foreclosure defense

Squatters Rights to Foreclosed, Vacant Homes

January 16, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

There is a misunderstanding that squatters can walk into foreclosed homes which are vacant and end up the owner of the homes. What squatters refer to concerning extra-legal possession of homes actually refers to the legal concept of adverse possession. Adverse possession deals with openly and notoriously being in possession of property, in the State of New York, for a period of ten years. In the appropriate circumstances, should the squatter live openly and notoriously in the vacant home for ten years, they can claim ownership of the property.

Squatting Equals Trespassing

The theory of adverse possession actually deals with property boundary disputes. Under adverse possession theory, the boundary between neighboring properties can be changed if one owner has utilization of the other owner’s property around the boundary line for a period of ten years.

Squatters sneak into homes when no one is around. This is usually undertaken by vagrants or homeless people. Adverse possession of the home can only be claimed if the squatter lives openly and notoriously for a period of ten continuous years in the residence.
What most squatters are doing is trespass on someone else’s property. Sometimes during foreclosure cases, homes are vacant for a period of time. This period of time will usually not last ten years, the period of time necessary for a squatter to claim open and notorious adverse possession rights to a property.

Former Owners Remaining in the Home

In a foreclosure proceeding, the home in the State of New York can be sold on the courthouse steps. At the time of the sale, the homeowner whose home is being foreclosed upon will most likely still be living in the home. After the sale takes place, the new owner of the home can bring a landlord tenant case to evict the former homeowners from their home. The failure of the homeowners to move from the house after it is sold, in foreclosure, does not create an adverse possession situation. Eviction proceedings can be time consuming. During the course of the eviction proceeding, the former homeowners would be entitled to stay in their home until such time as the court grants an order forcibly removing them from the home.

Conclusion

Squatting in an abandoned, foreclosed home and creating ownership rights based on the legal theory of adverse possession is unlikely to happen!

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: adverse possession, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure proceedings

Negotiations with Bank Does Not Stop Foreclosure Lawsuit

January 14, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

A foreclosure lawsuit was brought by Citi Mortgage against Vatash. Vatash submitted an answer with affirmative defenses to the summons and complaint served by Citi Mortgage. Citi Mortgage moved for summary judgment. In their application they sought to dismiss the answer brought by Vatash. Vatash claimed, in his answer, Citibank lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action. He also claimed Citibank’s motion was inappropriate because he was involved in discussions with Citi Mortgage concerning a loan modification. He took the position since loan modification discussions were ongoing, Citibank had no right to move forward with the foreclosure case.

Standing Argument Dismissed

Justice Thomas Whelan sitting in a Supreme Court Part in Suffolk County, ruled Vatash’s argument that Citi Mortgage didn’t have standing was procedurally defective. The ruling was based on the allegation that Vatash failed to assert lack of standing in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. In addition, the court took the position the argument even if it had been submitted appropriately in the answer, was substantively without merit. The court held Citi Mortgage was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage upon its merger with the original financial institution which made the loan.

The court ruled in favor of Citi Mortgage’s application for summary judgment (an application to grant a judgment without the need for a trial because there are no issues of fact). The court took the position the opposition papers submitted by Vatash did not create an issue of fact or an adequate defense.

Negotiations Do Not Stop Foreclosure Cases from Moving Forward

The Court specifically held the fact that Vatash was engaged in negotiations and/or discussions with Citi Mortgage is not a defense to the foreclosure lawsuit. Citi Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Conclusion

There are a number of important issues which were dealt with in this case. To start with, a lack of standing argument must be plead in the answer to the Summons and Complaint. Secondly, discussions with a bank concerning mortgage modifications or other ways of resolving the case have no impact on the foreclosure lawsuit moving forward.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer. His office has represented homeowners for more than 45 years on mortgage foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, mortgage modification, Mortgage Modification new york attorney, New York foreclosure attorney

Mortgage Lender Penalized for Failure to Comply with Notice Requirements

January 11, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Judge Dolinger sitting in the Supreme Court in Rochester recently ruled a mortgage lender who did not comply with the “consumer friendly notice requirements under New York State law should be given a second chance to comply with the statute.” However, the lender was permanently enjoined from imposing any interest, fees, costs or legal expenses on the borrower from 90 days before the filing of the complaint until the bank complies with the New York notice requirements.

