foreclosure proceedings

Wrongful Foreclosures

June 19, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

There have been a significant number of lawsuits brought by attorney generals in states throughout the country as well as the federal attorney general’s office involving numerous financial institutions acting inappropriately with regard to foreclosure lawsuits. Lenders such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, PNC Financial Services Group, Wells Fargo and GMAC mortgage company, have actually admitted to improprieties in the way these financial institutions handled the processing of foreclosure paperwork. These financial institutions and many others, including many mortgage servicing organizations, failed to verify the court documents they used to justify foreclosing on homes. In numerous situations, individuals referred to as “robo-signers” signed hundreds of documents which they did not read or were not familiar with. Far worse than that, many of these robo-signers were signing foreclosure documents for financial institutions they were not affiliated with.

Your Home

A family’s home is usually its most valued possession. No family should be forced from their home as a result of faulty bank practices. If your home has been foreclosed upon, is in the process of being foreclosed on, or is even being threatened with a foreclosure, it is important that you seek legal representation as soon as possible. There are numerous grounds to challenge foreclosures, numerous affirmative defenses, and potential lawsuits you may have available to you against the bank for financial damages. If you are the victim of a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit you owe it to yourself and your family to see to it your legal rights are protected.

Mortgage Servicing Companies

Many banks that make home loan mortgages do not service their loans. They either assign the loans to other financial institutions or they subcontract out the responsibilities to service the loans to mortgage servicing companies. Over the last 6 to 8 years, mortgage servicing companies have been overwhelmed with the large number of foreclosure cases they were required to service. Mortgage servicing is a high volume industry. The mortgage servicing companies sometimes hire employees with little formal training in handling these mortgages. In addition, many of them have inadequate supervision and have cut corners to make themselves more profitable. The unusually high number of mortgage defaults has added to this problem by overwhelming some of the mortgage servicing agencies. An example of the irregularities involved in servicing mortgages can be found with regard to Wells Fargo, one of the largest banks in the country, admitting to thousands of mistakes made in foreclosure documents. However, in spite of Wells Fargo’s admissions, they never took any action to stop those foreclosures based on mistakes and fraudulent documents from moving forward.

Robo-Signing

It was indicated earlier in this article the term robo-signer refers to individuals signing documents without authority and without reading these documents. During the course of depositions taken by foreclosure defense lawyers, some robo-signers have admitted to signing more than 10,000 foreclosure affidavits during a month. Most of these affidavits indicated the robo-signers actually personally reviewed the files and determined the paperwork they were signing was correct. During the course of depositions, these workers acknowledged there was virtually no time to even look at the files. They just simply signed the documents claiming to have reviewed files they never looked at.

Are You The Victim of Predatory Lending or
Improper Bank or Foreclosure Practices?

If you feel you are the victim of predatory lending or improper bank or foreclosure practices you should immediately retain a qualified law firm to investigate the situation. There are a variety of remedies available to you. You can even take legal action under certain limited circumstances to set the mortgage on your home aside. It may be that the mortgage loan against your home is unenforceable. If you feel you have grounds to challenge a mortgage or foreclosure practice, call our law firm for a free consultation. Our phones are monitored 24/7. We can be reached at 1-800-344-6431, 516-561-6645, or 718-350-2802.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure, foreclosure proceedings, Mortgage Modifications attorney, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Avoiding Foreclosure

June 15, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Foreclosure for many homeowners is a threatening, harrowing experience they seek to avoid. If a homeowner fails to make mortgage payments, foreclosure will most likely occur. Foreclosure is the beginning of the initiation of legal proceedings by a lender to take back the property used to secure the loan. The property is usually the parties’ home. At the end of a foreclosure proceeding, if the family is still in their home, the purchaser of the property can bring an eviction proceeding in the landlord tenant court to have the family removed from their home.

Should the home be sold at a foreclosure sale for less than the amount of the mortgage, interest, late fees, and other penalties, the financial institution who held the mortgage can move forward to obtain a deficiency judgment against the mortgagors for the amount that is still owed to them after they receive the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.

What is the best way of dealing with foreclosure? Avoid it!

