Los Angeles Bankruptcy Law Monitor : Los Angeles Bankruptcy Lawyer & Attorney : Christine Wilton Law Firm : Southern California Chapter 13 & Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Foreclosure

Last week, Yves Smith caused a stir with this post, "Fannie and Freddie Continue to Rely on Foreclosure Mills Despite Evidence of Fraud."  The 64 comments are worth a read, if anything to ferret out the boys from the men in terms of skill level in dealing with the legal issues.  Smith gives acknowledgment to O. Max Gardner, who is the nation's go-to bankruptcy litigation attorney and, I am proud to say that, I am a Lieutenant in his army.  So, what's all the scuttle butt about? 

Smith's post referred to another piece published by Mother Jones, "Fannie and Freddie's Foreclosure Barons," which provides a peek inside the shady document fabrication operations to cover up past mistakes in the mortgage industry and post foreclosure clean-up.  What a mess.

Looking at the securitization issues from a California standpoint, we have both federal and state law to contend with.  From a bankruptcy position, here in the Central District we have the In re Foreclosure cases , In re Hwang, In re Walker, and In re Vargas.  Since the mortgage follows the note, we need a complete, and unbroken chain of custody of the note and adherence to the California Commercial Code.  We are arguing the Creditor has no standing and even if they did, there are major computation errors in their claims. The fight goes on for now.  Results may vary in California.  Side effects include general frustration; nausea; possible foreclosure; and guilt for not paying your mortgage. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recently, Katie Porter, over at Credit Slips, reported that Bank of America (BOA) reached a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission regarding certain mortgage overcharges, including overcharges in bankruptcy once serviced by Countrywide. Henry Sommer joined the conversation, asking if the Bank of America Settlement is a sign of true progress.

After reading the consent judgment and order provided by Katie, followed with Henry's entertaining summary of the requirements set forth in that order that include BOA's agreeing to not lie, cheat, or steal from consumers, I am not getting that warm feeling like we've accomplished much.  Did I miss anything?

Those homeowners that can afford to make a mortgage payment seek Chapter 13 where they are given time to make up the arrears on their mortgage and get their finances back on track.  What has been happening though is that many receive their discharge only to be served a Notice of Foreclosure soon after for charges on their mortgage. I'm even seeing this when the servicer files their proof of claim, declaring that "hey, we're going to do this up front and charge attorneys fees and costs to even file this proof of claim."  They'll also usually include inflated arrears, inspection fees they did not conduct, and other fees and costs that are superfluous to your mortgage. 

It is imperative that debtor's counsel in chapter 13 practice, scrutinize every proof of claim in every case and hold these Creditors to account for their willful failure to follow the law.  If you're a homeowner seeking to stop a foreclosure and you know that you've been overcharged and your loan servicer adding charges incorrectly, don't file under Chapter 13 without a competent attorney that not only practices Chapter 13, but really understands this mortgage mess we're in. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California’s mortgage crisis is out of control. The sub-prime lending didn’t end until late 2007 and into early 2008 when the economy collapsed. What further frustrates our sunshine state’s mortgage problems is that we were sold Jumbo loans due to our high property values. A Jumbo loan is a mortgage loan in an amount above conventional conforming loan limits and as of 2010, the limit is $417,000 according to Wikipedia.org. So, many California homeowners are in default on their primary mortgage because their “teaser” rate has ended and they’re now faced with increased interest rates and forced to pay principal and interest on a mortgage that they could not afford, with a jumbo loan that the lender is unwilling to modify.

Homeowners are being led down the primrose path of a modification offer by the lender only as a courtesy due to the HAMP program’s rules and California Law that requires the lender to contact the borrower and attempt a workout. The law, however, does not require a mandatory workout and the sub-prime lender, loan servicers, and asset-backed securitized mortgages will always be refused a modification of their mortgage because the investors don’t want it.

It may seem like we’re in a desperate situation here in California, and that’s why so many scams are cropping up. Recently, I’ve even been marketed to by these forensic mortgage loan audit scammers. They’re a new twist on foreclosure rescue fraud, so be alert to these offers. The envelope looks legitimate, but it’s nothing more than a cleverly disguised marketing piece. They generally target those homeowners in foreclosure, but they’re now starting to target the potential predatory loans too.

