Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Homes At Risk, And No Help From Lawyers U. S.

Recommended Posts


In California, where foreclosures are more abundant than in any other state, homeowners trying to win a loan modification have always had a tough time.

Now they face yet another obstacle: hiring a lawyer.

Sharon Bell, a retiree who lives in Laguna Niguel, southeast of Los Angeles, needs a modification to keep her home. She says she is scared of her bank and its plentiful resources, so much so that she cannot even open its certified letters inquiring where her mortgage payments may be. Yet the half-dozen lawyers she has called have refused to represent her.

“They said they couldn’t help,” said Ms. Bell, 63. “But I’ve got to find help, because I’m dying every day.”

Lawyers throughout California say they have no choice but to reject clients like Ms. Bell because of a new state law that sharply restricts how they can be paid. Under the measure, passed overwhelmingly by the State Legislature and backed by the state bar association, lawyers who work on loan modifications cannot receive any money until the work is complete. The bar association says that under the law, clients cannot put retainers in trust accounts.

The law, which has few parallels in other states, was devised to eliminate swindles in which modification firms made promises about what their lawyers could do, charged hefty fees and then disappeared. But foreclosure specialists say there has been an unintended consequence: the honest lawyers can no longer afford to assist Ms. Bell and all the others who feel helpless before lenders that they see as elusive, unyielding and skilled at losing paperwork.

The revelations three months ago that large banks were sloppy and negligent in preparing foreclosure documents underscore just how important it is for distressed homeowners to have representation, lawyers and consumer advocates say. Homeowners whose cases were handled improperly have little way of knowing it. Even if they found out, they would be hard-pressed to challenge a lender without a lawyer.

The wonderful law of unintended consequences.

So rather than perhaps jail those who made unrealistic promises etc... far better to screw everyone.

Was the law really passed to ensure that the stealing of property by the banks is easier?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Well well well....

Six of the biggest banks in the nation have been told by New Jersey's Supreme Court Chief Justice that unless they can prove otherwise, they will have to stop tens of thousands of foreclosures in the Garden State.

But but but.... the banks have sputtered - this is just a "small paperwork problem."

Uh huh.

The NJ Supreme Court is not convinced.

Neither am I, incidentally.

If this is just a "minor paperwork snafu" then can someone explain why we continue to be unable to find properly-endorsed notes that allegedly are in these MBS "trusts"?

This is in fact the key issue behind all of this mess.

As I've reported repeatedly there is lots of evidence that essentially none of the "private-label" securities were actually properly conveyed. ASF has repeated asserted (without evidence) that the procedures followed "were good enough", but when one looks at the facts you can't seem to find actual, black-letter compliance with the PSAs - that is, the documents that control whether or not the trusts were properly constituted.

It is my contention that all of this mess with "robosigning" and such tie back to the origination of these loans. We now know that institutions like Citibank were making loans they knew were no good - because former executives have testified to this fact under oath. We also know that The Fed and OCC did nothing about this, yet they had to know as well, since this information was sent up to the board of directors (again, testified to under oath, and this time with documentary evidence.)

Absolutely nobody has done anything to hold these lenders to account for having eighty percent of their paper being trash during these years.

Yet this is the key to the entire mess.

Judges, on the other hand, are waking up. They're waking up to the fact that perjury appears to have become a business model when it comes to foreclosures. They likely don't care why, but they should (and increasingly are) caring about the destruction of trust and integrity in the US Court System, apparent suborning of perjury, and the abject mockery of due process that these "proceedings" make - almost as if the courts no longer exist as a means of settling disputes but rather a means of covering up the sins of commission that were rampant from 2005 through 2008.

Eventually this must come back to the source - the reason for the perjury. If required to show up with all paperwork in order back to the inception of the loan we will quickly find out whether there's anything to the belief that these loans were never conveyed.

Today, MERS and other means are used to prevent anyone from determining whether process was properly followed and the notes were transferred and are properly owned. Again, if there is no "there" there why the intended obfuscation?

Kudos to NJ and may all other states follow.

Then we have this post by Denniger today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.