Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies

"I Disclose... Nothing"

2012-01-23T10:00:00.000-05:00

There was an Opinion piece in the New York Times Sunday, Jan. 22,2012 by Elisabeth Rosenthal regarding the matter of Disclosures. Her position is that there isn't any, especially in the Consumer area. The link to the article is shown at the end of this posting. It's worth reading, every word of it!

NOW MY POSTING:

FOR DISCLOSURE PURPOSES ONLY!!!!!!

I am a lawyer. Please do not pillage me for thinking, many years ago, that lawyers HELPED people, and had a high degree of integrity. Even worse, at one foolish time I actually considered getting into politics, again thinking that our elected officials actually care about their constituents.

I come face to face every day, handling foreclosure prevention work, with federally mandated and corporate sought after disclosures like the "[NO] Truth In Lending" disclosure required at all real estate transactions. Unlike many of my brethren and sisteren I actually understand the documents. Having spent 18 years in Banking, at times working for regulatory bodies, and being an attorney, I learned the hidden meanings of the documents. Dan Brown would just be disappointed as would the Incas.

Instead of calling the volumes of paper presented to borrowers of any type disclosures, how about some honesty - call them DISCLAIMERS "NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TO YOU, WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. IF YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ANY LAWS WE WILL BRING THE FURIES OF HELL UPON YOU".

Unfortunately the last statement is only a mild exaggeration. The law firms representing the lenders and other large corporations can inundate a consumer or her/his lawyer with paper and deadlines.- EXPERIENCE.

No matter what a disclosure states, if there is no regulatory oversight in a meaningful way to protect consumers, the disclosures are worthless. The Tea Party et al who want less government better have an army of lawyers ready.

Most recently a Bankruptcy case involving a foreclosure was decided when the judge rules that all of the required disclosures were given to the borrower - the fact that the lender didn't follow federal guidelines was excused - guideline don't count. DISCLOSURES=OBFUSCATION.

Just remember "Less is More" in many cases

Richard I Isacoff, Esq.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, January 2012

rii@isacofflaw.com
www.isacofflaw.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/sunday-review/hard-truths-about-disclosure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion by Elisabeth Rosenthal

Bankruptcy: After Christmas?

2011-11-29T10:00:00.003-05:00

It's the time of the year where many people start buying gifts for others for the holidays. That, of course, is in addition to buying food, heat, electricity, telephone(s), gasoline, auto insurance, cigarettes (bad for health - bad for pocketbook), cable, clothes (don't forget shoes, socks, and underwear), and paying rent or mortgage and the car payment. Oh, and remember to buy the medications the Doctor prescribed.

Quite a list! How To Pay For It? Many people use CREDIT CARDS. Then comes February 1st and the bills flood the mailbox overwhelming the Letter Carrier's ability to carry all of the Visa, Mastercard, Discover, JC Penny, Sears, BestBuy, Fingerhut, QVC, Amex, Capital One, Orchard Bank, Bank of America et al BILLS.

When asked how they expect to pay, many will say "Well, I HAD to get those presents. I mean, it was Christmas (or Chanukah or whatever other holiday "requires" gift giving)". Says the lawyer at the first consultation about debt relief, "Okay, but how did you expect to pay the bills?" - the classic answer "I didn't think about that. I figured I be able to pay a little on each card, I guess." This response is typical from clients with sufficient income to pay the bill with minimum payments over the next 20 years, and from those who HAVE TO GO WITHOUT FOOD AND HEAT TO MAKE ONE PAYMENT!!

There are several problems here, actually many more than several. The biggest, in a sense, is that with debt that has accumulated over the past 3, 5, or 10 years there is no way ANY PAYMENTS are affordable. Then comes "Can I file bankruptcy?" The real question is "Can I file bankruptcy and still get rid of my bills (a discharge) even though I was foolish...?" There is no easy answer.

In order to eliminate/discharge debt, the Bankruptcy has to be filed in good faith. You cannot intentionally incur debt that you know you cannot pay. At a minimum, that debt cannot be discharged (made to go away). But wait...There's more! When the gifts were being bought and the plastic nearly melting from over-use, did the purchaser intend to repay the credit card company? The easy answer is "Yes, I always pay my bills!" But, is that the honest answer.

Many people just do not think about or know how to think about budgeting. People of all ages get caught up in the "I have to buy a gift for..." mode. So, what can be done for the honest but horrid money manager/giver?

Rule 1. Know how much you take home every month and how much must be spent on essentials, like the list above

Rule 2. If there is any extra, before deducting current credit card payments, be certain that it is truly disposable income immediately. Do not count the money you will save when you stop smoking.

Rule 3. Add up all of your credit card and other unsecured debt (debt not attached to collateral, like a car loan)

Rule 4. Multiply the amount of debt by 3% or 0.03

Rule 5. If the result after following Rule 4 is more than your "extra" (your disposable income) you should not incur more debt.

Rule 6. To figure how much unsecured debt you can support reasonably, DIVIDE your extra/disposable income by .03. So, if you have $200/month truly extra, the Most unsecured debt you can have is $6,000. And, remember that "extra" is what's left after paying all of the expenses listed in the beginning of this posting and any other NECESSARY expenses you have.

Even at the level shown, paying will be a bit of a struggle - things happen that cost money and are unexpected. Missing one month of the payment on any unsecured debt will make everything fall apart and you might never catch up.

If you have done those calculations, and after being careful you find that 6 months (I just picked a number) into the new year that you cannot pay because "Life comes at you fast!", then yes, you can file a bankruptcy with a clear conscience and peace of mind.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Pay Bills or Eat?

2011-11-14T10:00:00.006-05:00

There is a perception among those of us who are of retirement age, or past it, that we have to pay every bill we have even if it means going without prescribed medications or proper food. To say that this is a wrong or bad idea is not appropriate. Those of us who try our best to honor our commitments should be commended, not condemned.

HOWEVER, the LAW , that’s the Federal law, specifically Title 11 of the United States Code, provides for DEBT RELIEF. So, why don’t more people take advantage of this legal RIGHT? There are many reasons but most are rooted in a belief system that not paying obligations is immoral, unethical, something only shysters or "those kind of people" would do. Many of these same people, those of us who feel there is no way but to pay, have had no qualms, no hesitations, about utilizing many different sections of Title 26 of the US Code which provides TAX RELIEF.

We all take deductions when we file taxes, rather than paying the maximum tax that we could pay based on income. We use the standard deduction or we itemize - and we itemize everything possible: real estate taxes, mortgage interest, medical expenses including part of the cost of medical insurance, tax return preparation fees, costs of caring for a dependent - and on & on. Somewhere there is a disconnect in the two position/attitudes.

The Debt Relief is Bankruptcy Protection - Protection from Creditors. IT IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE. Unless you have committed fraud, or some other unsavory act you are cannot be denied the Right to Obtain a Fresh Start. That is what the law discusses: a "FRESH START". And that refers to a FRESH START from DEBT.

There is no shame in admitting that the $10,000 of credit card debt that has been being paid for years, never denting the balance owed, is too much to repay. Keep in mind, that while it’s counter-intuitive, the credit card companies will not make deals to accept less than 100% of what’s owed. The fact that gas is now $4.00/gallon, and that fresh fruit and vegetables are more expensive than the best steaks, and that medical costs go up almost daily it seems....

The shame of the current economic environment is that some of the lifelines that many people have relied upon have been eliminated or cut-back. Programs like food stamps, fuel assistance, community health care programs, and subsidized housing are all under-funded because of the recession here and the on-going financial crisis world-wide.

I can only suggest that if you are having your own personal economic meltdown you seek advice from a competent Bankruptcy attorney. Any attorney worth her/her "salt" (or pepper) will give you enough information that you will know what options are available to you. If you cannot find someone in your area, feel free to call my office or send me an e-mail and I can get you connected to the proper referral folks.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Mortgage Mods - Where Did The Money Go?

2011-10-31T11:00:00.004-04:00

My mortgage modification clients often ask about the class actions or Attorney Generals actions against mortgage companies, lenders, and servicers, when the newspapers/Internet proclaims "XYZ Bank settles with Massachusetts for $XXX Million". The biggest single question is "Where did the money go?" Unfortunately, the answer I give is "I don't know except that there was no fund set up for modifications". Then I get the BLANK STARES from my clients.

"How can that be?" they query, to which I reply, "I do not know - probably to offset the cost of the suit and to establish a new unit to investigate mortgage fraud AND to help balance the budget." To this date I have never received notification that the Commonwealth of MA is setting up a fund to help borrowers avoid foreclosures, or even to set up an agency to help homeowners apply for a loan modification.

At this juncture, homeowners are being cast adrift. The 50 States +/- CA & MA (depends on the day) have been arguing with the biggest lenders/servicers over a settlement for all of these institutions evil-doings; and they were indeed evil! The proposals are at $26Billion or $26,000,000,000 but no one is offering to pay. Instead the Banks et al want to promise they won't do it again and that they will make it easier for homeowners to get a modification. Making it more difficult would be to say "NO, WE WON'T DO MODS ANYMORE". No money will go to individual homeowners. No funds will be set up to help a borrower get caught up. As the title of the movie proclaimed "GONE IN 60 SECONDS" (so where is Nicholas Cage when we need him?).