If you’re looking for help, avoid:

1. anyone offering guarantees;
2. instructs you not to contact your lender, lawyer, or housing counselor;
3. collects a fee up front; encourages you to lease your home so you can buy it back over time;
4. recommends that you make your mortgage payments to someone other than directly to the lender or loan servicer;
5. offers to buy your home for cash at an amount less than market value; or
6. pressures you to sign papers you haven’t had a chance to read thoroughly or don’t understand. Get Help.

You can always check out the Federal Trade Commission [FTC], the nation’s consumer protection agency for current information and scams to avoid. Contact your lender or loan servicer immediately when you fall behind on your payments. You can also get FREE advice from housing counseling agencies certified by HUD by calling 1-888-995-HOPE. Remember that filing bankruptcy will LEGALLY STOP A FORECLOSURE through the Automatic Stay, 11 U.S.C. §362.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Your federal government tried to help save your home by creating the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP as we have come to know it.  Too bad it's not working because this program only has a 20% success rate.  Many homeowners who were stuck in the log jam of the HAMP program were forced into bankruptcy, only to find the lenders reject their modification after their case was filed. 

The HAMP administration has created supplemental directives that briefly support modifications for those either in bankruptcy or contemplating filing bankruptcy. These changes become effective June 1, 2010.  Under these new guidelines, servicers must consider borrowers in active bankruptcy for HAMP if a request for modification is received from the borrower, borrower’s counsel or bankruptcy trustee.  Borrowers who are in a trial period plan and subsequently file for bankruptcy may not be denied a HAMP modification on the basis of the bankruptcy filing.  Even if you've received a discharge in your bankruptcy case, you should still be eligible for a HAMP modification. 

Here is some great news for those in a chapter 13 bankruptcy.  As taken directly from the Supplemental Directive 10-02, "When a borrower in an active Chapter 13 bankruptcy is in a trial period plan and the borrower has made post-petition payments on the first lien mortgage in the amount required by the trial period plan, a servicer must not object to confirmation of a borrower’s Chapter 13 plan, move for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay, or move for dismissal of the Chapter 13 case on the basis that the borrower paid only the amounts due under the trial period plan, as opposed to the non-modified mortgage payments."  This means that if you're in a trial modification and you subsequently file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13, you will continue to pay the modified mortgage payment. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California homeowners don't stand a chance to save their homes outside of bankruptcy because we are in a non-judicial foreclosure state.  This means that lenders can foreclose on a home without going to court.  Filing a civil action in state or federal court is quite costly and, it seems, that many attorneys simply do not recognize a fraudulent claim by a mortgagee when they see it.  So what's a homeowner to do?  File a chapter 13 bankruptcy.

A chapter 13 bankruptcy is a very cost effective device to saving a debtor's home because it immediately brings the mortgage current, and allows the arrears to be paid over time through the plan.  Chapter 13 bankruptcy puts the debtor in control of their case from the very start.

After the case is filed, the mortgagee must file a proof of claim in order to receive any payments under your plan.  The problem starts here.  Professor Katherine Porter, of University of Iowa College of Law wrote and abstract, Misbehavior and mistakes in bankruptcy mortgage claims and says that this misbehavior has largely gone unchecked on a national level.  Scrutinizing the lender's proof of claim is a crucial step to saving your client's home.  Many times there are violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("F.R.B.P.") 3001, which requires the use of official court forms and evidentiary requirements. 

We have seen a vast majority of errors in proofs of claims where they fail to properly itemize their fees; or perfect their security interest; or they do not attach any documents at all.  These are just a few reasons counsel should rigorously enforce Rule 3001 and object to any proof of claim that has even the slightest of errors.  As debtor's counsel, it is our duty to preserve the fairness and accuracy of the bankruptcy system because neither  the creditors, nor their counsel seem to be voluntarily complying with all procedures and laws.  Isn't that how we got into this current financial mess in the first place?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a consumer debtor, you will usually have two options when deciding to file bankruptcy; Chapter 13 or 7 under the Bankruptcy Code.  The question is which is better?; and which one should you file?  The answers to these questions are as unique as your individual circumstances.

Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, you are declaring that you have no ability to pay your debts at all.  You are, in a sense, liquidating your estate.  From the moment you file your case under chapter 7, the trustee takes control and has the right to take any assets available to pay your debts.  However, you have certain rights to retain assets under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 703 or 704.  This means, that you will be able to keep your home, cars, retirement accounts, personal belongings, up to the limits pursuant to the law. These cases usually conclude within about six (6) months.

Under Chapter 13, you are declaring that you have some disposable monthly income to apply toward your debts and you are asking the Court to allow you to restructure that debt over time and allow you to pay only what you can afford. 

Chapter 13 is, in my opinion, the best choice to save your home, dispute debts owed, and otherwise hold your creditors accountable for any mistakes in your debt obligations, accounting, collection activity, fraud or abuse.  These cases require a longer period of time, usually up to five (5) years, and there are additional reporting duties involved.  You are strongly discouraged from filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy without an attorney because of the additional local rules, accounting and reporting requirements. 

Most everyone has thought of filing bankruptcy as simply filling out a bunch of forms.  I would have said that before the BAPCPA in 2005.  Now, with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and their complex financial contracts; scams, despair and desperation of the banking industry; and the complexities of the Bankruptcy Laws, you need to consult with your personal bankruptcy lawyer before your case is filed.  Your bankruptcy lawyer will save you time and money by reviewing your current financial situation and create strategic plan to eliminate your debt with the least amount of money out of your pocket.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Let's face it; the economic recession is dragging on and there are no signs of improvement.  The government spending is the only spending that is propping up our economy.  So, when you hear in the news that spending is up, it's your federal government doing the spending with bailout money, and building projects for green technology; that's it.  We consumers are not so fortunate and I'm am proud to be counted with the majority who are paying down our debts, but why?  Why do we continue to be the slaves to our creditors who are increasing interest rates and charging extortion penalties when we're a day late?

Jay Jump, a Washington based consumer bankruptcy attorney addressed this very question in his recent blog post where he discusses, to a group of Realtors, that filing bankruptcy is personal financial responsibility.  His article is pretty lengthy and he admits that at the outset, but he's right on point.  We need to set our emotional high morality aside and look at our own households as small corporations and our families as our shareholders.  When you look at your financial affairs from the perspective of a business owner and who you owe a duty to; your family becomes the priority and your creditors take a back seat.  When you put your priorities in order, filing for bankruptcy makes sense in many cases.

Being financially responsible means cutting your losses before you lose everything.  It means leaving your retirement money where it belongs; for retirement.  When you are financially responsible and know that the numbers don't add up where you can feed your family and pay your debts, then the debts must be discharged in bankruptcy. 

You can transform your financial distress into financial freedom from the moment you sit down with your bankruptcy lawyer.  The stress is further reduced the moment the bankruptcy case is filed on your behalf.  Then, when your discharge notice arrives from the Court, you have done the very best you can and protected your small corporation, Your Family, from financial disaster and made a difference.  Read what Mr. Jump has to say and decide for yourself if filing for bankruptcy is responsible financial behavior because I'm in complete agreement with him.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Over on MSN Money, Liz Pulliam Weston wrote an article entitled, "Are You Foolish to Pay Your Mortgage?"  I get asked this question all the time, is it worth it to keep my home?  I'm passionate about this subject on behalf of my clients, whom I advise whether filing bankruptcy is in their best interests financially.  What really caught my eye about this article was Law Professor Brent White's paper, "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis."  I agree with Liz that this is a must read for the finer points and Liz certainly summarizes his points from her perspective that we all need to do our best to save our homes and we all must make the best of a bad situation and know when it's time to walk away from our mortgages.

The good news is that California is a 'non-recourse' state.  This means that lender cannot pursue defaulting homeowners for deficiency judgments where they owe more than what the house is worth or what the lender might receive in a short sale or foreclosure sale.  For Californian's this is good news too because their will be no income tax on the cancelled debt or capital gains taxes to be paid on the deficiency. 

Knowing that we won't get taxed or sued after we walk away from our mortgages here in California should bring a sigh of relief, but when is it a good financial decision to walk away?  Professor White says that when the net cost of homeownership becomes more expensive than the net cost of renting is when you should walk away.  His article provides in-depth details and citations and even a hypothetical example of a couple who bought their home in 2006, at the height of the real estate boom. To make it easy, I've found a housing cost calculator on the internet that might help, but I wouldn't base any decision solely on this information.

