Countrywide Home Loans News
Colorado Attorney General Attorney Announces Countrywide Settlement
February 11, 2009(DENVER) – Colorado Attorney General John Suthers today announced that Colorado has entered into a settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation, and several of its affiliated entities, over the marketing of ...
Another Example of the Deplorable Conditions at Countrywide Home LoansFebruary 11, 2009
Countrywide simply CANNOT HANDLE and PROPERLY SERVICE the VOLUME OF BAD MORTGAGES it holds in its portfolios. Thousands of homeowners are getting foreclosed on because they cannot obtain loan modifications from this ...
Virginia AG McGraw settles Countrywide suit
February 6, 2009
Attorney General Darrell McGraw today settled his suit against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Full Spectrum Lending, Inc. Countrywide sold subprime loans, including ...
Pennsylvania Attorney General Reaches $150 Settlement With CountrywideJanuary 29, 2009
HARRISBURG - Attorney General Tom Corbett today announced that the Attorney General's Office has reached a more than $150 million settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation to obtain mortgage relief and ...
Countrywide Agrees To Modify Predatory Loans For Tennesseans
January 23, 2009
The lawsuit said Countrywide misled customers by offering low "teaser" rates or no closing costs to induce borrowers into loans they couldn't afford and without disclosing the risk, leading to ...
Countrywide Lawyers Say Loan Modification Ads Are Mere Commercial Puffery
January 19, 2009
In marketing, advertising and testimony before Congress, Countrywide Home Loans has said repeatedly that it is working hard to modify the mortgages of financially strapped borrowers caught up in the ...
Housing Push for Hispanics Spawns Wave of Foreclosures
January 5, 2009
Mortgage brokers became a key portion of the lending pipeline. Phi Nguygn, a former broker, worked at two suburban Washington-area firms that employed hundreds of loan originators, most of them ...
Ohio to Receive $4.39M in Countrywide Settlement
January 2, 2009
COLUMBUS - Attorney General Nancy Rogers has announced the details of a final settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation. Under the agreement, filed in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio will ...
Angelo Mozilo Email on Loan Safe Voted #1 Business Blunder in 08′
December 18, 2008
Choosing only 10 this year was next to impossible, but somehow we managed. Incidentally, we'd like to throw a special shout out to Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide for making this ...
Investors Prove Countrywide Lawsuit 100% Valid
December 12, 2008
The facts are the facts. I am not going to add much commentary to this damaging blog post because it is what it is. All I know is Angelo (Ex-Countrywide CEO) is ...
Bill Frey and his investors will be OK. But BofA may have their day…
December 4, 2008
“Bill Frey of Greenwich Financial - Countrywide worked out an arrangement with fifteen state attorney generals for fraudulent lending practices and they're handing the bill to bondholders. They plead guilty ...
Countrywide $122 Billion Mortgage Pool May Drown Bank of America
December 2, 2008
"The loan modification buy back clause is on a secret Countrywide loan pool in which $122 billion worth of mortgages sold to investors from early 2004 to April of this year. ...
Investors Sue Countrywide and B of A is Surprised
December 1, 2008
Investors filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Monday over the recent predatory lending settlement that Countrywide parent, Bank of America had agreed to in ...
Homeowner Survey Says Countrywide is the Worst Mortgage Servicer in America
November 25, 2008
CORONA, Calif.: 25 November 2008 — In the current mortgage and foreclosure crisis, the data and feedback from actual homeowners in regards to outreach and customer service by mortgage servicers during the loan ...
Countryfried Loans - Kernal Mozilo’s Original Recipe for Disaster
October 11, 2007
Countryfried Loans, led by Kernel, Angelo Mozilo has been cooking more "Toxic Original Recipe Loans" then any other lender is US history. The reports that are coming out daily, confirm that ...
Countrywide Foreclosure
July 27, 2007
If you are a borrower that is facing a Countrywide Foreclosure, there is help for you. You can try calling the loss mitigation and home retention department, its' called Countrywide's ...
Saturday, February 28, 2009
What Got Lost in the Loan Pool?
(This is an excellent article which I had taken with the compliment of NY Times.
March 1, 2009
Fair Game
Guess What Got Lost in the Loan Pool?
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
WE are all learning, to our deep distress, how the perpetual pursuit of profits drove so many of the bad decisions that financial institutions made during the mortgage mania.