Even if there is money made available, the selection/application process will be as difficult as getting the modification as evidenced by the recent Federal "EHLP" (Emergency Home Loan Program) program that only gave out 1/2 of the $1Billion allocated for it.

In fairness, because of the structure of the mortgages, now part of giant pools of loans called "Mortgage-Backed Securities" or "MBS" for short, no Bank owns the loan(s). They are collateral for a Bond, typically a fixed income security, pieces of which are bought and sold as part of mutual funds, retirement funds, and corporate investments. It's like GE borrowing money by issuing a bond - this means that GE is stating to the world that if it receives up to $XXXMillion from investors, GE will pay them interest at "X"% for "Y" years, and GE puts up its assets as collateral. With MBS, the underlying assets of the fund, home mortgages, are the collateral.

The refrain often heard when one is trying to get a modification is "The Investors do not allow modifications" or "This requested modification is outside investor guidelines". When the investor is the Federal Nation Mortgage Association (FannieMae) or the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (FreddieMac) or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) the formula used to determine "Yes" or "No" is at least obtainable. And, because these are either Government Agencies or quasi-government agencies, they do participate in the HAMP program. But, you deal not with Fannie or Freddie or the FHA but with the loan SERVICER. This is the company picked to run the pool of loans - to collect payments and send out bills, and to start foreclosures and to actually WORK ON MODIFICATIONS.

There is no rhyme or reason to the process. Each servicer has slightly different requirements, all allowed by the Making Home Affordable program which created HAMP. Paperwork must be submitted and often resubmitted again and again. This is the period that most borrowers give up or taking time from work to put documents together again and again, in the hope of getting an affordable payment now that there is no more overtime or even one less job for the borrower(s) to count-on for the money to meet the payments.

I often sit at my desk working on one project, while on hold different times with a servicer for an hour or sometimes two. I can keep working on my computer and have at least one other phone in use while I work with a servicer. So far, my results are good but my client has no money to pay for all of that time, even when I only count the time I am actually doing calculations and filling out forms or talking to a servicer's representative. Because, in addition, there are the hours spent with the client who has no money to pay for the time and the results.

The most frustrating part of this process is when I ask my client, "Okay, you are now 4 months behind because the payment went up. How much have you saved? Certainly if the payment was $700 per month and now it's $850, you have the $700 put aside for each of the four months the Bank returned your money!", and the client answers "Nothing - I paid other bills". At which point I ask "Well, how are you going to pay if you get a modification if you can't even save the money you had been paying?". Occasionally the client will say "I don't know". Most often I hear "Well, when I have the modification, I will be able to make the payments somehow". With trepidation I ask "How, if you can't make the payments now?".

This conversation takes place in my office or on my telephone at least twice every week and sometimes twice a day.

RULES FOR GETTING A MODIFICATION:

1. Call the Servicer and ask for modification or HAMP documents or go on their website and print them

2. Put all required documents together - fill them out completely and DATE THEM ALL and send them to the address stated on the website or the forms. Often they MUST be faxed.

3. Remember, if you are working with an attorney or any other third-party, that person/entity is going to have to have written permission from you to deal with the servicer/lender

4. Documents expire in 60 days. That means if you send in only some of the documents required, and then send in more, and then send in more because the servicer wants them, the first docs you submitted may be "stale dated" - just like bread - and need to be updated and resubmitted. This is where the process breaks down for most Homeowners.

5. Put aside the mortgage payment you were making or that you hope to be making. If you cannot save the money, you cannot save your home. Put simply, If a borrower is not disciplined enough to save the money to pay the mortgage, then there is no ability to pay the modified payment - so what is the point of going through all of the aggravation. Sometimes Life Is Not Fair.

6. If you get a package sent to you from the lender/servicer open it immediately. If documents are due on Wednesday of next week Make sure they get there by then. A day late and you are disqualified. Fair? Probably not but read the last sentence of Item 5 above.

The people with whom you will speak are not bad people. They are doing a job, trying to avoid losing their house and are jsut asking the questions they must to avoid being fired. Don't rant at them - that assures NO COOPERATION. Remember that the folks at the top of the MBS pyramid are the folks "calling the shots" and they can't lose.

Author's Copyright by Richard I Isacoff, Esq October 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com

No Money To File Bankruptcy!

2011-10-03T10:00:00.005-04:00

Bankruptcy is rising but filings are falling! Why? Simple answer: People do not have money to file for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. That may sound/read like an "Of course they cannot afford bankruptcy, they don't have any money!" Unfortunately, this is a new phenomenon.

Until recently, people would call regularly to ask for a free consultation to discuss financial problems which could result in a Bankruptcy case. Generally, we are able to work out payment arrangements with almost anyone. ALMOST is the operative word. If the person has no money and no job, and no way to pay us, even on a $25 per week basis, there is little that we can do as an office.

Understand that every lawyer does a certain amount of INTENTIONAL pro-bono work, and I do not know of an attorney who would turn away a truly troubled indigent person who just lost the house, car, wife/husband etc. That stated, none of us in Private Practice can do everything for nothing - work for free all of the time!
Because of the downturn and especially the lack of employment people aren't even calling because they feel that they cannot afford the cost of getting "peace of mind". My view of the problem is slightly different. We have accepted payments every week for a year from clients, all the while giving them as much protection as we could from creditors. Most lawyers will do that for people really in need.

Some ground rules apply:

1. Don't come in with your partner and state that you cannot afford our fees because you can't cut back on smoking 2 packs a day each. At $9/pk, that's $36/day or more than $1,000 per month.

2. While I encourage people to come in, I do not expect them to ask me to help them with a bankruptcy THEY are going to file.

3. Some folks will have to file Bankruptcy but do not want to give up they "toys" - the snowmobile, PWC, 4-wheeler, or cut back on the $200 per month cable or satellite bill because of all of the special sports channels and events, or drop the $200/mo cell service and on and on...

Filing for Bankruptcy is to give someone(s) in debt a "FRESH START". It is written that way in the Code and is discussed in cases and in Court. No one expects someone looking for that second chance to sell their soul, but to cut back on smoking, or drop a few cable channels, or give up the "bike" would seem a fair trade. The reality is that in a bankruptcy, where no unsecured creditor is getting paid back anything, you are not allowed to keep the snowmobile and the bike and the...

If you have a house, we can help you find the funds to pay your mortgage by eliminating unsecured debt. You can keep almost all of your personal property, except for things like the PWC for which you are paying $300/month for the next 36 months etc. But clothing, regular furniture, tools, in most cases automobiles (not 4 or 5), RETIREMENT plans including IRAs, and if you are renting or have no equity in your house a reasonable amount of cash/money in the bank. Depending on the situation, maybe even $10,000.

If you have the $10,000 but your debt is $70,000 you cannot pay everyone back if you have $35,000 in income and a child. But, you can either pay a small portion back, and you can pay the legal fees to file the Bankruptcy. It could be a Chapter 7 (no payback) or a Chapter 13 (payback of what you have left as disposable income each month). Or, if you wish, you can give the Trustee the $10,000, less attorneys fees, and have the Trustee distribute what is left to creditors on a pro-rata basis. It is not required, but if you feel that you should pay back what you can afford, the Trustee will certainly oblige. Just be aware that it isn't necessary in most cases.

ADVICE: If you are in debt to a point where you know you cannot make any meaningful payments, call a Bankruptcy attorney. Payment plans can be worked-out, and the initial consultation to find out about YOUR RIGHTS is always "NO COST" here.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., October, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Bankruptcy; Not a Four-Letter Word

2011-09-13T10:00:00.002-04:00

Bankruptcy has had a bad reputation over the decades for some good and some bad reasons. The good reasons for a bad reputation all boil down to the issue of fraud: people who have assets and are hiding them from creditors, or people who went into business and ran up debt they could not afford, or consumers who bought "stuff" with credit (cards) with no ability to repay. In the later case, it's rather hard to repossess a vacation cruise, and in the former, if the money from profits is spent, it's gone for good. Unless intent to commit fraud can be shown, normally a Bankruptcy will wipe out debt.

Let's take a step back and discuss what a Bankruptcy does. Quite simply when a bankruptcy is filed, it protects the debtors from creditors. The are two main types of PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY - Chapter 7, where you eliminate debt without any repayment but surrender personal property and real estate that is not protected by law for the benefit of the creditors. A Chapter 13, requires that you have money left over every month AFTER paying REGULAR LIVING EXPENSES, and from the money remaining each month pay creditors on a pro rata basis.

The primary reasons for filing a bankruptcy are not voluntary at all: 1. Medical bills and illnesses 2. Loss of a job or substantial reduction in hours 3. A birth or death in the family 4. A two income household becoming a one income family 5. Bad money management. A DISTANT 6 is fraud - maybe 5%, although some experts will claim 10%.

For whatever reason, people have a negative opinion of bankruptcy - yet people would be surprised to find out about friends and neighbors have filed for protection.

