Archive for Scottsdale Foreclosure Lawyer
Trying to Leverage Loan Modifications against the Assignee of the loan (who will undoubtedly argue they are not liable for any predatory lending violations committed by the loan originator) as they are a “Holder in Due Course.”
By Steve Vondran, Esq. who is practicing Real Estate, Bankruptcy, and Foreclosure Defense in Arizona and California where he is licensed to practice law. He also holds a real estate broker’s license in both states as well. Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Vondran also was a mortgage loan officer which has given him insight into the current financial crises. He can be reached at steve@vondranlaw.com or (877) 276-5084. The following is general legal information only, and is not to be construed as legal advice, or a substitute for legal advice. The following information may not be updated or accurate, and is simply provided as general information and things to think about if you are facing foreclosure in California or Arizona. For specific questions, please contact a foreclosure defense attorney on your area. Please do not post confidential information on my blogs and do not send us confidential information in emails as we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of such. No attorney-client relationship is formed until a retainer agreement is signed.
One of the key things we must figure out as foreclosure defense lawyers is whether or not your loan was “sold-off on the secondary market” and/or “securitized” and sold to investors on wall street (ex. hedge funds, pension funds, foreign investors, insurance companies, etc.).
Common Scenario: Your sub-prime ARM was originated by Countrywide. Countrywide then sells the loan to Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo works either holds the note, and/or sells it off to an investment banker to securitize the loan. Countrywide, as loan originator, knowing it was going to sell off your loan, may not have cared much about any predatory lending issues such as:
(1) Ability to afford the payment after the loan adjusts (ex. option ARM loans / pick-a-pay); See our website discussing Option ARMS / Pick-a-Pay Loans atwww.OptionArmLawyer.com
(2) Inflated appraisals that helped get the loan funded;
The following is general legal information only and is not to be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. These are a few things to look at when investigating whether or not you have a defense to foreclosure.
Steve Vondran, Esq. is an attorney practicing Real Estate, Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Defense in Phoenix, Arizona and California. He can be reached at (877) 276-5084 or emailed at Steve@VondranLaw.com
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FORECLOSURE IN PHOENIX, SCOTTSDALE, AND SURROUNDING AREAS IN ARIZONA.
(1) Tort of Wrongful Foreclosure: For example, one way to try to seek an injunction to stop a foreclosure sale would be to argue that you received a loan modification or loan workout, and performed the agreement and thus, cured the breach. See the case of Herring v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2007 WL 2051394 (D. Ariz. 2007). This is a foreclosure defense grounds that definitely needs to be explored with the explosion of loan modifications in Phoenix, Arizona and elsewhere. Under the Obama Making Home Affordable program (HAMP), and under some FHA HAMP modification programs, the lenders and loan servicers are giving out “three month trial plan” offers.
These agreements typically state that the borrower does, or may, qualify for a loan modification. The borrower, induced into believing they qualify for a loan modification, typically makes the three payments, and may also submit financial documentation to be reviewed. In at least some of these trial plan modification agreements we have reviewed, the lender promises that if the three trial plan payments are made on time, and if the borrower’s financial condition (and some other “material representations” made by the borrower) do not change by the time the third payment is made, then the lender, in some of these agreements, agrees to provide the final and permanent loan modification which is supposed to be in line with the the trial plan payment was. What we are seeing is lenders and loan servicers not honoring what appears to be a valid agreement, and instead either denying the modification, and in some cases, selling the house from underneath the borrower. If you feel duped by a trial plan offer that was not honored, check out our website at www.TrialPlanFraud.com
The court may reach the conclusion that the lender / beneficiary is not exercising the power of sale in good faith in violation of its statutory duty.
(2) Failure to Comply with Arizona Foreclosure Statutes:
