Archive for california foreclosure lawyer
Strategic Defaults or “Buy and Bail”? What do you call it when you walk away from your home after the lender refuses to do anything meaningful as far as loss mitigation?
There is a new wave of happenings in the loss mitigation marketplace. When a loan servicer or lender fails to modify a loan (especially loans that are upside down and in need of principal reduction) some buyers are deciding to blow off the lender and just walk away from the property.
Well of course the lenders are up in arms about this financial preservation strategy (as I learned in contract law many years ago, this is the concept of “efficient breach” wherein sometimes it is simply in ones best interest to breach a contract). Of course the rules change when the efficient breach is perpetrated on the mighty banks. To them this is “mortgage fraud” or “buy and bail” or “unethical” or “immoral.”
What banks fail to realize is that if they would provide MEANINGFUL MODIFICATIONS WITH ALL THE TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUT MONEY THEY RECEIVED PERHAPS PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE BAILING OUT ON THE LENDERS.
IF THE LENDERS (AND THEIR INVESTORS WHO INVESTED IN THE SECURITIZED LOANS) DO NOT WANT TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL LOAN MODIFICATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO WHAT’S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, SHOULD THEY REALLY BE SURPRISED THAT BORROWERS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS BY PURSUING WHAT SOME WOULD CALL A “STRATEGIC DEFAULT” STRATEGY.
Now, before you exercise these types of strategies, it would be wise to consult with a foreclosure defense lawyer to discuss your options, review your situation, and to analyze whether or not there is any liability in this regard. Whether or not something is immoral or unethical is a different question than whether or not something is illegal and can result in civil liability. Have your case reviewed.
IN THIS MARKETPLACE IT SEEMS THE TIDE IS SHIFTING TO AN EVERY MAN AND EVERY COMPANY FOR THEMSELVES APPROACH REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT THAT MAY RESULT TO LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN DEFUAULT. WHO IS TO BLAME IS A QUESTION OF WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG.
WHAT LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT LENDERS AND LOAN SERVICERS REALLY THINK ABOUT YOUR ATTEMPT TO FIGHT TO SAVE YOUR HOME FROM FORECLOSURE
Here is a recent email exchange I had with one of the large lender/loan servicers in regard to asserting my Client’s Truth in Lending rescission rights.
This email allows you to get a little flavor of what the big bad bailed out banks think about helping other people who need a bailout.
HERE WAS HIS EMAIL QUESTION TO ME:
It is a mystery to me why lawyers get involved with clients simply to delay the inevitable. The only reason I’ve been able to fathom is that the lawyer gets paid instead of the bank, while the borrower continues to live in the house. Doesn’t seem like a good way to keep one’s malpractice insurance premiums down.
I’m not suggesting that is what you’re doing here. However, XXXXXXX must protect itself and the loan owner from such pointless shenanigans.
I’m not aware of a new date for the foreclosure sale, but this doesn’t mean that one hasn’t been set……
NOTICE HOW HE SEEMS INTENT ON LECTURING ME ABOUT MY MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS INEVITABLE. IN HIS WORLD, THERE IS NO TAKING ON THE BANKS, NO QUESTIONING THE BANKS, NO DEFIANCE THAT WILL BE TOLERATED BY THE BANKS, THEY GOT THEIR MODIFICATION BUT HOW DARE YOU TRY TO ASSERT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE VALID TRUTH IN LENDING RESCISION RIGHTS WERE PRESENTED AS PROOF TO THIS GUY. HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO THE GENTLEMAN.
XXXXXXXX,
I can appreciate your position here are a few mysteries I am looking for answers to:
(1) Why when banks get bailed out big time, do they act like no homeowner deserves a decent bailout?
(2) Why in all of my cases where I find a bona fide Truth in Lending (”TILA”) violation, does the lender always either (a) deny that the violation exists in the face of attached documentary evidence, or (b) refuse to even respond to a TILA rescission letter?
