Is HAMP one big Scam?

Yesterday, CNN published an article about Home Affordable Modification Program otherwise know as HAMP and the Obama Plan Modification. The article is titled “450,000 At Risk In Foreclosure-Prevention Program.” If you have not read the article here is a link to the story. I was suspicious of the banks participating in HAMP before the article was published. Too many times I our law firm has heard from homeowners who had stopped making mortgage payments and were contacted by their lenders about a HAMP modification. The homeowners were promised that is they made three (3) trial payments they would be approved for a HAMP loan modification that would reduce their mortgage payments. The homeowner would be told that if they made the three trial payments and submitted the requested paperwork (usually pay stubs and tax returns) they would receive a loan modification, the amount of which would be determined during the 90 day trial period. Many of the homeowners contacting our firm for help made the three trial payments only to be told that they did not qualify for a modification or that their documentation was incomplete.

After reading CNN’s article, I am beginning to feel that HAMP is just a scam perpetrated by lenders against homeowners. The statistics reported by CNN show that less than 10% of the homeowners who have participated in HAMP received a permanent modification. Specifically, CNN reports that while 787,200 homeowners are in trial modifications but only 66,500 people have received permanent adjustments.

A bank-loving lobbyist might speculate that the reason for so few modifications is a failure by the homeowners to make their three trial payments on time. Such speculation would be WRONG as the Treasury Department confirmed to CNN that three-quarters of the homeowners in trial modifications are making their three trial payments on time.

My suggestion for Florida homeowners that are not in foreclosure and are considering a HAMP modification is get everything in writing. If a homeowner who has not paid their mortgage in several months is called about HAMP, the homeowner should request written confirmation that if they make three timely trial payments they will receive a permanent modification. The amount of the permanent modification should also be provided before the first payment is made. After the first payment is made and the documents are submitted, the homeowner should call to confirm receipt of the documents and confirm that no additional documents are needed. If a bank representative orally confirms that no additional documents are needed such confirmation should be reduced to writing in the form of an E-mail or letter to bank confirming the conversation. By confirming that the lender or servicer does not need any additional documents the homeowner takes away the lender’s ability to call after receiving 3 payments and only to tell the homeowner that they must start over because one form was incomplete or missing a signature or comma.

For homeowners who already in foreclosure any loan modification should occur as part of a written settlement agreement reviewed by the homeowner’s legal counsel. Before the homeowner pays one thin dime, the homeowner must know what performance on their part will result in the dismissal of the bank’s case and the amount of interest rate and loan balance reduction they will receive in return for their resumption of monthly mortgage payments.

Homeowners who made three HAMP payments and did not receive a permanent modification should consult a licensed attorney to evaluate if the homeowner has a claim for either fraudulent inducement or breach of contract. Our firm is litigating against Litton and Bank of America for breaching a loan modification agreement. Homeowners with further questions about this issue my inquire by e-mail to foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com

Homeowner Gets Free House after IndyMac Bank Fails to Mediate in Good Faith

Daily Business Review, writer Vesselin Mitev reports that Suffolk County, N.Y. Judge Jeffrey A. Spinner, has judicially canceled the mortgage on homeowner Dana Yano-Horski’s home. The action was taken to sanction the lender’s “Unconscionable, vexations and opprobrious conduct” in its attempt to foreclose on the property.

Under applicable state law IndyMac was required to mediate with the homeowner before competing a foreclosure action. Judge Spinner was quoted as finding it “deeply troubling” that IndyMac spurned what would have been a “win-win” solution for all parties. Instead of negotiating the bank engaged in “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” treatment of the homeowner.

After the homeowners attempts to obtain mediation Judge Spinner ordered a bank representative to attend a mediation conference in September. At the mediation IndyMac loss mitigation manager Karen Dickinson “made it abundantly clear that that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable” to the bank.