But while investors tally the losses that were generated by loose lending so far, the impact of another lax practice is only beginning to be seen. That is the big banks’ minimalist approach to meeting legal requirements — bookkeeping matters, really — when pooling thousands of loans into securitization trusts.
Stated simply, the notes that underlie mortgages placed in securitization trusts must be assigned to those trusts soon after the firms create them. And any transfers of these notes must also be recorded.
But this seems not to have been a priority with many big banks. The result is that bankruptcy judges are finding that institutions claiming to hold the notes that back specific mortgages often cannot prove it.
On Feb. 11, a circuit court judge in Miami-Dade County in Florida set aside a judgment against Ana L. Fernandez, a borrower whose home had been foreclosed and repurchased on Jan. 21 by Chevy Chase Bank, the institution claiming to hold the note. But the bank had been unable to produce evidence that the original lender had assigned the note, which was in the amount of $225,000, to Chevy Chase.
With the sale set aside, Ms. Fernandez remains in the home. “We believe this loan was never assigned,” said Ray Garcia, the lawyer in Miami who represented the borrower. Now, he said, it is up to whoever can produce the underlying note to litigate the case. The statute of limitations on such a matter runs for five years, he said.
A spokeswoman for Capital One, which is in the process of acquiring Chevy Chase, did not return a phone call on Friday seeking comment.
Mr. Garcia has another case in which a borrower tried to sell his home but could not because the note underlying a $60,000 second mortgage cannot be found. The statute of limitations on the matter will expire in October, he said, and if the note holder has not come forward by then, the borrower will be free of his obligation on the second mortgage.
No one knows how many loans went into securitization trusts with defective documentation. But as messes go, this one has, ahem, potential. According to Inside Mortgage Finance, some eight million nonprime mortgages were put into securities pools in 2005 and 2006 and sold to investors. The value of these loans was $797 billion in 2005 and $815 billion in 2006.
If notes underlying even some of these mortgages were improperly assigned or lost, that will surely complicate pending legislation intended to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms for troubled borrowers. A so-called cram-down provision in the law would let judges reduce the size of a loan, forcing whoever holds the security interest in it to take a loss.
But if the holder of the note is in doubt, how can these loans be modified?
Bookkeeping is such a bore, especially when there are billions to be made shoveling loans into trusts like coal into the Titanic’s boilers. You can imagine the thought process: Assigning notes takes time and costs money, why bother? Who’s going to ask for proof of ownership of these notes anyhow?
But as the Fernandez case and others indicate, bankruptcy judges across the country are increasingly asking these pesky questions. Two judges in California — one in state court, another in federal court — issued temporary restraining orders last month stopping foreclosures because proper documentation was not produced by lenders or their representatives. And in another California case, a borrower’s lawyer was awarded $8,800 in attorney’s fees relating to costs spent litigating against a lender that could not prove it had the right to foreclose.
California cases are especially interesting because foreclosures in that state can be conducted without the oversight of a judge. Borrowers who do not have a lawyer representing them can be turned out of their homes in four months.
Samuel L. Bufford, a federal bankruptcy judge in Los Angeles since 1985, has overseen some 100,000 bankruptcy cases. He said that in previous years, he rarely asked for documentation in a foreclosure case but that problems encountered in mortgage securitizations have made him become more demanding.
In a recent case, Judge Bufford said, he asked a lender to produce the original of the note and it turned out to be different from the copy that had been previously submitted to the court. The original had been assigned to a bank that had then transferred it to Freddie Mac, the judge explained. “They had no clue what happened after that,” he said. “Now somebody’s got to go find that note.”
“My guess is it’s because in the secondary mortgage market they have been sloppy,” Judge Bufford added. “The people who put the deals together get paid for the deals, but they don’t get paid for the paperwork.”
A small but spirited group of consumer lawyers has argued for years that the process of pooling residential mortgages into securities was so haphazard that proper documentation of the loans was never made in many cases. Leading the brigade is April Charney, a foreclosure lawyer at Jacksonville Legal Aid in Florida; she now trains consumer lawyers around the country to litigate these cases.
Depending on the documentation defect, lawyers say, investors in the trust could try to force the institution that sold the loan to the trust to buy it back. Many of these institutions would be unable to do so, however, because they are defunct. In the meantime, when judges are not persuaded that the documentation is proper, troubled borrowers can remain in their homes even if they are delinquent.
