In 2010, a Palm Bay homeowner in the building and
construction trade hired Shuster & Saben, to defend the foreclosure J.P.
Morgan Chase filed against his home.
At the time, things did not look good for our client. After new construction came to a stand
still, his small business was nearly wiped out and his income was cut by more
than half. He owed more than
double the value of home and had no way of catching up the year of payments he
missed before the foreclosure was filed.
Further, since J.P. Morgan, the original lender, was servicing the loan
for Freddie Mac, the loan servicer was prohibited by U.S. Treasury regulations
from reducing the principal balance.
We defended the case through the rest of 2010, and all of
2011, 2012, and in 2013 we defeated
JP Morgan’s motion for summary judgment.
While we defended the case, we also submitted several loan modification
packages to JP Morgan Chase but each time our client was turned down. Our client was turned down for
insufficient income, too many missed payments, and with each successive package
there was a new reason why our client did not qualify. In 2014, Freddie Mac transferred servicing of the loan from JP Morgan Chase to Seterus. By 2014, Freddie Mac had also expanded the number of
different loan modification options available on Freddie Mac loans and
decreased the number of requirements and the amount of paperwork required to
qualify for a new type of loan modification known as a Streamlined HAMP.
When Seterus, the new servicer requested that we submit a
new loss mitigation package in 2015, our client was quite a bit skeptical. Our client asked, “Why should I submit
another package? I have already been turned down at least four times.” I responded that “the worst thing
Seterus could do was say no. Perhaps after five years without receiving one mortgage payment Freddie
Mac and Seterus will be ready to make a deal rather than come duke it out at
trial in Brevard County, Florida. "
Our client collected the documents we requested and I went
over the submission carefully to make sure it was complete and that the client's
expense ratios were in line with program guidelines. By 2015 our client’s income was moderately higher than it
was 2010 which also improved his chance at getting a loan modification. After submission of the package our
client was approved for a trial modification. Once we mailed in the first trial payment, we called the
lender’s counsel who agreed to continue the trial that was already set in this
case. In October of 2015, after making four
trial payments, our client was approved for a permanent
loan modification. The permanent
loan modification will cut our client's principal and interest payment nearly in
half. Our client's new principal and
interest payment is $943.23, and his new interest rate is 4%. While our client still owes a little
more than his home is worth, his
total monthly payment with taxes and insurance included is $1,547.77, which is
far less than the cost of renting a similar 3,000 square-foot premium newer home in Palm Bay.
To review the redactedfinal loan modification agreement click here.
About Shuster & Saben: For most foreclosure clients if the firm does not win their case outright we settle the file with a loan modification. Bank lawyers who know our work and track record understand why we get so many great loan modifications. We study how loan modifications are underwritten including Fannie Mae's most recent and often changing servicing guidelines. We help clients avoid mistakes which can ruin a loan modification and follow-up with banks and their lawyers until the loss mitigation package is complete. Bank lawyers know that if there is no loan modification our firm will not hesitate to take a case to trial and they know we will walk away from "crappy" loan modification offers. Bank representatives know that without a loan modification they will have to fly (or drive) in for both a deposition and eventually a trial.