Going to a different reason to have a more moderate opinion of bankruptcy filings is that THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, AND THE QUR'AN all encourage a forgiveness of debt to those truly troubled by debt. That is for the CREDITOR to FORGIVE the DEBTOR.

It makes no sense for a retired person on a fixed income to have to make a decision between food or medicine; or for a family to have to deny a child the presence of a parent so that parent can work 3 jobs to just pay basic bills. Please do not misunderstand: it is not suggested that filing a bankruptcy is the first course of action to think about, but it should not be the last, after losing everything.

Simple tips, some repeated some not:

1. Don't solicit credit cards or get as many as you can. Determine how much credit you need and only borrower that much.

2. If you find yourself using credit for living expenses, seek a credit counseling service such as Consumer Credit Counseling or Money Management International - just be certain that it is a true not for profit agency, not a scam. If you have to pay a big up front fee - stay away.

3. If you have a bank where you are known and are comfortable at a branch, ask if the bank has someone to help you budget your money.

4. As soon as you find yourself ready to get a second card/loan to make payments on the first, consult an attorney who handles bankruptcy as she/he will also deal with basic debt counseling.

5. Don' let pride get in the way of keeping your peace of mind or all you have left is a piece of mind.

For more in-depth information visit my website http://www.isacofflaw.com or other resources like the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, or the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, September,2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

It's The Economy - Your Economy

2011-09-05T11:00:00.006-04:00

Now that the economy is no longer an issue, we have to turn to a new topic- "The Economy", but a different sense of the economy - YOUR economic condition. This may mirror the government's or, perhaps, you may actually understand the state of your finances, as you read this.

Are/If you are in a position where "deficit spending" is necessary for you to pay your bills (not unlike the issue of the Federal debt-ceiling - we had to get Congress to let us borrow more so we could pay the interest on the bill we already have incurred) which is like getting a new credit card with an extra few thousand dollars of credit available so you can pay the interest due on the other cards, and buy food, or pay the mortgage, or put gas in the car or... well you get the idea, you need to reconsider your position immediately.

Unlike the United States of America, you cannot keep getting more debt without near term (tomorrow or the day after) consequences. Consequences like bill collectors calling; Court appearances being required; car payments missed; a mortgage payment missed or paid more than a month late; a foreclosure; or just ANXIETY and WORRY about what you are going to do when the credit limit is exhausted.

Here is a short check-list to review:

1. Is the reason for the excessive debt, spending, reduced income, or both?

2. If it's reduced income, is the situation temporary with an end in sight or long-term?

3. If the debt is due to spending but not because of a loss of income, what caused the spending? Necessities, like food and shelter, or costs that could have been deferred, like extra clothes, a "new" car, a vacation? If the run-up of credit card or other debt is because of buying or spending for necessities, you cannot fix the problem alone. If the debt is for any other reason than necessary living expenses, then STOP SPENDING NOW.

4. In either case, figure how much you owe to each creditor. Then determine how much is due each month; for credit cards use the minimum payment PLUS 10% of that payment; for long term debt like a mortgage or car loan, use the actual payments due each month. When dealing with medical bills, remember that most often a call to the doctor or hospital with a discussion about a monthly payment plan will bring results that you may be able to afford - and may be with no interest.

5. Compare the monthly payments to creditors, ALL OF THEM, to your take home income. Remember that if you get paid weekly, you should multiply your take home pay times 52 weeks and then divide the result by 12. If your pay is every other week multiply your take home by 26 and then divide the result by 12. That way you have accounted for the 4 "extra" weeks each year.

6. Make the same comparison of monthly payments to creditors to your GROSS INCOME -No Deductions for taxes, insurance etc taken.

7. If you divide your payments to creditors by the amount of your income (net income first, then gross income) you will see quickly whether you can afford the payments (based on general averages). For example: Gross income = $4000 per month - monthly payments to creditors (called debt service) = $ 2,000 per month (that is a Debt to Income, called "DTI", Ratio of 50%), you are probably running out of groceries or gasoline or RUNNING UP CREDIT CARD BALANCES, because there is not enough money to go around. The ratio should be no more than 40%! Even that is a stretch against GROSS INCOME

8. Once you reach that point, unless you take immediate action, like earning more money, cutting back living expenses and LOWERING THE MONTH DEBT SERVICE, you will end up losing a car, losing a house, AND LOSING YOUR PEACE OF MIND.

9. If the Debt Service cannot be lowered, if you cannot cut back on payments to creditors without a foreclosure or a repossession, and if your income is maxed-out, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY ABOUT BANKRUPTCY.

REMEMBER "BANKRUPTCY" IS NOT A FOUR-LETTER WORD BUT "DEBT" IS!!

Look for the next post which will explain about the "okayness" of filing for Protection From Creditors by a Bankruptcy Filing. (Coming to a theater near you (actually just this blog) on 9/9/11)

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, September, 2011
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

"Danger Will Rogers...Danger" *

2011-08-08T14:00:00.000-04:00

Steven Pearlstein, a columnist for the Washington Post wrote about the "Global Economy Comes To The End Of Its String" and went on to explain, quite "readably" why it's happening. The column, in the 8/6/11 online edition, discusses the fact that we are cycling back to 2008 levels (maybe), because we never fixed the underlying problems with ours and the global economies. The only issue I would have with the characterization is that we are finding it increasingly difficult to separate our economy from the global economy.

As was written in the prior post here, the U.S. has been spending more than it's been making. We have relied on foreign countries, like China, to continue to buy our Treasury Bonds, which is just lending us money. That's what the whole "Debt-Ceiling" debate was all about. It took Congress 3 months to decide if we would be allowed by law to borrow more so we could keep operating our Country without a DEEP cutback in services, like Defense, Medicaid, Parks, EPA protections, Federal Aviation Admin., and on & on & on.

Brian Wolfman posted a short piece of the article on the Consumer Law & Policy Blog and asks at the end "So, what's the chance that will happen given what we've just seen in Congress?" Here is my response:

"You ask, somewhat rhetorically, about the chances for Congress to adopt policies like those Mr. Pearlstein outlined and accept his analysis of the "how we got here". If you know how to bring back from the un-living (on earth anyway) Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, Dwight Eisenhower, Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford, we might have a chance. As partisan as some of those folks were, they put the Country first when the chips were down (don't really know what that expression means but...).

The current Congress is so ideologically focused and unyielding in their world view, that they belong back to a time when the "world was flat". Common sense tells them that if you go to a beach and look out to the horizon, you can see that the world is flat. That was the prevailing common sense. Oh, and, of course, from Wasilla, AK you can see Russia (I tried with military issue binoculars, from the highest point in Wasilla, in March of 2010, on a clear day, and could NOT see the "Hammer and Sickle").

We are truly at a turning point for the Country and the world. The EU (European Union) is as divided as our Congress, so they will be no help. At least here, the big issue for BOTH Congressmen and Senators is GETTING RE-ELECTED in the same country. The pandering to lobbyists and ideologues must stop. The hard core Tea Partyists are at least true to their beliefs, but remember the flat world.

The future looks grim. Voters cast out the evil-doers in the mid-terms. The world economic crisis was only in part our fault. We allowed the most selfish politicians and "bankers" to run us into the ground. No regulation, no brakes, no-mind to the constitutional interpretations of the past, and a skilled manipulation of the concepts of a "free-market economy" ruled for 8 years. But, this coincided with Europe deciding to try getting along. No one hired a Cat Herder.

Maybe if we remember Peter Pan's plea that we all believe in Tinker Bell (metaphorically only) our economic system will survive. If it doesn't and we don't begin to rebound quickly, we are facing a future that we have fought 2 world wars, our own revolution, a civil war, and the "baby-boomer wars" for nothing.

*from the CBS Show -"Lost in Space" - fitting!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., August, 2011
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

We Have Been Sent To The Minors

2011-08-08T08:00:00.003-04:00

I work in the private practice of law dealing daily with the economic realities of average people who have average problems and with those who have extraordinary financial problems. Having had the responsibility for the investment of as much as $145M, I continue to pay attention to the financial markets on a daily basis. This posting is to try to explain what has happened in the lowering of the credit rating of the Country's "sovereign" debt (meaning money the Country itself has borrowed - think Treasury Bonds) from AAA to AA+. Just like in baseball, we have been sent down to the minors.

By now, the entire world, knows that the United States has lost some of its credit-worthiness. Standard and Poors, known better by "S&P", in its role as a debt rating agency (a company that determines what debt is safe for investment and what is risky and how risky). The fact that the other two major raters have not taken any action "against" the U.S.'s risk seems to be of no importance.

In the world of investments PERCEPTION IS REALITY. That's true in many areas of life but especially in this one

The downgrade was apparently caused not by economic factors but rather the dithering of the Congress in deciding to do anything about the debt-ceiling and deficit reduction. With the complete polarization of the 2 ½ parties currently "in charge", little was done to address the systemic problem of our growing debt and its root causes.