The bank asserted that the borrower had previously defaulted on a forbearance agreement. The Court found that IndyMac never sent out the forbearance agreement. Judge Spinner noted “Defendant, through plaintiff’s duplicity found herself in the unique and uncomfortable position of being placed in default of the ‘agreement’ even before she had received it.”

Judge Spinner did more than just dismiss the lawsuit. If the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice IndyMac could have re-filed the lawsuit and repeated in wrongful conduct. Judge Skinner concluded that the original principal of $292,500 “should be canceled, voided, and set aside.” The Judges order bars any attempt to collect on the note.

The Foreclosure Lawyers at Shuster & Saben applauds Justice Jeffrey Skinner’s courage. In Florida several counties including Dade County, Palm Beach County, Indian River County, and Brevard County have implemented mandatory mediation when the subject property is the homeowner’s primary residence. In a significant number of cases, particularly when homeowners are unrepresented some lenders attempt to avoid mediation or fail to mediate in good faith. In both Dade County and Indian River County our firm has moved for sanctions against lenders who fail to mediate in good faith.

Shuster & Saben Wins Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale

For Immediate Release:
Shuster & Saben wins Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure, and obtains Court order cancelling judical sale.

September 17, 2009, could have been a very bad day for Shuster & Saben client M.L.* When M.L came to our firm on August 11, 2009, she had already lost her case because a default was entered against her after she failed to file an answer to a complaint for foreclosure filed by MidFirst Bank. Our client had received numerous calls from the loan servicer who had told her that she did not need to attend a Court hearing because she had been approved for loan modification. Relying of what she was told by the servicer M.L. did not answer the compliant or attend a motion for summary judgment. M.L. realized she had a serious problem that required immediate legal action when she received an Court order scheduling her home to be judicially auctioned on September 17, 2009.

After Shuster & Saben was hired on August 11, 2009, the firm filed a Verified Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale and Request for Mediation. In support of the motion M.L.’s affidavit was filed that set forth that she was employed and was attempting in good faith to reach a loan modification with MidFirst bank. The affidavit also set forth that M.L. did not file an Answer based upon representations of the servicer that the foreclosure could be worked out by loan modification.

On September 15, 2009, just two days before the scheduled sale the Court held a hearing on the Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure. Thomas Willis, from the law firm of Shuster & Saben presented the firm’s argument on behalf of the homeowner and George Zamora of the law firm Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A. presented the bank's argument. Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher granted the Emergency Motion and entered an order cancelling the foreclosure sale and deferring the parties to mediation.

To Review the Court's Order Click Here

* M.L. is a real client. To protect her identify and privacy one of her initials has been changed our client's name has been redacted from the linked order.

Shuster & Saben, LLC, Foreclosure Defense
Miami: (305) 576-8688
Fort Lauderdale: (954) 423-0052
Palm Beach (877) 511-STAY
Stuart: (877) 511-STAY
Melbourne: (321) 549-STAY
www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com

To See Thomas Willis' Spanish Foreclose Blog Click Here

We are now available for consultation in Boca Raton

For Immediate Release:
Shuster & Saben, LLC, in an effort to better serve its rapidly growing list of clients in South Palm Beach, is now availbale for consultation in Boca Raton, Florida. Palm Beach County homeowners facings foreclosure can meet with an attorney of the law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC at 595 South Federal Hwy Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida. We are available for consultation at this location by appointment only.



Shuster & Saben, LLC is law firm of five attorneys with offices in Miami and in Plantation / Fort Lauderdale. This Fall Shuster & Saben will open a third office in Satellite Beach, Florida (Brevard County). Shuster & Saben, LLC defends homeowners in foreclosure. Lawyers in our firm have been featured in or quoted by Time Magazine, Univision, and the Daily Business Review. Shuster & Saben offers free consultation with an attorney and defends homeowners in foreclosure for $495.00 per month on loans under $500,000. Treasure Coast residents can reach us toll free at 877-511-STAY.

For More Information about Shuster & Saben, LLC, please see our website www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com