THE woes brought on by sloppy bookkeeping in securitizations will be on the agenda at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s annual spring meeting on April 3. An article titled “Where’s the Note, Who’s the Holder,” co-written by Judge Bufford and R. Glen Ayers, a former federal bankruptcy judge in Texas, will be the basis of a discussion at the meeting.
Mr. Ayers, who is a lawyer at Langley & Banack in San Antonio, said he expects that these documentation problems will halt a lot of foreclosures. That will mean pain for investors who hold the securities. The problem for those who expect to receive the benefit of the note, Mr. Ayers said, is that they “may not be able to show to the judge they have a right to foreclose.”
“It’s a huge problem,” he added. “It’s going to be expensive, I don’t know how expensive, ultimately to the bondholders.”
March 1, 2009
Fair Game
Guess What Got Lost in the Loan Pool?
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
WE are all learning, to our deep distress, how the perpetual pursuit of profits drove so many of the bad decisions that financial institutions made during the mortgage mania.
But while investors tally the losses that were generated by loose lending so far, the impact of another lax practice is only beginning to be seen. That is the big banks’ minimalist approach to meeting legal requirements — bookkeeping matters, really — when pooling thousands of loans into securitization trusts.
Stated simply, the notes that underlie mortgages placed in securitization trusts must be assigned to those trusts soon after the firms create them. And any transfers of these notes must also be recorded.
But this seems not to have been a priority with many big banks. The result is that bankruptcy judges are finding that institutions claiming to hold the notes that back specific mortgages often cannot prove it.
On Feb. 11, a circuit court judge in Miami-Dade County in Florida set aside a judgment against Ana L. Fernandez, a borrower whose home had been foreclosed and repurchased on Jan. 21 by Chevy Chase Bank, the institution claiming to hold the note. But the bank had been unable to produce evidence that the original lender had assigned the note, which was in the amount of $225,000, to Chevy Chase.
With the sale set aside, Ms. Fernandez remains in the home. “We believe this loan was never assigned,” said Ray Garcia, the lawyer in Miami who represented the borrower. Now, he said, it is up to whoever can produce the underlying note to litigate the case. The statute of limitations on such a matter runs for five years, he said.
A spokeswoman for Capital One, which is in the process of acquiring Chevy Chase, did not return a phone call on Friday seeking comment.
Mr. Garcia has another case in which a borrower tried to sell his home but could not because the note underlying a $60,000 second mortgage cannot be found. The statute of limitations on the matter will expire in October, he said, and if the note holder has not come forward by then, the borrower will be free of his obligation on the second mortgage.
No one knows how many loans went into securitization trusts with defective documentation. But as messes go, this one has, ahem, potential. According to Inside Mortgage Finance, some eight million nonprime mortgages were put into securities pools in 2005 and 2006 and sold to investors. The value of these loans was $797 billion in 2005 and $815 billion in 2006.
If notes underlying even some of these mortgages were improperly assigned or lost, that will surely complicate pending legislation intended to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms for troubled borrowers. A so-called cram-down provision in the law would let judges reduce the size of a loan, forcing whoever holds the security interest in it to take a loss.
But if the holder of the note is in doubt, how can these loans be modified?
Bookkeeping is such a bore, especially when there are billions to be made shoveling loans into trusts like coal into the Titanic’s boilers. You can imagine the thought process: Assigning notes takes time and costs money, why bother? Who’s going to ask for proof of ownership of these notes anyhow?
But as the Fernandez case and others indicate, bankruptcy judges across the country are increasingly asking these pesky questions. Two judges in California — one in state court, another in federal court — issued temporary restraining orders last month stopping foreclosures because proper documentation was not produced by lenders or their representatives. And in another California case, a borrower’s lawyer was awarded $8,800 in attorney’s fees relating to costs spent litigating against a lender that could not prove it had the right to foreclose.
California cases are especially interesting because foreclosures in that state can be conducted without the oversight of a judge. Borrowers who do not have a lawyer representing them can be turned out of their homes in four months.
Samuel L. Bufford, a federal bankruptcy judge in Los Angeles since 1985, has overseen some 100,000 bankruptcy cases. He said that in previous years, he rarely asked for documentation in a foreclosure case but that problems encountered in mortgage securitizations have made him become more demanding.