Foreclosure Prevention Tenant Protection and Property Management Act

The Foreclosure Prevention Tenant Protection and Property Management Act of 2009, requires a lender give the homeowner notice prior to the house being foreclosed on. In the case before Judge Dolinger, Citi Mortgage failed to comply with this statute. Judge Dolinger was concerned if the case was dismissed, Citibank would get a second chance to comply with the statute’s notice requirements. However, the judge noted in his decision the bank’s failure to comply with the notice requirements in their first attempt. If they were successful in the second attempt the borrower would be worse off because they would be responsible for the entire amount of the unpaid debt including the portion of the interest penalties and attorneys fees which accrued on the debt during the period of time between Citi Mortgage’s first chance at complying with the statute and their second chance. Judge Dolinger wrote in his decision, “the borrower is worse off because the amount of the debt has been increased during the two year period in which the foreclosure action has been pending making a recasting of the mortgage more costly, if not prohibitively so.” To deal with this, Judge Dolinger entered an order permanently enjoining the bank from imposing any interest, fees or legal expenses on the borrower from 90 before the filing of the complaint until such time as they complied with the statute.

Notice Regarding Foreclosure Lawsuit

New York Real Property Actions Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1304 requires a creditor to notify a borrower by registered or certified mail as well as by first class mail, offering assistance on how to avoid foreclosure. Citi Mortgage had failed to comply with this section of the Real Property Actions Proceedings Law. In the case before Judge Dolinger, he stated “there was no sworn statement from any bank official regarding the mailing.” Judge Dolinger, based on the bank’s failure to provide the sworn statement regarding the mailing, could have dismissed the foreclosure lawsuit. He refused to do so because he stated he “will not allow the bank to escape the consequences of its failure to follow” the law. Judge Dolinger went on to state “when and if the bank complies” with this statute it can collect “any principal payments due at any time under the note and mortgage.” Judge Dolinger’s ruling, however, denied the bank the ability to collect interest, fees, costs and attorneys fees during the period of time the bank was in non-compliance with the statute.

Conclusion

This was a victory for the mortgagors, albeit a small victory.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, New York foreclosure attorney

Foreclosure Court Conference Denied

January 9, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

In a case of first impression, Justice Cohen sitting in the Appellate Division, Second Department (an appeals court) recently wrote a decision that stated a residential foreclosure lawsuit which was caused by a default on a commercial loan is not entitled to participate in the mandatory settlement court conference program. Justice Cohen stated in his decision “while it is unfortunate that here a primary residence may be lost in foreclosure not everyone under every circumstance is entitled to reap the protections afforded to victims of the mortgage crisis by the New York State Legislature.”

History of the Case

Roz Valt Corp. took out a loan from Independence Bank in December 2006. It borrowed $230,000. The purpose of the loan was to provide funds to enable the corporation to acquire various types of equipment, to pay construction costs and to be utilized as funds to set up a “Quiznos” submarine shop in Brooklyn.

The president of Roz Valt Corporation was Roslyn Valentine. She was personally liable for the payment of the loan. In addition, she executed a collateral mortgage to Independence Bank for $230,000. This was a second mortgage on her home in Queens County. Unfortunately, Roz didn’t make the payments under the loan. Independence Bank brought a foreclosure action on the second mortgage on her home. In her pleadings, Ms. Valentine argued she was entitled to the mandatory settlement court conference pursuant to New York Civil Practice and Law Rule Section 3408.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The New York Court of Appeals ruled New York Civil Practice Law and Rule Section 3408 applies to settlement conferences for “any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan.” Judge Cohen agreed with Ms. Valentine’s argument that the settlement court conferences were designed to help homeowners avoid their homes being taken from them in foreclosure. However, he also found, in this case, she was not entitled to a foreclosure settlement court conference. He took this position because this case involved a commercial loan. The loan was made to Roz Valt Corporation which was not a natural person. The money loaned was not utilized for housing purposes. He also found Ms. Valentine was a guarantor of the loan not the borrower.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, Judge Cohen’s decision may cause Ms. Valentine to lose her home.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, foreclosure settlement conference, New York foreclosure attorney, residential foreclosure

Home Buyers Misconceptions

January 7, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Buying a home is a complicated undertaking. First home buyers usually rely on discussions with friends and relatives as to what action they should take, what they should do, what they should be aware of, and how real estate transactions are conducted. The lay of the land on home purchases has changed. The mortgage bubble that resulted in the real estate crisis in America has changed some of the ground rules.