It's easy to state that the Obama administration did or didn't do this or that, or that Bush allowed deregulation to go too far (think SEC and securitization). But, in reality should that have affected the credit worthiness "rating" of the sovereign debt of the U.S.? Probably NOT.

The Congress, through a myriad of laws and regulations wanted/tried to rein-in the Rating Agencies and hold them accountable for the financial meltdown. Remember it was these same agencies that rated Mortgage Backed Securities as AAA paper. That they were/are paid by the "investment banks" who did the securities to sell bonds to make $$billions has escaped the review of the markets now in panic over our AA+ rating. Rather than this being an assault on the problem with our deficits and trade imbalance, it seems more like S&P trying to exert enough pressure to get Congress here, and Parliaments in the EU to back off assigning liability to Credit Rating Agencies.

S&P was the only agency to downgrade. S&P was the agency most involved in giving the "seal of approval" to the MBS and CMBS bonds. S&P stands to be the biggest target if liability is established for the incorrect/negligent/disregard for underwriting standards rating of those bonds. It's worth repeating that the securities firms securitizing the loans and selling them for huge profits paid the rating agencies large fees to rate the bonds.

Michael Shemi wrote an excellent column in the August 4, 2011 edition of American Banker's blog "BANK THINK" ( http://tinyurl.com/3s4tn7n ) where he discusses the moves to lessen the restraints and assignment of liability to and on the credit rating agencies. As he put it "Lastly, the continuing crises surrounding sovereign debts and national deficits from Greece to Portugal to the United States are affording rating agencies another opportunity to boost their own importance. By threatening the imminent downgrade of the ratings for these countries, the rating agencies keep their names in the news and constantly rattle the chains of issuers, regulators, and investors."

Of note is the matter of the probable divestiture of S&P by McGraw-Hill which owns it - "spin-off" because of S&P's enormous profitability. It needs publicity. It needs a crisis to show its importance and absolute need.

The U.S. economy has problems but also the capacity to overcome those issues if Congress can stop the "Texas steel cage death fight" over ideology". It's almost as if each political party and each faction thereof wants credit for causing the next recession. The rating agencies need to be held accountable - but so does Congress; and so do WE the people. We desparately need a coherent plan to reduce the deficit over the next decade by $4trillion and then another $10trillion in the decade following. Budget cuts? Social Security cuts? NO!! Tax reform - so rich folks pay a share commensurate with their annual income. Raise the age for Social Security benefits starting in "X" years - maybe from 62 (early)and 65/6 (regular-full) to 63 and 67/8 respectively.

If the WORLD saw us with a plan to eliminate the deficit totally in 20 years with a big push in the first 10, all would be well again.

Author's Copyright by Richard Isacoff, Esq, August 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

We Got A Credit Line Increase

2011-08-01T13:00:00.002-04:00

The Country is Saved. We Won't Default. We Won't Need the EU to Bail US Out! Hooray!!!

As I noted in a Tweet, if the U.S. defaulted and ended up in Bankruptcy, who would be the Trustee, the guardian of creditors like China? Luxembourg???

The entire situation is ridiculous. But, it wasn't so far-fetched (a default). Everyone was buying gold and platinum and silver and... As posted here earlier "How Many Grams of Fat Are There In An Ounce of Gold?", the idea being that gold is only worth what someone will trade for it. Well, we will not have to worry about that anymore. The Congress, meaning the Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partyists, in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate, and the President have come up with the master-plan to avoid not being able to borrow. The amount the United States can borrow will be increased.

Foolish as it appeared (because of all of the 2012 election campaigning and "holier than thou" Tea Party drinkers; I mean why have a Tea Party and drink coffee? But they did forget the crumpets!), there was exposed a huge problem with our financial system.

Some basics and answers to questions:

1. How could we run out of money to pay bills? Well, we already have. We have used the equivalent of an home equity loan to get money for all of our annual needs. The difference is that we "sell" Treasury Bonds. That is a nice way of stating that we will agree to pay "X"% interest if someone/country lends us money. Granted the amounts are larger than you would need for siding on your house, but the concept is identical. The "Treasury Bonds" that you hear/read about are nothing more than IOUs given to whoever buys the bond.

2. What is the Debt Ceiling and how high is it. It is $14.7 trillion; that is $14,700,000,000,000. It is the amount the Country is allowed to "borrow" from other countries and "all of us". It is a constitutional matter. The Congress has to agree on the amount and then get the President's approval for the MAXIMUM amount of our loans. Congress is acting like a Bank's Loan Committee deciding whether the Bank's Customer (the Country) can repay it's loan.

Were did all of the money go? No one knows for sure and no one, even the GAO (General Accounting Office) can trace it. But we know that we spent money on several wars (2 still on-going); we STOPPED a world-wide depression by enacting the "Stimulus" packages; our States, cities and towns had their tax revenue supplemented by some of that $14.7T for schools, bridges, roads, housing (especially for the elderly); the world wide stock and securities markets did not crash because we paid to offset losses -AIG, Lehman, Ford, Chrysler, GM et al.

IN REALITY, WE SPENT MORE THAN WE EARNED. Tax revenues were too low, the wars were/still are sooo expensive, and we have been spending like we could just print more money (oops, we can and did!)

3. What is the "Deficit" - over-simplified but not by much - just as in any household, or business, the deficit is the NEGATIVE difference between what we spend and what we earn. The trade deficit is a bit different - that is the NEGATIVE difference between what we sell to foreign countries and what we buy from them. For a long time we have bought more than we have sold. WE ARE A NATION OF CONSUMERS.

Coupled with our penchant for buying is the fact that our "DOLLAR" has been strong for a long time in comparison to other countries' money. Simpler - our dollar was based on a stronger economy; more output and capability of manufacturing, inventing, building more than nearly all other countries. We were perceived as having the ability to produce 10, 15, 20, 50% MORE IF WE WANTED TO, AT ANY TIME - like right after the start of WWII. Doesn't do much good if no one is buying!

4. Why did it take so long to set a new limit? POLITICS - RE-ELECTION in 2012. That simple? YES. That doesn't mean that some of the 535 people in Congress did not really believe that our "bill" to others will cause the ruination of the Country. It could, but most likely won't. As these things are measured, we have a bill that is 62% of our Annual GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT(GDP). That means that we OWE 2/3 of our county's TOTAL output of goods and services for a year.

Just think about paying 62% of your net/take home income for loans. That doesn't take into account food, utilities, cable, gasoline etc - all of the things that are monthly or annual expenses. For the Country, it's like only having 1/3 of the total amount the United States collects, for the payment of Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment, Military pay, other government employees' pay, expenses for things like the Gulp/BP clean-up, and all other programs big and small.

Maybe now our elected officials can get back to business of running the Country - maybe they need a lesson in accounting - Remember Debits on the Left, Credits on the Right. Debits by the Window, Credits by the Door (from Accounting 101). OR we could buy 535 calculators and copies of Quicken

Author's Copyright by Richard I Isacoff, Esq, August 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Housing for the Homeless, Inc. (in organization)

2011-07-15T13:30:00.002-04:00

The other day, I responded to a comment on Twitter from a knowledgeable mortgage financing friend regarding the current housing situation vis a vis foreclosures. His view is that the "market should find its own level" ; that the Federal Government should not interfere with modification programs, the EHLP program etc.

After some thought, I must agree with him. If the pace of foreclosures returns to normal (once the robo-whatever is done and docs are corrected) and evictions follow promptly, there will be plenty of Housing For The Homeless. There will be no need to build new shelters. Mortgagees can just allow cities to house "The Homeless" in these abandoned/emptied OREO properties. The cities would pay but only by not taxing the mortgagee/foreclosing entity. If the mortgagee does not incur this liability by recording a deed, then more properties will be formally owned by the entity which won the foreclosure sale bid.

Now, one might ask,"Why should the homeless get to live in someone else's house when the someone else just got evicted and became HOMELESS?" Answer: "Well, that's the market finding its level!!!". Further, the new homeless family can move into another "victim's" house as he/they get thrown out! See, that way no one can complain - except "The Investors".

This is the shadowy group (Goldman, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, JPMorgan et al) which created the securitizations of the mortgages, and sold and/or bought (and hedged) the resulting "bonds". They are the folks who took a mortgage, put it together with 3000 others, released all of the originating banks/mortgage companies from all liability, and sold pieces of the pool of mortgages as "Mortgage-Backed Security" shares/participations.

A solution to the matter of getting the investors paid during the OREO stage, would be to have the "Newly Homeless" receive a minimum wage pay (because they are out of work which is why they lost the house to start with) to remove all of the black mold that develops in uninhabited housing. To be fair, some of it isn't Black Mold of the bad kind but just regular garden variety MOLD.

So we have the solution:
1. Increase the pace of foreclosures to create Housing for the Homeless
2. Hire the homeless, now in a home, to remove mold
3. This helps the national unemployment problem so there should be some federal money for job creation, which can be paid to the investors as rent from the Homeless
4. The homeless move in, shopping carts, kids and all, and the streets look better, so new companies will move into the formerly empty urban areas because the former homeless have homes and a paycheck
5. The suits against the foreclosing mortgagees should slow, because, the family which just got evicted can move into another family's newly vacant home AND get paid.

The market will find its level. Hopefully it will be above the water table.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Brief Recap of Major Financial Issues

2011-06-17T14:00:00.008-04:00

There used to be a TV show, weekly, called appropriately "THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS". It provided a satirical review of the weeks happenings - especially politics. Kind of like a fast paced, hit-a-run version of John Stewart. Actually, "The Daily Show" is a modern day iteration. This Is The Month That Was:

FORECLOSURES
1. Foreclosures still moving at a brisk pace. Some slowing but due to paperwork issues. The mortgage servicers, led by the Mortgage Backed Security Investors, want to foreclose, and actually do so, even when they do not have the legal rights. IT GOES LIKE THIS :
a. You get a loan from the "We Saw You Coming Mortgage Company"
b. The mortgage company has already sold the loan to a large bank
c. The holder of the mortgage only (not the note, the I.O.U.) is company called MERS, short for Mortgage Electronic Registration System. This is mortgage industry registry to avoid recording mortgage transfers
d. The loan is "sold" into a Pool of 3000 other loans paying the Bank for its investment in your mortgage. The Bank now has no risk - this explains why no one cared about loan quality and why there were bizarre loan products like the "Pick-A-Payment"

e. The pool is sold as a BOND - just like a corporate bond- where investors buy $10,000 or maybe $1mil of the total which can be $2billion+ The reason to purchase is to get a higher than bank savings account interest return without much risk (good luck!)
f. If a borrower falls behind in payments, the manager of the pool of loans (called the investor) decides whether to modify the loan or not
g. The Fed Gov't set up the Making Home Affordable program to help homeowner get modifications but DID NOT REQUIRE ANY LENDER/INVESTOR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

1. There was a Consumer Finance Protection Board established so one agency can "ride-herd" as a REGULATOR to be certain that consumers don't get swindled. Here's where that is:

a. The CFPB is to stop "Predatory Lending practices", credit cards that have hidden fees (like the 0% interest for 1 year including balance transfer except for the 4% or 5% fee, not interest on the transfer)-see last posting for full explanation, and excessive fees to Banks for using a debit card.
b. The Republicans in the Senate have vowed to refuse to allow the appointment of ANYONE to the top spot at the CFPB unless the powers are reduced and there is a committee running it

2. Banks are lobbying to reverse the Law that will limit how much they can charge the merchants for each customer use of a debit card. Right now if you buy a $2.00 coffee and "swipe" your debit card to pay for the coffee, the store might get charged $0.40. No wonder prices for small items like coffee and hamburgers are so high

JOBS
1. Jobs are still being created, 50,000 this past month but that is only 1.2% of the unemployed
a. No real manufacturing starts to create jobs
b. Housing market dead - too many foreclosed and repossessed homes to let prices rise so no one can sell, Banks own too many houses, no reason to build a new house hoping someone will buy it
c. Mortgages are extremely difficult to get so even if you want to buy, who will lend you the money. No building-No Jobs.
d. Outsourcing to other countries bigger than ever

ECONOMY

1. Economy is not defined as how much we are earning or how much things cost or how confident consumers/businesses are feeling

a. Economy is the system to move goods and services. Essentially how will supply and demand is working
b. Economics is the study of the economy - not a science and there are as many theories as there are people studying the economy, therefore being Economists. So when you hear about "The Top Government Economist said that..." it's just his opinion. It is not a real science. It's a social science based on opinions and theories

2. Our trade imbalance grew. This is the measure of how much we import versus export. We import much more than we export.

a. The trade imbalance affects the value of our Dollar as compared to other countries currency
b. Things got better with Japan because few cars are being imported due to the disasters that hit Japan
c. Things got worse with China - they buy a fraction for us of what we buy from them.

That's just a brief round-up of 4 topics of concern to us all

Oh, I almost forgot - there is the Federal Debt Ceiling -that is the maximum amount the Government can borrow. We will be "MAXED OUT" by August. Raising that limit is also being held-up by Congress. If it doesn't get raised, we end up defaulting on our loans (payment of interest and principal on such things as Treasury Bonds. Then the value of the dollar compared to other currencies will drop by 25%-35% OR MORE immediately. Think things cost are expensive now? How about $7/gallon gas or a $40,000 Base Model Toyota

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, June 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Interest Free Credit Cards? Remember P.T. Barnum!

2011-05-23T10:00:00.002-04:00

Credit Card companies have a new pitch - "0% Interest on Balance Purchases & Transfers Until XX/1/2012". The idea is to give you credit, with no interest on the outstanding balance for 12 months. And, as an added bonus, the offering company will even take your balance, on which you are being charged 20% from another card, and let you move it, AT NO INTEREST, for the same period. Sounds too good to be true? It is!!

First, all of these offers looked at closely, contain a "nominal" fee for making the balance transfer - like 5% of the amount of the transfer. That is a one time immediate capture fee, meaning they get paid by increasing your balance by that 5%. One could say that it's still a bargain because it's only 5% instead of 20%. However, if you pay the entire balance off in 3 months, you paid a rate of 20% annualized, versus paying the old card 20% balance off in 3 months which has the same effective rate. Well, same rate so you are no worse off than if you kept the old card. WRONG!

That 5% fee get added to your principal balance because it's a fee, not interest. So, instead of paying interest on $5,000 (which is the amount transferred in this example) you pay interest on $5,250. But you might retort and say, "Hey, I am not paying any interest on balance transfers so I was no worse off, and if I keep the money for the year, I am much better off - 0% on $5,250 versus 20% on $5000". Yes, that's true - well sort of true. You will be paying whatever the interest rate is on cash advances on the $250 "fee" which is a cash advance. However, like they say in the infomercials "BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!".

If by some chance you do not pay the entire balance, transfers from other cars and purchases made during the "introductory period" ending on XX/1/2012, the entire balance AND DEFERRED INTEREST, the amount of interest that the $5,000 would have earned the card issuer for the entire year, becomes part of the balance and you are subject to the regular interest rate which can be, SURPRISE, 20%! Even if you pay the $5,000 transfer amount back in full, if you don't also pay the $250 "fee" you will be charged an amount equal to the interest on all of the $5,000.

So if the regular rate is 20%, you will now have an additional bill of $1,000, which you will pay 20% for until that is paid in full. Actually, if there is $1.00 outstanding on your bill at the end of the introductory period, you will find your next bill has $1,000 added to the $1.00 that was missed in your previous payment.

Outrageous, but perfectly legal. When the Credit Card Act was passed last year, it took 5 seconds for the card issuers to find a way to keep there profits high. This is one way. Oh, and as an added treat, this scenario applies to most of the retailers, like electronics stores and appliance stores and any "big ticket item" stores - "Buy now and pay no interest for 1 full year!". When that "1 full year" is up, if you haven't paid the balance in full, expect all of that deferred interest to hit you on the bill you get in the 13th month.

The FDIC has a great website that will take you through this and a dozen other ways cards can haunt you now, even more than before.

http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/news/cnspr10/new_realities.html

Look, credit is fine; credit cards are useful and sometimes necessary, especially in emergencies. JUST KNOW THE RULES! Read ALL of the mail - even the stuff that looks like junk mail - there may be a hidden $1,000 charge in that envelope.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., May 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Bigger & Fewer: "Banks" Rule

2011-05-09T11:00:00.005-04:00

There is a new mosaic, or one that was just not recognized, developing in the Economy, and somewhat specifically in the mortgage area. Banks, systematically getting bigger and bigger, and fewer and fewer, are dictating the rules.

The Big 4 (or 4 1/2) BANKS have made it clear through their elected, and properly paid for members of Congress (politely referred to as "Lobbying"), that they do not want Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) but in case she gets there (during a recess appointment), they want to emasculate (no offense Prof/Dr/Atty Warren) the agency first. The argument or rationalization: No agency should have the authority to enforce existing regulations that affect consumers or pass new regulations to fix really bad problems that hurt the economy as a whole. Even Hemp has more supporters than HAMP!

The same interests have been keeping Congress itself where it is possible, from passing enacting legislation that would force mortgage modifications and punish those who knowingly created, hyped and sold securities that they themselves bet against (hedges). These "Security Instruments", known as Mortgage Backed Securities and more generally categorized as Collateralized Debt Obligations were the mainstay of Lehman Brothers' (remember them?) profits; oh, and don't forget about Goldman Sachs! The play was that if enough mortgages were written, there would be enough good ones to overcome the bad ones: Quantity always wins but only if you are the creator/seller! As Phil McGraw, PhD, better known as "Dr. Phil" says "Well, how's that workin' for you now?" NOT SO WELL DOC!!!!

Wells Fargo is in Court in Tennessee and Maryland trying to avoid being convicted of "Reverse Redlining", the pernicious practice that promised lower income and less educated/sophisticated borrowers, usually minorities, the AMERICAN DREAM - Home Ownership but lied and cheated to make the sale. "Mrs. Jones, the payments will only be $300 per month - for the first month then the rate will equal the 6 month rate of the percentage, the denominator of which is 100 and the numerator is 10 plus no greater than 7% nor any less than 7%,. and, Mrs. Jones, that rate will be in place until the first change date after which the loan will float to the regular level for this type of loan".