I think the biggest challenge is to walk the imaginary road into the future and ask yourself whether you'll be better off in the long run.  I suggest that if you can afford your mortgage payment now, even though you're home's value is less than what you owe, you may be better off in 20 years than if you had rented.  Why?  In 20 years you will likely have paid down your principal, or even paid off your mortgage and if you've been maintaining your home, you're maintenance costs will likely have dropped.  If you rented for 20 years, you're still a renter and we all know the cost to rent will invariably rise over that time too.

I agree with Liz when she says to "Get Help."  Talk to your HUD Counselor, your tax professional and your local bankruptcy lawyer.  The sooner, the better.  Don't spend down any savings trying to save a sinking ship because you may end up in a worse financial situation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The following information has been provided by the  Insolvency Law Committee - Business Law Section of the State Bar of California.  The bulletin was prepared by Gary Kaplan, Special Counsel at the law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP in San Francisco. 

In the bulletin, Gary Kaplan writes, "On November 30, 2009, the Departments of Corporations weighed in with its regulations in support of Assembly Bill 7, referred to as the California Foreclosure Prevention Act, which was enacted on February 20, 2009 and became effective upon the issuance of the first set of regulations in support of it.  This marks the third regulatory agency to do so, following the Departments of Financial Institutions and Real Estate.  The new regulations can be found at http://www.corp.ca.gov/OLP/pdf/rm/0509-2B.pdf.  The Act provides a 90-day foreclosure delay for residential mortgage loans on owner-occupied homes where the first loan was recorded between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2008, unless the loan is serviced by a financial institution that has a comprehensive loan modification program, as specified.  The provisions of this legislation “sunset” on January 1, 2011."

What this means to you, the homeowner, is that generally, you will notice that after you receive a notice of default on your mortgage, your lender will begin sending you loan workout packages and gather information from you to determine whether you qualify for a loan modification.  This seems to be what the lenders are doing during their 90-day moratorium.  We have already seen that these trial loan modifications are not working to modify the majority of home in distress.  This is either because the loan has been sold as an asset-backed security to investors, or the owner simply cannot afford the mortgage.

As I have said before, in the  5 ways to stop foreclosure, only a bankruptcy and a court ordered injunction will legally stop a foreclosure.  The sooner you talk to a bankruptcy lawyer to discuss your options, the more options you will have in creating the best course of action for your particular circumstances.  Every case is unique.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nowadays it seems everyone from big business to celebrities is filing for bankruptcy.  While major corporations are getting government bailouts with our tax dollars, wouldn't it seem fair if we could get a bailout too? 

Sure, you can file for bankruptcy and have many of your debts cleared off your books through a bankruptcy discharge.  But, how do you know if you need to file for bankruptcy?  At what point do you throw up the white flag to your creditors and declare bankruptcy?  Here are 10 signs that are strong indicators that you may need to file for bankruptcy:

1.  You've depleted your savings and are considering cashing out your retirement savings to pay your bills;

2.  You're living on credit cards and your debt increases rather than decreases each month;

3.  Your family has given you loans or bought you food;

4.  You're behind on your rent or mortgage, or are in foreclosure;

5.  You're anxious when the phone rings because the only calls you get are from debt collectors;

6.  You can only afford to pay the minimum payments on your debts and have high interest rates;

7.  You're using the legal loan sharks at those payday advance shops to get cash;

8. You know you have a lot of debt, but don't exactly know how much and you're afraid to look;

9.  Your car is about to be repossessed;

10.  You're being sued and you know you cannot afford to pay for any judgment.

If you, or someone you know is experiencing extreme financial hardship during these challenging economic times, it's important to take action sooner rather than later.  The sooner you discuss your situation with a trusted authority, like your local bankruptcy lawyer, the more likely you will be able to have your debts discharged without having to go broke doing it.  This means that you can save your retirement for retirement and still get out of debt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The mortgage meltdown and ensuing global financial crisis, in the fall of 2008, still reverberates today.  The New York Times reported on the essentials of the credit crisis and pointed out the breadth and depth origins of this crisis and likened these times to the Great Depression. 