Real Estate Brokers Are Not Always Necessary

Real estate brokers provide a valued service to both buyers and sellers. They are very well paid for their services. However, homeowners can sell their homes without a real estate broker. This is especially true if someone is available to show the home during evenings and weekends. A homeowner can advertise the home for sale in local newspapers and/or on the internet, meet and greet the prospective purchasers, and hire an attorney to represent them on the real estate transaction. If the homeowner does not have the time, the patience, or the availability, hiring a real estate broker to represent them may be a necessity. Websites such as www.zillow.com and www.redfin.com can be utilized by a homeowner who seeks to avoid paying the commissions related to listing a home with a real estate broker. Many home buyers today utilize the internet to look at the material on these websites to find the home of their dreams.

Hidden Costs of Owning a Home

The average homeowner, when looking to purchase a home, takes into consideration the mortgage and sometime the taxes on the property. In addition to the mortgage and taxes, homes require heat in the winter and they may require air conditioning in the summer. The fuel oil to heat the home and the electricity to air condition the home can be expensive. Depending on the climate of the area where the home is located, these expenses can amount to between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Even if the home does not need air conditioning, the electricity to run the appliances, computers, and keep the lights on can be very expensive. The grounds of the home need to be maintained. The homeowner has to maintain his lawn and shrubs and the rest of his property or hire a gardener to do so. The exterior of the home needs to be kept in good condition. Painting needs to be done on a periodic basis and/or the home needs to be sided. Roofs can leak, boilers can break, pipes can leak, electrical issues can develop. These are all potential expenses a homeowner may face.

Down Payment Policies

A 20% down payment is not always needed to obtain a mortgage. If the prospective homeowner is looking to obtain a conventional mortgage from a financial institution, a 20% down payment may be necessary. However, under Federal Housing Authority (FHA) programs, much less is required as a down payment. In some situations, as little as 5% or 10% of the cost of the home is sufficient as a down payment. Programs are available from the Veterans Administration for veterans who can finance a home with a very low down payment.

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. has been representing clients in real estate transactions for more than 45 years. His office represents homeowners in buying and selling of homes, defending them against foreclosures, and helping them obtain mortgage modifications when they fall behind on their mortgages.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, mortgage modification, mortgage modification attorneys, real estate, real estate attorneys

New Mortgage Rules: Too Little, Too Late!

January 2, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

A new agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been established. The purpose of this agency is to see to it we do not end up in another real estate bubble related to improper, unfair and illegal mortgage practices by financial institutions.

Owning one’s home is the American dream. The process of purchasing a home involves applying for a mortgage. Mortgage brokers and loan officers at banks seek to simplify this process. However, applying for a mortgage loan is generally the largest financial transaction a family enters into. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is set up pursuant to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. New applications and forms are created by this statute. They are supposed to be in simplified, easy to read, and involve complete disclosure.

Financial institutions are supposed to clearly provide individuals applying for the mortgage with information concerning the actual cost of the loan. The principal amount. The amount of interest they are being charged and what they will spend in closing costs. The forms must also contain information concerning other aspects of the financial transaction including but not limited to whether there will be prepayment penalties and other costs related to the financing. The new law goes a long way to simplifying and clarifying this process for prospective home buyers. However, it does not go far enough.

Failure of the New Mortgage Rules

What the new forms do not do is provide the prospective homeowner with a logical basis to compare loan products from different financial institutions. The new loan forms do not include various costs related to the purchase of a home. Some of the costs these forms do not deal with are title insurance, closing expenses related to taxes, fuel oil costs to heat the house, and attorneys fees for hiring an attorney for legal representation.

No Three Day Right to Review

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had initially requested that all financial institutions be required to give the mortgagors a three day right to review the information whenever loan terms concerning the transaction are changed or modified. Unfortunately, this rule was not established. Lenders still have the ability to present the mortgagors, at the time of the closing, with changes in the cost structure of the financing. This is both unfair and unreasonable. You have homeowners sitting at the table at their closing expecting to pay one amount for the financing of their home and being told at the last minute, it is going to cost you more. They are too deep into the transaction to walk away. They are stuck with a higher cost of their mortgage. This is true even if the higher costs are beyond their ability to pay. Lenders should be forced to live up to the terms of their proposals when they offer prospective homeowners mortgages. They should not be allowed to change the terms at the last minute to the prospective homeowners detriment.

The establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was a great idea. Unfortunately, this great idea has not worked out completely to consumer’s benefit.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer with more than 45 years of legal experience. He litigates foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He keeps families in their homes and helps them obtain mortgage modifications.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure crisis, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense lawyers, mortgage modifications, New York foreclosure attorney, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Federal Government Moves Against Banks

December 16, 2013 by Elliot S. Schlissel

The United States government has brought several lawsuits against some of the largest banks in the world. The purpose of these lawsuits was to hold these banks accountable for their mortgage fraud practices. As a result of legal action, JP Morgan Chase entered into a settlement whereupon they have to pay $5.1 billion dollars to the regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This settlement dealt with allegations related to toxic mortgage securities packaged and sold by JP Morgan Chase which was one of the causes of the financial crisis in America. This settlement was part of a larger settlement involving a $13 billion dollar payment between JP Morgan Chase and federal and state officials with regard to the bank’s improper mortgage practices.

Bank of America

A federal jury has found Bank of America was responsible for mortgage fraud during the financial crisis. Prosecutors in the case are asking for approximately $850 million dollars in damages from Bank of America.

Banks Charged for Their Bad Behavior

It is important that the government, even though it is long after the fact, is taking the appropriate legal action to find banks responsible for their wrongdoing which created the mortgage crisis in America.

Homeowners Not Compensated

The settlement between the federal government, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America allocates approximately $4 billion dollars in financial relief to homeowners who were victimized by improper mortgage practices. Considering the hundreds of billions of dollars homeowners have lost, this is a mere pittance. The government should have required a much larger fine from JP Morgan Chase for its improper mortgage actions and mortgage fraud.

Conclusion

The government’s action concerning illegal mortgage practices taken against large banks is too little too late!

Filed Under: Current Events, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, financial crisis, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure crisis, foreclosure defense, mortgage modifications, New York foreclosure defense lawyers, predatory lending

Home Loans Will Be Harder to Obtain in 2014! – Part II

December 5, 2013 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Fewer Foreclosures in the Future

The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) may make it more difficult for financial institutions to foreclose on homes owned by homeowners who have stopped making mortgage payments. “For every foreclosure, lenders will have to show the CFPB that there was absolutely no way they could do anything else” according to Gaffney. This will require financial institutions to offer homeowners behind in their mortgage, additional options other than foreclosure. Those options may involve short sales, refinancing, cash for keys arrangements (these are arrangements where lenders pay delinquent homeowners to hand over the keys to their residence and walk away from their homes) and other potential options. Due to the necessity of offering these alternatives, lenders may become concerned that taking back homes from delinquent homeowners will be more difficult. This may result in more conservative underwriting requirements by lenders which will end up shutting more prospective homeowners out of the marketplace to obtain mortgages.

Ability to Pay Rules

Under the new rules going into effect in 2014, financial institutions will have less latitude in evaluating prospective homeowners regarding mortgages. The lender will have to take into consideration the “ability to pay” of the prospective borrower. The following are a list of the new rules lenders will have to take into consideration in underwriting new mortgages in 2014:

Current or reasonably expected income or assets;
Credit history;
Monthly mortgage payments;
Current employment status;
Current debt obligations, (alimony, child support, credit card bills);
Monthly payments on other loans;
Monthly payments on mortgage related obligations; and,
Monthly debt to income ratio or residue income.

Debt to Income Ratio

The debt to income ratio under the new rules will create problems for many families who seek to obtain mortgages. Under the new rules going into effect on January 1, 2014, the monthly debt to income ratio will be set at a maximum of 43%. This means homeowners will not be able to utilize more than 43% of their income to pay all of their financial debts. These debts will include car loans, credit cards, personal loans, and other financial obligations over and above the prospective mortgage they seek to obtain.

Conclusion

Applying for a mortgage in 2014 is going to be more difficult. If you are interested in obtaining a mortgage, apply now!

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, financial crisis, foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, mortgage modification, Mortgage Modifications attorney, New York foreclosure attorney

Home Mortgage Loans Will Be Harder to Obtain in 2014! – Part I

December 3, 2013 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Starting on January 1, 2014, it will be more difficult for prospective homeowners in the United States to obtain mortgage loans. This is as a result of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. This statute was passed by Congress when the housing market melted down a number of years ago. After the housing meltdown, the federal government funded a bailout of large financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act is an attempt to regulate the lending industry. It is designed to protect consumer/taxpayers. In addition to the Dodd-Frank Act there is a Consumer Protection Act of 2010 which also goes into effect January 1, 2014.