"Don't worry Mrs Jones, we at "Fast Talking Mortgage" would never steer you wrong. Just check our rating at the BBB. Here is the telephone number 1-800-waitforever; and if you have any problem with the loan, one of our Loan Specialty Team (for borrowers who complain), will assist you - that telephone number is 1-877-waitforever". If it wasn't so real and so devastating, that kind of "pitch" would make a great Saturday Night Live spoof. People struggling to pay rent are told they can own a home; and then they end up on the street.

The Banks have uniformly maintained that the laws do not apply to them - state vs federal - and even if they do, the banks didn't make the loans, they are just the Trustee or manager or they sold the loan and had just acted as an intermediary, owning the loan for mere seconds. What's worse is that they have all of the money in the world (well not really but more than any Plaintiff does) and are willing to spend ten (10) times the amount needed to fix the problem in order to justify their actions.

In all seriousness, what can be more despicable than convincing low income struggling families that they can buy a home of their own, when the game is just to make a sale of a mortgage and not care whether it's affordable. In fact, most of these loans were granted where the Loan Originator knew the loan would adjust to a point where the borrower would not be able to make the payments. Once again, no one cared. No entity was "on the risk". No bank or mortgage company would lose $0.05, because the loans were sold into a pool - securitized with 2,500 other loans. Again, the thought was that quantity made up for quality and if not, so what! No one loses, except the homeowners and, as we have seen, the Economy.

Add to the mortgage mess - we have the "Interchange Rate" debate. Regulators (formerly called "Revenooers") are trying to force the price charged for each "swipe"/use of a credit or debit card down from an average of $0.44 to $0.12, at least for the big 4 1/2. That is a huge drop in Bank revenue but also a huge drop in what merchants, and therefore consumers, pay for use of the debit card. Folding money looks better every day. Maybe we should all buy stock in Crane & Co., the company that makes the paper for U.S. money.

Group 4 1/2 are fighting the change mightily as they stand to lose $hundreds of millions if the change takes place.

We can then move to the issues about whether a Bank,the kind where you can go and open a checking or savings account, should be allowed to directly make loans and Securitize pools of Loans themselves, avoiding the middleman. In 1974 we had 14,000 banks in the country. By 2017 the count is expected to be 2,500. If you realize that this represents 50 banks for each state, they "Hometown Bank" is dead. Even now, in a city like Pittsfield, MA which has a population of 40,000+/-, a merger of TWO (2) Savings Banks is taking place (thank you FDIC) - the rub is between them they have nearly 50% of the deposits in the entire County. The next largest entity is a Federal Credit Union.

Bigger isn't better, it's just bigger. And, bigger means more power - a greater ability to force laws on or off the books through trade organizations and their lobbyists. Is big bad? Not conceptually; but in practice?. As of Friday 5/06/2011, the ABA (American Bankers Ass'n) seemed to have changed its position regarding Elizabeth Warren and will support the nomination. The CEOs of Group 4 1/2 must be furious. Congress, especially the GOP side, is forcing a "recess appointment" .

There is no easy, or even difficult, answer to this issue. The consolidation of the Financial Services Industry is moving faster and faster. The was a time, not so long ago, when Banks and Insurance companies and Stock Brokerages all had to be separate. Now we have one stop financial shopping. Convenient, maybe. Dangerous - ABSOLUTELY

Author's Copyright by Richard I Isacoff, Esq, May, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Chicken Little Was Right!!

2011-04-22T18:00:00.000-04:00

THIS IS ABOUT THE AMAZON EC2 "CLOUD" CRASH - OFF-TOPIC? MAYBE NOT)

From the perspective of a law office, discovering that Amazon’s EC2 had crashed at 3:30am PDT and was not back at 100% 24 hours later was more than disturbing news. While Amazon and the sites like REDDIT were most directly affected Thursday, that is only because "Cloud Computing" is still in its infancy - or is it?

The move from an office based server environment to fully hosted services is a major change for any business entity. But, where the nature of the industry is change adverse, and where technology is sometimes viewed as a necessary evil (with evil being the dominant theme), losing control of any part of day to day operations is traumatic. Even the term "Cloud Computing" is off-putting to many who thought that navigating Al Gore's Internet was the worst they'd have to learn. The lack of understanding of how this "new technology" works is what makes it frightening. Hearing or reading about Amazon's Cloud crashing is reason enough not to move in that direction; if Amazon cannot make things work, who can, and how can any of it be trusted?

Law offices depend on huge quantities of coherent and painstakingly constructed information Even small firms that have 100 cases in some stage of being open need instant availability of client and case information. Client names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses, and the all-important docket/calendaring system for deadlines that can mean the saving or loss of a house, a default in a Court that can win or lose a client his/her business, or missing a deadline that gets an attorney sanctioned, are just a few of the needs for information. Combine the framework with the substantive matters like research, correspondence, and records of past conversations, and one can grasp the need for always-up data systems in law offices.

That 99.99% up-time is what The Cloud has promised. For small offices keeping the one server and workstations with outside "call-them-when needed IT professionals", or even the medium sized firm that has 100 users and a full-time network administrator, IT guru, and part-time billing specialist, out-sourcing is being touted. Without that move, the server will crash, there will be no current backup and everything will stop dead. We, The Cloud Gods will avoid any of that from happening. Trust us!

While this is being written, there are a few Cloud based law office "suites" that combine most of the IT elements a law office needs. One good suite being offered to hundreds of attorneys, as an incentive to join a very good legal network of attorneys who try to help people and businesses, was off-line all day and evening Thursday 4/21/11. It had just a single web page that stated in part, "we are in good company" as it tried to reassure member lawyers that the data was intact and that "as soon as whatever happened is fixed" the system will be back running. The setback to Cloud computing for small and medium sized law offices may be enormous. All of the worst fears came true. The lack of control allowed the sky to fall, metaphorically at least.

The knee-jerk reaction of the attorneys, who had no way to contact a client, could not look at the calendar for the day and tomorrow, and could not even finish the research project they had spent 90 hours on because all of the research notes were on Cloud based applications and data files, may well be to retreat. Back to the small server and workstations hoping that the new Dell or HP machines will still have Windows XP and not 7, and that the new server will still run 2003. At least they knew what to expect and they controlled it. It was right there in the back room and the IT guy could come in and fix it. And further, these lawyers will convince themselves that the law was meant to be read and written on paper and put in locking cabinets.

Very, very seriously, there will be the bankruptcy that didn't get filed in time to save a house, and the Court date that will be missed tomorrow to show-up for the collections case that means meeting payroll for the client or not. Some offices will lose clients, some associates will be fired for convincing the Partners to move to the "new" technology, and many computer sales types will have a windfall. But make no mistake, dependency full off-premises hosted services will take longer to sell to all of the attorneys who lost a day of up-time and the next year of sleep.

Oh, and the punch line - migrating up was a snap. Migrating down - NOT SO EASY.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., April 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

The Debt Ceiling: What Is It (and why do we care)?

2011-04-06T10:42:00.001-04:00

As Congress argues over what to argue about, they are avoiding dealing with THE major financial issue that needs to be resolved now - not in 15 or 20 years. The Federal Debt ceiling, the total amount of money the Country is allowed to borrow as authorized by Congress. Currently it is $14.3 TRILLION and analysts predict that we have until July, at the latest, before we are MAXED OUT.

I use the term "Maxed Out" because it is a concept with which most consumers have dealt. Well, perhaps not with that much money, but the financial reality is the same: No More Available Credit. In consumer circles it happens when your no longer have any available credit on any credit card to make payments on the other credit cards. In Nations' budgets, at least where there is a body that manages finances, countries sell bonds - here, most commonly Treasury Bonds.

Buyers of these bonds are promised, by the Government, a certain rate of interest and payments at certain dates. Well, where the issuing country has more debt that cash coming in (taxes, tariffs, fees, leases, sales of rights to drill/mine/grab oil etc), that country has to sell more bonds to pay the interest owed on the earlier ones which were issued. Striking similarity to the credit card example above; borrowing to pay interest on borrowing.

Here is the difficult part - Congress has to approve additional borrowing - borrowing beyond that which they approved in the last round of borrowing authorizations. If we do not borrow more and cannot pay the interest when it becomes due and we default/fail to pay, the world economy will go into a tailspin. We have been the single country that the world turns to for stability - yes, even after the 2008 meltdown. If we default, the 2008 to present recession will seem like the "good old days" (why were any old days good?).

The issue before Congress, which the Federal Reserve and Treasury have to explain to them, is that we need to borrow more - a lot more; and, the lack of a decision on this matter is already starting to enter the "markets". There is no question that $14.3 Trillion is an overwhelming figure but when measured against the potential growth in our economy and growth of the country, it becomes manageable over time if we avoid spending too much more than we earn. Just like any household budget.