In a recent case, Judge Bufford said, he asked a lender to produce the original of the note and it turned out to be different from the copy that had been previously submitted to the court. The original had been assigned to a bank that had then transferred it to Freddie Mac, the judge explained. “They had no clue what happened after that,” he said. “Now somebody’s got to go find that note.”
“My guess is it’s because in the secondary mortgage market they have been sloppy,” Judge Bufford added. “The people who put the deals together get paid for the deals, but they don’t get paid for the paperwork.”
A small but spirited group of consumer lawyers has argued for years that the process of pooling residential mortgages into securities was so haphazard that proper documentation of the loans was never made in many cases. Leading the brigade is April Charney, a foreclosure lawyer at Jacksonville Legal Aid in Florida; she now trains consumer lawyers around the country to litigate these cases.
Depending on the documentation defect, lawyers say, investors in the trust could try to force the institution that sold the loan to the trust to buy it back. Many of these institutions would be unable to do so, however, because they are defunct. In the meantime, when judges are not persuaded that the documentation is proper, troubled borrowers can remain in their homes even if they are delinquent.
THE woes brought on by sloppy bookkeeping in securitizations will be on the agenda at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s annual spring meeting on April 3. An article titled “Where’s the Note, Who’s the Holder,” co-written by Judge Bufford and R. Glen Ayers, a former federal bankruptcy judge in Texas, will be the basis of a discussion at the meeting.
Mr. Ayers, who is a lawyer at Langley & Banack in San Antonio, said he expects that these documentation problems will halt a lot of foreclosures. That will mean pain for investors who hold the securities. The problem for those who expect to receive the benefit of the note, Mr. Ayers said, is that they “may not be able to show to the judge they have a right to foreclose.”
“It’s a huge problem,” he added. “It’s going to be expensive, I don’t know how expensive, ultimately to the bondholders.”
How to Repair Credit? Excellent Article
Watch Out The Foreclosure Scam: How?
Foreclosure Recovery Scams If any firm claims they can stop your foreclosure immediately if you sign a document appointing them to act on your behalf, you may well be signing over the title to your property and becoming a renter in your own home! Never sign a legal document without reading and understanding all the terms and getting professional advice from an attorney, a trusted real estate professional, or a housing counselor.
FORECLOSURE ALERT - Homeowners: Be Informed About Foreclosure Consulting Services
Las Vegas — The Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending and the Consumer Affairs Division are warning homeowners to be cautious when contracting with companies representing themselves as “foreclosure consultants”. While many of these providers are legitimate, many are not and may charge hundreds of dollars up front to negotiate with a lender on behalf of the homeowner, often without success.
“There are laws prohibiting fees being charged up front for foreclosure assistance,” says Mortgage Lending Commissioner Joe Waltuch. According to NRS 645F.400, foreclosure consultants cannot charge a fee before they have performed the services you’ve contracted for.
“It’s important to remember, however, that those laws only take affect when the home has officially been placed in the lender’s foreclosure cycle,” continued Commissioner Waltuch. “Depending on the services offered, the foreclosure consultant may also need to be registered with the Nevada Consumer Affairs Division under the Credit Service Organization law.”
According to NRS 598.741, companies providing “counseling or assistance to a person in establishing State of Nevada or effecting a plan for the payment of his indebtedness” must be registered with Consumer Affairs. “Before signing any contracts, check with Consumer Affairs to determine if the company is registered,” says Consumer Affairs Commissioner James Campos. “It also helps to check with the Better Business Bureau for complaints and to research the company on the Internet to see what experiences other consumers have had.”
Adds Commissioner Waltuch, “Be careful when using the Internet to find these types of companies. There are many out-of-state companies, and some lawyers, who claim they can help you. Make sure they are legitimate businesses, properly licensed to operate in Nevada.”
Consumers may also receive foreclosure assistance, including loan modification help, by working with a qualified housing counselor. Legitimate foreclosure consulting agencies are generally nonprofits that never charge an up-front fee and are usually free. Visit for a list of qualified Nevada housing counselors.
If you think you have been victimized by an unscrupulous foreclosure consultant, file a complaint with Consumer Affairs at http://www.fyiconsumer.org/Forms/ComplaintFormLV.pdf. For more information about foreclosure scams, visit the Foreclosure Help Website at http://foreclosurehelp.nv.gov/ForeclosureScams.html.