“Under the new rules if [banks] want to lend correctly, by the book, they are going to [have to] leave out a lot of borrowers who would otherwise qualify for a mortgage” according to Jacob Gaffney, the Executive Editor of HousingWire.com, and HW magazine. It is estimated close to 50% of the borrowers who could obtain a mortgage in 2013, may not qualify in 2014. What do you do if you are thinking about getting a mortgage? It is suggested you obtain it in 2013.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Under the Dodd-Frank Act the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is created. The Bureau became operational in July of 2011. The purpose of the CFPB is to prevent consumers from taking out mortgages which were beyond their ability to repay. This federal agency acts as a watchdog to see to it banks don’t start making loans to consumers they can’t afford.

According to Jacob Gaffney, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a mistake. He recently stated “any company out there, especially the larger banks that have business operations outside of mortgages, are going to dwindle their mortgage operations because [the mortgage operations are] just too risky.” He further stated if there are fewer large lenders he anticipates there will be fewer mortgages offered.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney with more than 45 years of experience helping homeowners to keep their homes by fighting foreclosure lawsuits. He also helps clients obtain mortgage modifications and seeks out other alternatives to foreclosure.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, mortgage modification, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

How Good Does Your Credit Score Have To Be To Obtain a Low Interest Rate Mortgage?

November 29, 2013 by Elliot S. Schlissel

If you are in the market to buy a new home or an existing home, one of the most important issues is whether you can afford the mortgage payments. But before you can consider whether you can make your mortgage payments, you need to obtain the mortgage. Credit scores are the most important factor financial institutions look into with regard to underwriting mortgage loans. Today it is recommended individuals applying for a mortgage have a credit score of 740 or above. Credit scores are based on a total potential perfect credit score of 850 points. The 740 credit score that is requested by financial institutions today is among the highest asked by banks at any point in time. Pursuant to www.zillow.com, a mortgage information company, approximately 40% of Americans have credit scores high enough to obtain the best possible mortgages.

Mortgage Rejection Rate

There is currently a 30% rejection rate by financial institutions for those individuals applying for a mortgage. When you take into consideration the housing market has been improving in the United States, and foreclosure rates have been going down in most metropolitan areas, a 30% rejection rate is very high.

So what do you do if you do not have a 740 or above credit score? You can still obtain a mortgage. However, you will most likely have to pay a higher interest rate for the mortgage.

Credit Reports

Before going into the housing market to look for a home to purchase you should check your credit score. You can obtain a copy of your credit report on the internet. Carefully look at your credit report to determine if all the material on your report is accurate. If there are inaccuracies in your credit report contact the credit reporting agency in writing to correct these inaccuracies. Your credit report will also show you the balances on credit lines, personal loans, and credit cards. It will be helpful to bring the balances on your indebtedness down prior to submitting a mortgage application. Banks take into consideration all of your overall debt when they underwrite a mortgage.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney with extensive experience in representing clients regarding foreclosure lawsuits, mortgage modifications and fraudulent mortgage practices of banks. His goal is to help clients stay in their homes.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, financial crisis, foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure crisis, foreclosure defense, mortgage modifications, predatory lending

Squatters Rights to Foreclosed, Vacant Homes

Negotiations with Bank Does Not Stop Foreclosure Lawsuit

Mortgage Lender Penalized for Failure to Comply with Notice Requirements

Foreclosure Court Conference Denied

Home Buyers Misconceptions

New Mortgage Rules: Too Little, Too Late!

Federal Government Moves Against Banks

Home Loans Will Be Harder to Obtain in 2014! – Part II

Home Mortgage Loans Will Be Harder to Obtain in 2014! – Part I

How Good Does Your Credit Score Have To Be To Obtain a Low Interest Rate Mortgage?

Contact Us

Categories

LINKS

OUR WEBSITES

Latest Blogs

Foreclosure Strategies

Foreclosure And Your Credit Score

CONTACT INFO

View Our General Web Site

View Our Child Protective Website

View Our Fathers Rights Web Site

View Our Wills & Trusts Website

View Our Bankruptcy Web Site