Falling Behind on Your Mortgage

If you are falling behind on your mortgage, you should contact your bank. You should ask your bank whether they have any programs that will be helpful to you in dealing with temporary financial setbacks. Most lenders have a variety of programs available to homeowners suffering from short term financial difficulties.

If you receive letters from your financial institution or threats of foreclosure by attorneys for the financial institution, you should carefully read these letters. Ignoring these notices is not a good idea. Respond to the correspondence either on your own or retain an experienced foreclosure lawyer to help you deal with the situation. There are a variety of rights homeowners have with regard to mortgages and foreclosures. An experienced foreclosure defense lawyer will be able to explain these rights to you. In addition, the attorney will be able to discuss with you defenses that can be raised in the event of a foreclosure lawsuit against you.

If you have financial problems you could discuss the possibility of a bankruptcy. Credit cards and other non-secured creditors should not be paid before you make mortgage payments. Your home provides security for you and your family. It should be one of the first bills to be paid by you.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure attorney

Judges Assigned to Foreclosure Court Conferences

June 6, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

The courts in New York are being flooded with new foreclosure lawsuits. Before the litigation stage in a foreclosure lawsuit, the parties must attend mandatory foreclosure mediation conferences. The Office of Court Administration is assigning new judges to deal with the increased volume of foreclosure court conferences in the Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Kings and Queens. This action is being taken related to numerous complaints which have been filed by the attorneys for homeowners. These complaints generally state the financial institutions attorneys’ who are showing up at the foreclosure court conferences have no authority to make the decisions necessary to amicably resolve these cases.

Bank Attorneys Have No Authority To Settle Cases
or Approve Mortgage Modifications

In a study provided by legal service providers, it was found in eighty percent of 252 settlement conferences which took place over a 90 day period last year, the lawyers representing the financial institutions either lacked the appropriate information concerning the cases or did not have settlement authority. Justice Barry Kamins, the Chief of Policy and Planning for the courts in New York has taken action to provide more judges at the foreclosure settlement conferences in the four counties that have the heaviest backlog of foreclosure cases for the purpose of having judges immediately available for resolving disputes that occur at the foreclosure court conferences.

New York Courts Bursting At The Seams With Foreclosures

In 2013, there were 87,000 foreclosure cases pending in the courts in New York. As of April 1, 2014, there are more than 90,000 cases now pending in the courts.

The purpose of foreclosure court conferences is to allow the homeowners and attorneys for the banks to get together for the purpose of negotiating a mortgage modification to prevent the house from being sold at foreclosure sales.

New York Law

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 3408(c) which governs foreclosure court conferences states “the plaintiff shall appear in person or by counsel, and if appearing by counsel, such counsel shall be fully authorized to dispose of the case.” In another section of CPLR 3408(f) it states, both sides to the legal proceeding “shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible.” Foreclosure defense lawyers are aware most financial institutions are ignoring this statute.

The large majority of attorneys who appear for banks do not have any settlement authority. It is estimated at less than ten percent of the attorneys who appear at foreclosure court conferences for financial institutions have any settlement authority. A recent report with regard to the conduct at foreclosure court conferences states the courts should “not tolerate rampant violation of the settlement conference law and should enforce the law as it is written vigorously.” The report goes on to state when the attorneys for the banks appear without the appropriate authority or do not negotiate in good faith, judges should create consequences for the lenders such as tolling or barring interest on the outstanding balance or staying actions until the financial institutions fulfill their obligations under the settlement conference law.

Conclusion

The purpose of the foreclosure court conferences were to provide an intermediate step prior to full fledged litigation to allow beleaguered homeowners to work out mortgage modifications to keep them in their homes. The statute was a step in the right direction. However, the banks are not complying with this statute. If they continue to fail to comply, judges should punish them for violation of this statute!

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure defense, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Foreclosure Dismissed: Bank Makes Technical Mistake

May 29, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

In a case before Justice Wilma Guzman in Bronx County, Judge Guzman dismissed a foreclosure lawsuit. Deutsche Bank had sued for foreclosure. They moved for a judgment of foreclosure and asked that they be allowed to sell the property. The defendant, Samuel Lopez, brought a cross-motion. He asked that the foreclosure proceeding be dismissed. He claimed there was a failure to comply with a condition precedent of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law sections 1303 and 1304. He argued in his motion the section 1304 notice to the defendants, provided by American Servicing Company, indicated it was a debt collector and informed defendants they had a right to cure their default and failure to do so might result in American Servicing Company starting a lawsuit against them. Deutsche Bank argued it was in full compliance with section 1304. It was pointed out its notice to the defendants did not contain the method in which the notice had been mailed. This is required by this section of the law.

No Evidence of Mailing

Judge Guzman took into consideration in rendering her decision to dismiss the foreclosure action that no evidence was presented of a first class mailing. There was also no affidavit of mailing for a lender, the lender’s agents or any individual with personal knowledge of the transaction. Justice Guzman’s decision stated a mortgagee’s failure to strictly comply with a condition precedent required the dismissal of this foreclosure legal action.

In this case, American Servicing Company did not provide documentation they were the appropriate loan servicing agent for Deutsche Bank. They also did not fully comply with section 1304 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Justice Guzman also pointed out in her decision the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act required a notice as a mandatory “condition” before a financial institution could proceed with a foreclosure lawsuit. The failure of Deutsche Bank and its servicing agent to strictly comply with this statute was valid grounds to dismiss this case.

Conclusion

If a bank doesn’t dot its i’s and cross its t’s, you can get the case dismissed!

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure defense attorneys, foreclosure proceedings

FHA Gives Homeowners a Second Chance to Buy a Home

May 20, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) has a new program which will stay in effect until September 30, 2016. This program offers homeowners who have lost their homes due to short sales, whose homes have been sold in foreclosure, or who have given deeds in lieu of foreclosure back to financial institutions, a second opportunity to purchase a home. In the past, if a consumer lost their home related to a foreclosure case, they would have to wait thirty-six months before they could apply for a new FHA loan. However, under this new program, they would only have to wait twelve months after a foreclosure sale or a short sale to apply for a new FHA loan as long as they can document the financial issues that caused them to lose their prior home.

Reduction in Income

If the prospective homeowner can show that they had a loss of income of twenty percent or more for a minimum of six months prior to the loss of their home, it will help them qualify under this new program.

Credit Score

Under the new FHA program, the homeowner will need a credit score with a minimum of 640. In the event the prospective homeowner could not meet this credit score requirement, they must go through a HUD approved counseling agency concerning the issue of home ownership and residential mortgage loans.

The homeowner should be aware that supporting documentation with regard to any financial issues, hardships, illness, loss of employment or other problems that caused the individuals to lose their initial home must be fully documented. A letter explaining the situation will not be sufficient to qualify for this new FHA program.

Conclusion

FHA is extending themselves to homeowners and giving them a second chance that has never previously been offered to families who have lost their homes.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer. Elliot and his staff of attorneys represent individuals and families throughout the Metropolitan New York area whose homes have been foreclosed upon by financial institutions and mortgage companies. Elliot assists his clients in mortgage modifications. In addition, Elliot brings lawsuits against financial institutions who have broken laws, failed to obtain proper assignments and who do not have standing to bring their foreclosure lawsuits. Elliot has an unparalleled record of success in keeping his clients in their homes after foreclosure proceedings have been initiated against them.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: financial crisis, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure defense lawyers, real estate

Rabbi Unable to Stop Foreclosure on Synagogue

May 9, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Valley National Bank brought a foreclosure lawsuit with regard to a synagogue in Brooklyn. In 2008, the synagogue borrowed $500,000 from State Bank of Long Island. This bank thereafter merged with Valley National Bank. The congregation of the synagogue alleged that the synagogue had two functions. It was a place of prayer and it was the principal residence of the rabbi and his family. They claim “this dual property function had existed since 1970 when the present rabbi’s grandfather established a congregation at its present location.

In such Hasidic Sects, the Shtiebel is the rabbi’s home and his presence is the essence of the Shtiebel.” The congregation alleged in their papers when the mortgage was taken out, the bank was made aware Rabbi Teitelbaum’s residence was located on the site of the synagogue.

A Residential Foreclosure?