In addition, Commissioner Campos encourages consumers to visit the Fight Fraud Website at http://fightfraud.nv.gov/. “The site includes extensive tips on how to prevent fraud and provides downloadable complaint forms to help you respond effectively if you become a victim,” says Campos. “Visit it regularly for the latest fraud alerts.”
FORECLOSURE ALERT
If your property mortgage is delinquent and you are facing foreclosure, you may be contacted by a person or company willing to take the property off your hands to save your credit. While some of these companies are actually good and do help, others are not.
Do not sign anything that you do not understand or that is blank. Go through a reputable escrow company to make sure that your mortgage(s) is paid off to the satisfaction of the lender(s). If you do not do this, you may find that the person or company has title to or owns your property, yet the mortgage is still in your name. The person or company pays nothing to the mortgage(s) holder. The foreclosure happens. Your credit is ruined while the company “saving” your credit has made money from your property by renting it until the foreclosure.
If you think you’ve been a victim of this fraud, contact Nevada Consumer Affairs Division at (702) 486-7355 or (775) 688-1800.
Common Foreclosure Scams
1. Equity skimming: A "buyer" approaches you, offering to get you out of financial trouble by promising to pay off your mortgage or give you a sum of money when the property is sold. The "buyer" may suggest that you move out quickly and deed the property to him or her. The "buyer" then collects rent for a time, does not make any mortgage payments, and allows the lender to foreclose. Remember, signing over your deed to someone else does not necessarily relieve you of your obligation on your loan.
2. Phantom help: The "rescuer" charges outrageous fees for light-duty phone calls or paperwork that the homeowner could easily do, none of which results in saving the home. This predatory scam gives homeowners a false sense of hope and prevents them from seeking qualified help.
3. The bailout: In this scam, the homeowner is deceived into signing over title with the belief that he will be able to remain in the house as a renter and eventually buy it back over time. The terms of these scams are so onerous that the buy-back becomes impossible, the homeowner loses possession and the "rescuer" walks off with most or all of the equity.
4. The bait-and-switch: In this scam, the homeowners think they are signing documents to bring the mortgage current, but instead actually surrender their ownership. They usually don't even know they've been scammed until they're evicted.
5. Phony counseling agencies. Some groups calling themselves "counseling agencies" may approach you and offer to perform certain services for a fee. These could well be services you could do for yourself for free, such as negotiating a new payment plan with your lender, or pursuing a pre-foreclosure sale.
7 Ways to Avoid Foreclosure Scams
Follow these tips from the National Consumer Law Center.
1. Don't panic. Get detailed information about the deadlines you face in resolving your problems. Pay special attention to the date on which you would lose legal right to ownership.
2. Never sign a contract under pressure. Take your time, and consult a lawyer if possible.
3. Never sign away ownership via a quitclaim deed or other means without consulting a lawyer. Be especially suspicious of offers to lease back your home, in order to buy it back over time. These offers are weighted against you.
4. Never make your mortgage payments to anyone other than your lender. If you can't pay, do not ignore warning letters from your lender; contact them instead.
5. Beware of any home-sale contract in which you are not formally released from liability for your mortgage. Make sure you know the rights you are giving up and that you agree to give them up.
6. Don't sign anything with blank lines or spaces; information could be added later without your knowledge and consent.
7. If you do not speak English, never use a "rescuer's" translator. Instead, insist on using your own translator.
FORECLOSURE ALERT - Homeowners: Be Informed About Foreclosure Consulting Services
Las Vegas — The Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending and the Consumer Affairs Division are warning homeowners to be cautious when contracting with companies representing themselves as “foreclosure consultants”. While many of these providers are legitimate, many are not and may charge hundreds of dollars up front to negotiate with a lender on behalf of the homeowner, often without success.
“There are laws prohibiting fees being charged up front for foreclosure assistance,” says Mortgage Lending Commissioner Joe Waltuch. According to NRS 645F.400, foreclosure consultants cannot charge a fee before they have performed the services you’ve contracted for.
“It’s important to remember, however, that those laws only take affect when the home has officially been placed in the lender’s foreclosure cycle,” continued Commissioner Waltuch. “Depending on the services offered, the foreclosure consultant may also need to be registered with the Nevada Consumer Affairs Division under the Credit Service Organization law.”
According to NRS 598.741, companies providing “counseling or assistance to a person in establishing State of Nevada or effecting a plan for the payment of his indebtedness” must be registered with Consumer Affairs. “Before signing any contracts, check with Consumer Affairs to determine if the company is registered,” says Consumer Affairs Commissioner James Campos. “It also helps to check with the Better Business Bureau for complaints and to research the company on the Internet to see what experiences other consumers have had.”