I have previously reported on the financial crisis in The Economy of Bankruptcy ; while The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys [NACBA] has been following SB61 since its inception.  SB61 essentially will allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a mortgage.  Recently, NACBA Director, John Rao testified on the matter in October, before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

As posted in the New York Times, House Passes Far Reaching Bill Tightening Financial Rules.  Unfortunately, the banking industry struck a win when the House voted to reject the proposed amendment, known as "mortgage cramdown," which is the measure that would allow bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages for distressed homeowners.  This vote reversed the House's passage in March of a cramdown measure that subsequently died in the Senate.

American homeowners need a real solution and based on what I read over at The National Bankruptcy forum, our Bankruptcy Courts may not be equipped to handle the tsunami of bankruptcy cases that would result in the passage of such legislation.  To date, few mortgages are being permanently modified, as reported by the LA Times.  

My solution is for every American to obtain independent financial freedom by paying off their debts outside of bankruptcy, if possible. For those Americans struggling to pay their bills, consider either a chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy and never look back.  The rules of bankruptcy do not require that you spend down all of your savings and lose your assets in order to file for bankruptcy protection.  The goal here is financial freedom and independence from the banking industry FOREVER.  The new paradigm as Dave Ramsey so eloquently puts it, DEBT IS DUMB AND CASH IS KING!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The gulf states must contend with hurricanes.  The northeast has their bitter cold.  Here in California, we must always be prepared for "The Big One," earthquakes that is.  As our economy limps along, virtually lifeless, and looking more like a depression rather than the politically correct "recession," we must be prepared for the onslaught of more potential foreclosures.

If you, or someone you know is facing or potentially facing a foreclosure, an attorney who is familiar with this area of law can explain your options so you can choose the course of action that is best for your individual needs, goals and desired outcome.

The five (5) ways to stop a foreclosure are:

1. Modification
2. Short Sale
3. Deed in Lieu
4. Bankruptcy
5. Injunction

Of the methods listed above, only a bankruptcy and a court ordered injunction will legally stop a foreclosure and even those methods may be temporary.  Most of the time, the lender may suspend their foreclosure proceedings in order to entertain the workout options of a modification, short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure, but they are not legally required to do so. 

Recent court rulings in Massachusetts to invalidate thousands of foreclosure proceedings because the chain of title had not included all of the assignments that had taken place prior to foreclosure.  Unfortunately, a homeowner is not likely to invalidate a foreclosure in California after the sale date, especially where a bonified purchaser is involved and the property has been transferred.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy is still the most economical and effective way to temporarily stop a foreclosure because of the automatic stay.  This allows the homeowner time to make up all past due payments.  This also allows the attorney to file any adversary proceedings necessary to invalidate the foreclosure proceedings and possibly sue the lender under TILA and RESPA violations; potentially recouping damages on behalf of their clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I just finished reading Battle on the Homefront  by Steven Seidenberg, in the latest issue of ABA Journal. With the rejection of Senate Bill 61 back in April, homeowners are left with trying to work out deals with the same parties that essentially helped create the foreclosure problems. Steven did a great job in outlining the current state of the foreclosure crisis and covers the problems in bankruptcy that homeowners are facing. I agree. We need to do more for homeowners in trouble and Bankruptcy Court can provide the neutral forum.

I’ve been watching the news and wrote my Senator to vote in favor of SB61 to no avail. I hear from clients, “If we could just write down some of our principal, we could afford the payments.” The federal government’s Home Affordable Plan doesn’t appear to be working and the lender’s aren’t moving fast enough to help homeowners in trouble.

In California, our problems are overwhelming because many of us have taken out jumbo loans during the housing boom and subsequently we have seen some of the nation’s greatest home price declines, creating substantial negative equity. The original Obama Plan excluded many California mortgages because the plan does not deal with mortgages that substantially exceed the value of the home. Recent changes to the plan have included homes with substantial negative equity, while the high value homes remain excluded from the program.

Ultimately, we need to show the lenders some value in the modification process. What this means, is that if modifying the mortgage will provide a lesser loss than the foreclosure, the lender is more likely to accept the modification proposal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks