non-bank servicing companies are much harder to work with than traditional financial institutions. They are not as well equipped or well versed in issues concerning loss mitigation.
In 2014, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau imposed new mortgage servicing requirements on both banks and non-bank servicing mortgage companies. Under these new rules, all mortgage servicing companies are supposed to create a “single point of contact”. This single point of contact is designed to help homeowners with troubled loans.
Approximately a year ago, the New York Department of Financial Services blocked a transfer of almost $3 billion dollars in mortgage servicing contracts from Wells Fargo Bank to Ocwen. In December 2014, Ocwen reached a $150 million dollar settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services concerning abuses and conflicts of interest. Hopefully in 2015, this New York agency will be able to regulate these non-bank servicing institutions and/or motivate them to provide higher quality levels of service to the tens of thousands of beleaguered mortgage holders who are forced to deal with them.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney. He helps homeowners with homes which have gone into or are going into foreclosure. He is the author of more than 400 articles on his blog concerning foreclosure defense.
There has been an explosive rise in the number of mortgages serviced in the United States by non-bank mortgage servicing companies. Mortgage servicing companies don’t offer checking accounts or savings accounts. They are simply hired by financial institutions to process payments and perform various administrative banking tasks that are commonly referred to as “servicing”. These non-bank institutions in the year 2014 are servicing a larger and larger portion of all mortgage loans in the United States. Non-bank mortgage servicing companies operate under a different regulatory scheme than banks. They are subject to considerably less scrutiny with regard to their practices.
Alarm About Non-Bank Servicing Companies
A number of homeowner complaints concerning large non-bank servicing companies are growing at a significant rate. The largest non-bank mortgage servicing companies are Ocwen Financial Corporation and NationStar Mortgage. These two mortgage servicing companies, pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, accounted for 4,658 complaints from consumers in the year 2014. This was a dramatic increase in the number of consumer complaints from previous years.
Benjamin Lawsky, Superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, recently stated that behind every troubled mortgage loan is “a family, a person, and it’s usually someone struggling to make ends meet”. Long Island is a great example of that. We have lots of homes under water and people who need loan modifications.
Transferring of Mortgages
The servicing of mortgages is not a simple business model. Each and every time the mortgage gets transferred from one bank to another or one servicing agency to another, there is potential for mistakes and errors which can result in putting the homeowner into financial turmoil. There have been numerous cases of individuals whose mortgages have been transferred from one servicer to another that have had their lives turned upside down by the mistakes made by these agencies.
To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney. He has been representing homeowners for more than 45 years. He and his associates can be reached for consultation at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Is it possible to stop paying your mortgage, and live in your home for many years, and stop the bank in its tracks from forcing you to make payments to them or successfully foreclosing on your home? The answer to this question is yes! If your bank fails to sue you, in the State of New York, for a period of six years from the time they accelerated the mortgage, you have a complete legal defense to the foreclosure lawsuit. This defense is known as the statute of limitations. If you plead this defense in your Answer to the Summons and Complaint you can take action to have the bank’s foreclosure lawsuit dismissed!
Defense Available to Thousands of Homeowners
It is estimated there are thousands of homeowners who have not made mortgage payments in the past six years in the State of New York, who have this defense available to them when they are sued in foreclosure. There are a variety of reasons that have caused the banks to delay in bringing foreclosure lawsuits. The federal government has made 69 separate changes to its mortgage modification programs. This has forced lenders, on numerous occasions, to withdraw previous offers to homeowners and extend new terms. This ties the house up in a pre-foreclosure situation for long periods of time.
In addition, many banks have poor practices with regard to maintaining their records concerning mortgages on homes.
Seven Million Foreclosures In America
It is estimated there have been approximately seven million homes foreclosed upon in America since 2006. In addition, there are approximately another one million homes which will go into foreclosure at some time in the next few years.
I personally see cases where there are valid statute of limitations defenses which can be plead in the Answers for my clients. In many of the cases which our office handles the lenders themselves are to blame for a case not moving forward in a foreclosure proceeding for six years.
Owning a Home For Free
Recently, Judge Michael B. Kaplan sitting in a United States Bankruptcy Court in Trenton, New Jersey, wrote an opinion reflecting about the foreclosure crisis. This judge had previously written “no one gets a free house.” In his recent decision Judge Kaplan stated “with the proper measure of disquiet, and chagrin, this court now must retreat from this position.”
Conclusion
One of the first things every foreclosure defense lawyer must look for when a client comes to their office whose home is in foreclosure, is whether a statute of limitations defense can be plead in their Answer.