Adds Commissioner Waltuch, “Be careful when using the Internet to find these types of companies. There are many out-of-state companies, and some lawyers, who claim they can help you. Make sure they are legitimate businesses, properly licensed to operate in Nevada.”
Consumers may also receive foreclosure assistance, including loan modification help, by working with a qualified housing counselor. Legitimate foreclosure consulting agencies are generally nonprofits that never charge an up-front fee and are usually free. Visit for a list of qualified Nevada housing counselors.
If you think you have been victimized by an unscrupulous foreclosure consultant, file a complaint with Consumer Affairs at http://www.fyiconsumer.org/Forms/ComplaintFormLV.pdf. For more information about foreclosure scams, visit the Foreclosure Help Website at http://foreclosurehelp.nv.gov/ForeclosureScams.html.
In addition, Commissioner Campos encourages consumers to visit the Fight Fraud Website at http://fightfraud.nv.gov/. “The site includes extensive tips on how to prevent fraud and provides downloadable complaint forms to help you respond effectively if you become a victim,” says Campos. “Visit it regularly for the latest fraud alerts.”
FORECLOSURE ALERT
If your property mortgage is delinquent and you are facing foreclosure, you may be contacted by a person or company willing to take the property off your hands to save your credit. While some of these companies are actually good and do help, others are not.
Do not sign anything that you do not understand or that is blank. Go through a reputable escrow company to make sure that your mortgage(s) is paid off to the satisfaction of the lender(s). If you do not do this, you may find that the person or company has title to or owns your property, yet the mortgage is still in your name. The person or company pays nothing to the mortgage(s) holder. The foreclosure happens. Your credit is ruined while the company “saving” your credit has made money from your property by renting it until the foreclosure.
If you think you’ve been a victim of this fraud, contact Nevada Consumer Affairs Division at (702) 486-7355 or (775) 688-1800.
Common Foreclosure Scams
1. Equity skimming: A "buyer" approaches you, offering to get you out of financial trouble by promising to pay off your mortgage or give you a sum of money when the property is sold. The "buyer" may suggest that you move out quickly and deed the property to him or her. The "buyer" then collects rent for a time, does not make any mortgage payments, and allows the lender to foreclose. Remember, signing over your deed to someone else does not necessarily relieve you of your obligation on your loan.
2. Phantom help: The "rescuer" charges outrageous fees for light-duty phone calls or paperwork that the homeowner could easily do, none of which results in saving the home. This predatory scam gives homeowners a false sense of hope and prevents them from seeking qualified help.
3. The bailout: In this scam, the homeowner is deceived into signing over title with the belief that he will be able to remain in the house as a renter and eventually buy it back over time. The terms of these scams are so onerous that the buy-back becomes impossible, the homeowner loses possession and the "rescuer" walks off with most or all of the equity.
4. The bait-and-switch: In this scam, the homeowners think they are signing documents to bring the mortgage current, but instead actually surrender their ownership. They usually don't even know they've been scammed until they're evicted.
5. Phony counseling agencies. Some groups calling themselves "counseling agencies" may approach you and offer to perform certain services for a fee. These could well be services you could do for yourself for free, such as negotiating a new payment plan with your lender, or pursuing a pre-foreclosure sale.
7 Ways to Avoid Foreclosure Scams
Follow these tips from the National Consumer Law Center.
1. Don't panic. Get detailed information about the deadlines you face in resolving your problems. Pay special attention to the date on which you would lose legal right to ownership.
2. Never sign a contract under pressure. Take your time, and consult a lawyer if possible.
3. Never sign away ownership via a quitclaim deed or other means without consulting a lawyer. Be especially suspicious of offers to lease back your home, in order to buy it back over time. These offers are weighted against you.
4. Never make your mortgage payments to anyone other than your lender. If you can't pay, do not ignore warning letters from your lender; contact them instead.
5. Beware of any home-sale contract in which you are not formally released from liability for your mortgage. Make sure you know the rights you are giving up and that you agree to give them up.
6. Don't sign anything with blank lines or spaces; information could be added later without your knowledge and consent.
7. If you do not speak English, never use a "rescuer's" translator. Instead, insist on using your own translator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)