The congregation argued that the foreclosure was therefore a residential foreclosure. It should therefore have been in a residential foreclosure part and not in a commercial foreclosure courtroom. As a residential foreclosure, Rabbi Teitelbaum was entitled to notice pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Laws concerning the residential foreclosure.

Bank Argues Rabbi Teitelbaum Has No Standing

The foreclosing bank’s position was that Rabbi Teitelbaum was not a necessary party to the foreclosure lawsuit. They claimed it was a commercial loan and he was not a signatory on the loan. The bank’s attorneys stated in their papers, “instead of presenting a modified defense to [Valley National Bank’s] claims, borrower obfuscates by mischaracterizing the facts in attempts to divert attention from its acknowledged commercial loan default by repeatedly alleging that the rabbi and his family actually reside in the synagogue that is the mortgaged commercial premises.”

Judge Holds Property is Not Residential

The judge on the case rendered a decision that the property at issue was a religious structure and not residential property. The judge went further on to hold Rabbi Teitelbaum was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit. Judge Carolyn Demarest rejected the argument submitted by Teitelbaum. She held that even though he lived on the premises, he was not a signatory to the loans, promissory note, or the mortgage. He therefore was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit.

When Judge Demarest was presented with a similar case where the Appellate Division, Second Department made a different ruling, she stated, “in this action, defendant does not establish that Teitelbaum has a lease to the property and even it Teitelbaum does have a lease he may not be dispossessed by a purchaser at a foreclosure sale absent further proceedings.” With this, she was referring to the fact in the event the bank took title to the property they would still have to bring an eviction proceeding to get Rabbi Teitelbaum, his wife and eight children, off the property.

Conclusion

This is a very close call made by Judge Demarest. I would suggest Rabbi Teitelbaum appeal this decision to the Appellate Division of the Second Department. He may be able to persuade them that he should be named as a party because he was a tenant, even without a lease. Month to month tenants are still tenants and they should be named in all foreclosure lawsuits as interested parties.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney representing individuals and families in residential or commercial foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area. Elliot and his staff of dedicated lawyers have an excellent success rate in keeping families in their homes and stopping foreclosure lawsuits in their tracks.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, foreclosure, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure attorney

Uniondale Marriott Hotel on Long Island in Foreclosure

May 1, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

One of Long Island’s largest hotels has had a foreclosure lawsuit initiated against it. The Long Island Marriott Hotel and Conference Center located in Uniondale, New York is in foreclosure. The hotel is owned by the New York Islanders’ owner, Charles Wang.

The financial institution that loaned the New York Islanders and Charles Wang $103,000,000 in 2007 has brought a foreclosure proceeding in the Supreme Court in Nassau County located in Mineola, New York.

It is estimated the amount owed on the mortgage loan on the Marriott Hotel is more than $125,000,000. The hotel had been valued in the year 2010 at approximately $150,000,000. In a recent appraisal, it was valued at $63.4 million.

Mr. Wang had initially purchased the hotel in 2005 from Marriott. He took this action as part of his Lighthouse plan to revitalize the area around the Nassau County Coliseum. In 2007, Scott Rechler of RXR Realty purchased the hotel. He was a partner of Wang with regard to the project. The Lighthouse Project which was proposed to revitalize the area around the hotel never came to fruition. Eventually, Wang bought the hotel back from Scott Rechler.

Wang had proposed to Nassau County they fund the renovation of the Coliseum. However, when this was submitted through a referendum, the voters in Nassau County voted it down. In 2012, the New York Islanders announced they were moving to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn and they would be permanently leaving Nassau County.

In 2013, Nassau County Executive Mangano entered into an agreement with Bruce Ratner, whom he had selected to renovate the Coliseum.

Conclusion

It is a sad state of events when the largest hotel in Nassau County is in foreclosure.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney. He represents individuals in foreclosure lawsuits and mortgage modification applications throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He has been helping homeowners stay in their homes and fight foreclosure lawsuits for more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Foreclosure Tagged With: foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense lawyers, foreclosure proceedings, Mortgage Modifications attorney, New York foreclosure attorney

Citibank Fails to Show it Has Standing to Bring a Foreclosure Proceeding

April 29, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

In a case before Justice Carolyn Wade, in the Supreme Court of Kings County, in a Foreclosure Part, CitiMortgage moved for summary judgment in a foreclosure lawsuit. The bank submitted a copy of a note which the Williamsons, the defendants in the proceeding, executed. The note was payable to Premium Capital Funding. The Williamsons acknowledged they had this debt and that they had executed a mortgage to Premium Capital Funding. Premium Capital Funding had executed an assignment of the mortgage to CitiMortgage.

The defendants had submitted arguments the plaintiffs’ affidavits which were submitted do not conform with New York State Law and therefore should be considered defective. They also claimed there was an endorsement on the allonge which was also defective.

Bank Does Not Have Standing to Bring The Foreclosure Lawsuit

CitiMortgage failed to establish it was the appropriate holder of the note. Justice Carolyn Wade rendered a decision stating that Citibank failed to submit the documentation substantiating that CitiMortgage was the appropriate successor to CitiFinancial Mortgage Company. CitiFinancial Mortgage Company was the name of the institution which Premium Capital Funding had assigned the note and mortgage to.

Note Not Physically Delivered

Justice Wade in her decision also indicated CitiMortgage failed to establish it was the actual holder of the original note and mortgage by way of physical delivery. The Judge’s decision went on to state the allonge and note were undated and had not been affixed to the mortgage. (It should be noted that an allonge is a document which modifies, changes, and provides further information with regard to a mortgage). Judge Wade in her decision also stated an out of state affidavit needs to be accompanied by a Certificate of Conformity in the appropriate admissible form before it can be accepted in a proceeding in a New York State court. The affidavits herein were not in conformity and therefore are considered defective. CitiMortgage’s application for summary judgment was therefore denied.

Conclusion

Time and time again in the numerous articles I have written, lack of standing affirmative defenses have been successful in preventing banks from successfully bringing summary judgment motions in foreclosures. It is therefore extremely important in every foreclosure lawsuit the defendants allege a lack of standing argument. Until the lawsuit is initiated and discovery takes place within the confines of the lawsuit, it is usually impossible to ascertain as to whether the appropriate financial institution is bringing the foreclosure legal action. Stated in another form, the defendant homeowners don’t know whether the right party is suing them and therefore it is necessary to allege a lack of standing affirmative defense in all cases where the plaintiff in the foreclosure lawsuit is not the original financial institution that granted the mortgage loan.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense lawyers, foreclosure proceedings

Homeowner Seeks to Rescind Mortgage Loan in Foreclosure Proceeding

April 24, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Bank of New York Mellon (hereinafter referred to as “BNYM”), had brought an application for summary judgment against the Kahn defendants in a foreclosure legal action. BNYM sought to have the Kahn’s Answer and Counterclaims dismissed. The Kahn’s cross-moved for partial summary judgment. They claimed, in their counterclaim, there was a violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Mortgage Loan Assigned

The Kahns, after initially purchasing their home, refinanced their mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans. Countrywide Home Loans assigned the mortgage to BNYM. BNYM had initiated the proceeding to foreclose on the Kahns’ home. The Kahns had submitted an Amended Answer. In their Amended Answer they sought to assert a rescission claim. This rescission counterclaim alleged a violation of the Truth in Lending Law by Countrywide Home Loans. They claimed that Countrywide had understated the finance charges by more than $35 in the required Mortgage Financial Disclosure Statement. They claim this was a material misrepresentation in the mortgage disclosure statement. BNYM argued the rescission claim was not presented in a timely manner. They claimed the Amended Answer was served more than three years after the time of closing and therefore in violation of the statute of limitations with regard to the legal theory of rescission.

Relation Back Doctrine Doesn’t Toll the Statute of Limitations

Judge Anil Singh ruled the relation back doctrine alleged by the Kahns did not apply in deciding whether a claim to rescind a transaction was timely made. Judge Singh also noted when rescinding a transaction the timing of the rescission notice is based on when the creditor receives the notice. In this case, Judge Singh held the notice to rescind the matter was received more than three years after the transaction took place and therefore was beyond the statute of limitations for rescinding the transaction. Therefore Judge Singh held the Kahns could not assert the right to rescind this transaction in their counterclaim in the pending foreclosure proceeding. Summary judgment by BNYM was granted and the Kahns partial summary judgment was denied.

Conclusion

The Kahns in this case created a very innovative defense to the foreclosure proceeding. Their defense basically stated there had been a violation of the Truth in Lending Law, albeit a very small violation, involving $35 by Countrywide Home Loans at the time of the refinance. Therefore because of this violation they were rescinding the entire transaction. The court in this case held there was a three year statute of limitations with regard to rescinding a transaction of this type. Therefore the Kahns had to provide Countrywide Home Loans notice with the rescission within three years from the date of the closing. In this case, the Kahns provided Countrywide Home Loans notice of the rescission as part of a counterclaim alleged more than three years after the date of closing. Judge Singh held the Kahn’s argument that their counterclaim, submitted in the foreclosure lawsuit, should be considered to be related back to the time of the closing.

I like the argument. If I was the judge, I would have upheld it!

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

Court Bars Collection of Interest and Fees on Loan For Failure of Mortgage Company to Negotiate in Good Faith

April 22, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Justice Kenneth Sherman sitting in the Supreme Court Foreclosure Part in Kings County recently had a case before him involving what he felt was the bank’s failure to negotiate in good faith at the mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences. A special referee had written a report requesting all interest be tolled on a loan provided by American Home Mortgage Servicing (hereinafter referred to as “AHMS”) and they be further barred from collecting attorney’s fees related to their initiating a foreclosure legal action. Judge Sherman acknowledged receipt of the report and scheduled the matter for a hearing to decide if American Home Mortgage Servicing had engaged in bad faith negotiations at the mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences.

Statute Requires Good Faith Negotiations

Judge Sherman noted mandatory settlement conferences were required with regard to all foreclosure lawsuits brought concerning residential mortgages. In this case, the defendant was a resident of the property that was being foreclosed on. The enabling statutes creating the mandatory residential foreclosure conference parts mandated all parties negotiate in good faith at these foreclosure settlement conferences. Judge Sherman stated in his decision American Home Mortgage Servicing was represented by an attorney at the settlement conferences. However, the attorney for American Home Mortgage Servicing did not have the appropriate contractual authority to negotiate a loan modification in good faith which would resolve this foreclosure proceeding. The court specifically stated in its decision that on April 23, 2009, and on October 5, 2010, the attorneys for American Home Mortgage Servicing failed to appear by an attorney who had actual knowledge, ability and authority to negotiate a mortgage modification in a meaningful manner. Therefore the Judge ruled AMHS did not comply with New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 3408(c). This statute requires all parties to foreclosure court conferences negotiate in good faith. The court therefore barred AHMS from collecting any claimed interest, penalties and attorneys’ fees or costs incurred from the loan from April 23, 2009 to October 5, 2010.

Conclusion

Financial institutions are legally obligated under New York law to negotiate in good faith for the purpose of working out mortgage modifications at the mandatory foreclosure court conferences. Financial institutions who are represented by attorneys who have no real authority to work out reasonable loan modifications can be considered to have acted in bad faith, and in violation of New York State law.

Elliot Schlissel is one of the leading foreclosure defense attorneys in the Metropolitan New York area. For more than 45 years he has helped his clients fight foreclosure proceedings, obtain mortgage modifications and continue to live in their homes. He offers free consultations to all prospective clients.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure defense lawyers, foreclosure proceedings, foreclosure settlement conference, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Wrongful Foreclosures

Avoiding Foreclosure

Judges Assigned to Foreclosure Court Conferences

Foreclosure Dismissed: Bank Makes Technical Mistake

FHA Gives Homeowners a Second Chance to Buy a Home

Rabbi Unable to Stop Foreclosure on Synagogue

Uniondale Marriott Hotel on Long Island in Foreclosure

Citibank Fails to Show it Has Standing to Bring a Foreclosure Proceeding

Homeowner Seeks to Rescind Mortgage Loan in Foreclosure Proceeding

Court Bars Collection of Interest and Fees on Loan For Failure of Mortgage Company to Negotiate in Good Faith

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