Unfortunately, one party wants to show the other that it stands for "deficit reduction" and will slash spending to fix the problem fast. The other party wants to fix it slower and not slash as much for fear of stopping the "recovery" and growth of the economy. Too many budget cuts and reductions in spending will leave the country with a more dismal future with regards to medical insurance, education, roads, etc. AND MIGHT STOP ECONOMIC GROWTH. Not beginning to balance the budget and to lessen the borrowing will put the country in a hole from which Alice (the Wonderland/Looking Glass Alice) couldn't get out.

We might wish to believe that Congress will compromise in time and everything will be fine, just as before. Maybe but maybe not. Members of both Houses are so locked into the mindset that compromise means the "other guy" won and that we must stand true to our core beliefs (pullease), that they might wait too long. Not to the point where we default, but to the brink where other countries and industry thinks we might actually default THIS TIME.

Jobs -gone. Savings - gone. Inflation or deflation - huge. Depression - there won't be enough business left to employ anyone. Gold (why I do not grasp) - to Jupiter We won't be able to borrow - sell bonds. There will be no lending going on in this country (or most others). Companies will just close their doors. No one will be able to buy anything not made here because our dollar won't be worth anything anywhere.

Why do we play the game? To get re-elected? Or to fix a problem, that took 40 years to create, in 12 months? To be sure that whoever is running a failed country is of the correct ideology? Well - you get the idea!!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., April, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com
Twitter: @riisacoff

The Theory of Money - (Part 2 of March 7th Posting)

2011-03-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

(From the March 7, 2011 posting for background)

[How much is GOLD worth? Or even more basic, why is gold worth anything? Why does the Pound Sterling or the Euro or the U.S. or Canadian Dollars have value? Only because "we" say so!

The above statement is an over-simplification of a complex, and seldom discussed matter of economics - THE THEORY OF MONEY. Think of this concept: Money, regardless of country, and so-called "precious metals", have value only because the people of the world say they do. In reality, what we call money is a short-hand and efficient method of barter. After all, we use money to get ("buy") something of value from someone else.]

(Now the new information)

If money is worth only what we agree it's worth, then we could declare all money worthless, right? NO! This is because, as mentioned in the March 7th posting, whatever we use to exchange goods and services, without literally trading the bushel of corn for a pair of shoes, or 5 bushels of wheat for one pig, is a shorthand method of keeping track. I want your shoes that you will trade for 1 bushel of corn. I have none but Sally has corn. I just have wheat. Sally will trade her corn for my wheat; I trade her my wheat for her corn and trade with you, giving you my (originally Sally's) corn for your shoes. Now each of the three of us has what we want. I have shoes, you have corn and Sally has wheat.

BUT what if I want your shoes; you want Sally's corn; Sally wants Pete's painting; Pete wants George's work as a plumber; and George wants my wheat. It will all work out but it would take a week just to move goods and perform services, when all I wanted was a pair of shoes. Money, a universally accepted product/commodity/service "stand-in" makes it all very simple. We agree that (1) unit of this thing called "money" will trade-for (is worth) 1/10th bushel of corn, and that (4) units are needed to trade for the shoes, and that one hour of plumbing time will "cost" (5) units, and so on. We have created money as we know it.

Now, just imagine trying to work out the trade value of every good and service we use in this country. How do we establish the price in these units? By agreement. Essentially, we give everything a trade-value of "X" units, just as is shown above. When we are not certain, we guess. If we are right, the trade is completed - 23 units for a set of 4 chairs. If we are wrong, the chairs will be 30 units, or maybe only 21 units. IT'S ALL MADE UP! Until the majority of unit users say NO to the exchange, everything works fine.

Just keep in mind that MONEY IS WORTH WHAT ALL USERS OF THAT KIND OF MONEY AGREE TO. No More, No Less

As we look at financial markets, as we hear about the "strong Yen" or the "weak dollar" or even issues of inflation the explanation gets much more complicated.

Be patient: we will get to it a little at a time!

Author's Copyright by Richard I Isacoff, Esq, March 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflw.com/

Foreclosures Down? Not Really!

2011-03-11T10:00:00.011-05:00

RealtyTrac, the company that tracks foreclosures (state by state) and gives national figures, reports that foreclosures, meaning homeowners getting a foreclosure notice, is at a 26 month low - ONLY 225,101, down nearly 14% (http://www.realtytrac.com/home/).
Reading and digesting the information further one discovers that the reduction is not due to fewer defaults by borrowers, or lenders/servicers having less work , but rather it is due to IMPROPER FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES.

For months it has been known that some of the largest servicers have been using so-called "robo-signers", unauthorized personnel signing assignments of mortgages and notes, and foreclosure documents. Also, as the suit by States' AGs shows, in their 27 page report, what has to be done to fix the problem. While the servicers have rebelled and are using all tools available to stop regulations, even BofA, the biggest, has made modest changes - like giving returning service members modifications and even PRINCIPAL REDUCTIONS.

The battle is getting so fierce that Sen. Richard Shelby (R), the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee has said that the report is a "regulatory shakedown" being conducted to "advance the administration's political agenda" (American Banker 3/9/11 )

Taking the battle over the "mortgage crisis" even further is a letter, being circulated by House Republicans to Treas. Sec'y Timothy Geithner, that calls into questions most of the report's/settlement proposal's recommendations (http://tinyurl.com/4byflk4).

So what is the "TRUTH"? Is the rate of foreclosures falling? Yes, in so far as the "foreclosers" have had to stop or be sued by all 50 states (again) and won't start again in earnerst until they get the paperwork and process straightened out. But, the rate of defaults and the "right to foreclose" have continued to climb. If RealtyTrac counted all of the refilings for corrected documentation, there would have been an increase of 30%!

The future looks bright for auctioneers, dim for homeowners with the current climate.

(Follow the link to RealtyTrac's 3 minute video report on foreclosure activity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqsyJNy9ppI

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, March 2011
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

How Many Grams of Fat In An Ounce Of Gold?

2011-03-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

How much is GOLD worth? Or even more basic, why is gold worth anything? Why does the Pound Sterling or the Euro or the U.S. or Canadian Dollars have value? Only because "we" say so!

There was a time, not all that long ago, when if someone wanted a pair of shoes, that person would trade a cobbler a bushel of corn or wheat or maybe 5 chickens. The person would get new shoes, and the cobbler would eat. Fair trade! At some point, people got tired of carrying bales of hay, sacks of corn, homemade wines/beers to the shoe maker or the dress maker. There was the thought that if there was something everyone wanted, then that item could be used to exchange goods and services. Thus enter GOLD.

Why gold? Don't really know. It can be pretty and it doesn't get corroded or corrode other things so it has use in electrical parts, and jewelry, and it can be pretty but it is prized well beyond its actual use. Here is the point - Assume you are on an island with no food but plenty of gold; gold is everywhere. FOOD is nowhere. Which has more value? Let's go off the island and into many parts of the world where food is scarce, where even gold can't buy food because there isn't any. Which has more value. How much gold would you trade to have enough food?

From the use of GOLD or diamonds or other things found in nature, we created an artificial "product" with which to barter - to exchange goods and services; we call it MONEY. It only has value if a certain number of "money" (dollars, rupees, rubles,euros, pounds etc) will be accepted in exchange for goods, like food. And, the real value is determined by how much food, clothing, steel, etc. each amount of money will "buy" (be accepted for the exchange).

Okay - this is the stuff that will put you to sleep anytime but the point is that, with the current economic situation, the price of GOLD has soared meaning that one ounce of gold will buy more whatevers than it would before the crisis; actually twice as many. Why? Because people want GOLD. Irrationally, there is the thought that gold is inherently valuable - that it is worth a great deal just by being itself.

What if, just what if, we rejected GOLD having a special value; said it was a rock, nothing more. If everyone agreed, then it would become worth no more than a regular old rock you find in the woods or elsewhere on the land or in the sea. GOLD is only valuable because people have decided, without even thinking about it, that GOLD is special; not just pretty, but special.

When the conversation shifts to why the U S Dollar is worth something more than the Crane Mfg paper it's printed on, we enter the world of monetary economics. Here, the value, the amount of corn or wheat or oil a United States Dollar will buy, is actually based on the U.S.'s ability to produce goods, manufacture, assemble, produce metals from raw materials like rocks, make silicon chips for computers from sand. Add to the mix, the country's ability to defend itself and others, the technological abilities of the nation etc. In other words, the total production of the country in an agreed upon period of time.

The only point to carry away from this posting is that "money" has no real value, nor does gold. It is only worth what people say it is. Does that mean that all gold should be discarded - NO! At least not until the world agrees it's just a pretty rock.

More next time.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, March 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Legacy Assets - Not Much Of An Inheritence

2011-02-25T14:00:00.003-05:00

The Wall Street Journal in its February 5-6, 2011 edition had an article by David Benoit, entitled "BofA Sets Mortgage Cleanup Unit". The article about Bank of America was in the middle of the "B" section and drew little attention. In fact, there was no follow-up in the WSJ nor was it reported in the rest of the press. Certainly it did not make the nightly news nor the newscasts on the radio.

Okay, what did the title mean? Was BofA establishing a department of custodians/cleaners, or maybe street sweepers? Nothing that community minded. What BofA did was to establish a Business Unit to "monitor the Bank's 1.3 million delinquent loans". In addition, it will deal with foreclosures and INVESTORS wanting their money back for the bad loans in the Mortgage Backed Securities they purchased. The unit is named the "Legacy Asset Servicing" group.

Legacy, as in an inheritance? - well not really. Legacy as in " this is what we got stuck with when we bought Countrywide and made our own bad loans". A bit of math here - 1.3 million loans, averaging $100,000 each totals $130 BILLION of delinquent loans, and here delinquent does not mean 30 days late, but, rather, seriously late - nearing foreclosure.

There are 55,000 employees in this unit. BofA hopes to reduce the number to 35,000. Sounds great for BofA, but the reduction is only from eliminating redundant operations so BofA profits increase. What's another 20,000 unemployed workers matter? Harsh assessment - yes. But, we now have $130 billion in loans (1.3 million loans) where people may have their homes foreclosed.

Because of these loans, BofA's mortgage groups lost nearly $9 billion in 2010 and had to reserve, put in escrow and promise not to spend, another $4.1 billion. If the investors get their way, and force BofA to buy back the bad loans in the MBS the investors bought, it is reported that BofA could lose another $10 billion. What is staggering is that, while stockholders might not be thrilled and some executives might get fired, the $10 billion will be only inconvenient for the Bank. That should give you an idea of the size of the Bank.

What the article does not state, and what is not being reported, is the tens of thousands of homeowners who will be losing their homes. Do some "deserve" it for not paying the bills because of frivolous spending, or because they used the house as an ATM by constantly refinancing until payments were impossible? SURE! But the majority of homeowners facing foreclosure are victims of job loss, illness, mortgage sales people who outright lied and falsified documents (of that I have first hand knowledge), and the general economic collapse.

If this Legacy Asset Servicing group really takes charge of all of these loans, there is at least some hope that through regulatory oversight, private lawsuits, federal legislation (don't count on that one), and the new Consumer Finance Protection agency, there can be an examination of these loans - maybe to stop foreclosures and force modifications. Nowhere in the story is there even the hint of BofA taking steps to help homeowners with modification; to change its own policy of "if we don't have the documents and recognize that we do, you will lose you home".

The investors want their money back. Why should they get it? The level of sophistication of these "investors" equals that of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of them packaged the loans and some created the Mortgage Backed Security product. Why should they just demand their money and get it. Yes, they have a contract that protects them - HOMEOWNERS DO NOT!!

Bank of America is only the biggest of the entities taking this kind of action. Every "Bank" with a large mortgage portfolio, or those who sold loans into what became Mortgage-Backed Securities are doing the same. The fear is that all of the investors who lost, or may lose, money (it may just be the income stream from the investments) will demand that the Banks who sold these "toxic" loans repurchase them, ridding the potential losses from the securities, thereby protecting the investors. The irony here is that the Investors created the monster that is now threatening to "gobble them up" in losses.

Is there anything wrong with centralizing the work with defaulted loans. NO! It's the right way to process the work. BUT if this is being done to streamline the foreclosure process, and to mollify investors so they get their money back (why can the rest of us buy an investment that has a guaranty that you can never lose money), the entire SYSTEM must be revamped.

Record 2.9 million Foreclosures; Investors Want Money

2011-02-08T13:00:00.002-05:00

There were two "complimentary" articles yesterday - one in American Banker, entitled "MBS Trustees Push JPMorgan Chase for Access to Loan Files", the other from RealtyTrac's Agent Advocate newsletter announcing, "Record 2.9 million U.S. Properties Receive Foreclosure Filings in 2010...". It seems that the Trustees of the Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS") are demanding loan files from servicers, looking for bad underwriting, false documents, missing documents, but most importantly trying to force the MBS servicers/originators to "repurchase" or "buy-back" bad loans in the varying securitization pools that comprise the MBS.

It is all too common at this time to see a mortgage loan owned by "Deutsche Bank as Trustee for the ABC Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2005-34", with the loan serviced by some other company, like Saxon, or OCWEN, or AHMSI (America Home Mortgage Sevicing Inc), or JPMorgan Chase or....

What does this mean? Maybe the right to get a loan modification!!! The details are a bit confusing, but bear with me please.

Jeff Horwitz in his article in the American Banker states "They've (the Trustees) been called "braindead", "negligent", and "otiose"" (this rather obscure word simply means ineffective, worthless, or superfluous). He goes on however to state that it might be the Trustees which have the ability to force Servicers to repurchase the bad loans.

In an unusual legal twist, because of Washington Mutual Bank's ("WAMU") insolvency and momentary receivership (federal control during paper signing), Deutsche Bank as the Trustee, assumed the responsibilities of the Servicer, WAMU, which had breached the 30o+ page contract, detailing who does what and how much everyone is paid. The agreement is called the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement" or "PSA". In another case, Wells Fargo has sued EMC Mortgage, another servicer, for failing to turnover documents.

For homeowners, with a mortgage from WAMU or where they serviced a loan which was part of an MBS, this may give them a party to sue to get a loan modification. In short, the Making Home Affordable Program and HAMP do not give mortgagors/homeowners a right to sue. Now however, with Deutsche Bank taking the dual role of Trustee and Servicer and getting all of the responsibilities that goes along with both positions, it is quite possible that Courts will recognize the borrowers right to sue under what is called a "Third-Party Beneficiary" theory.

This theory states that if two parties make a contract to benefit a third party, that third party has a right to sue to enforce the contract, even though the third party did not sign the contract. Here, while HAMP may not give that status to homeowners, it does allow the parties to sue each other. When one of the parties to the contract takes on multiple roles, the protections that each party has may disappear. Basically, you cannot indemnify yourself or get insurance for your own actions.

Perhaps, even more direct would be the right to sue Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as Trustee and Servicer, under the premise that it now, due to its servicing role and assumption of liabilities, has a duty to the borrower, that it is acting for the Investors and the Borrowers.

The other article, from RealtyTrac which tracks foreclosures throughout the country, discusses the record number of foreclosures; 2.9 million!! Many of these foreclosure filings could have been avoided if modifications were granted. Remember, individual homeowners have not had a right to sue to enforce the HAMP modification program, and HSBC/Household/Beneficial does not participate at all. Just think about the situation if 15% of the 2.9 million foreclosures were modified loans instead - that would have been 435,000 non-foreclosures (almost 2 months worth of filings).

Hopefully, the information above is understandable and of use. Please contact us if you have questions -e-mail is best.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, February 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

The Greatest Depression? Ask Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX)

2011-01-24T10:00:00.001-05:00

Rep Randy Neugebauer, Chairman, House Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee, said it is time for the government to admit its foreclosure prevention efforts are a failure and should be shut down. The Texas Republican said such programs are counterproductive and are preventing the housing market from bottoming out, which is necessary before recovery can begin. (1/24/2011 from the American Banker)

Now, there is a real solution to the foreclosure crisis! Bite the bullet - displace hundreds of thousands of homeowners, let the inventory of bank-owned properties (OREO) sky-rocket, let the housing market drop bottomless and that will allow us to have an economic recovery. The sad part about Rep. Neugebauer's assertion is that he may be right in the long-term, but at what IMMEDIATE & CURRENT COST!

The program is not working - no news there. Why? Because the government regulators and policy makers do not want to to tackle the "investment banks" and the "investors" in mortgage-backed securities ("MBS")to tell them they WILL modify loans. At this time, no one can order a lender, mortgage servicer, investor, Pool Trustee, or any one else that it/she/he MUST modify a loan.

Everything is voluntary and the decision makers are in a position that they cannot lose. even if the market "bottoms out" as the Rep. from TX suggests it should. The Sponsors of the MBSs and the investment banks that put the packages together and sold them have already been paid or are so high up the MBS hierarchy of payees, that unless the value of every mortgage in the pool of mortgages becomes utterly worthless (no value at all to the houses securing the mortgages which comprise the MBS), THEY WILL GET PAID.

From an "economic" point of view (see the 1/13/11 posting), the Rep. makes sense. From a financial point of view it does not. From a human point of view it would be "The Nightmare from Wall Street". Remember "economics" is the study of an economy which is merely a system to deal with supply and demand. The concepts are simple but the implications are not. This is a case where the theory is great and accurate in its long-term view. But, getting from here (where/when we need modifications and for the Government to help all of us struggle through the mess) to there (where the market, the economy can correct itself) is a 20 year span.

Perhaps the Rep. has not taken into account the mass disruption of the pensions which hold funds that hold mortgage-backed securities. Or maybe he has forgotten that if there is no confidence in the value of the MBS, which is really set by its stability and ability to pay the return it's promised, the value will drop to $0 or something close to it. In reality, the houses that would be lost in foreclosure will retain significant value, even if that is only 20% or 30% of the mortgage balance. When the next generation comes along, it will be able to buy a vacant house for 40 cents on the dollar from what was owed on the mortgage. What will it cost the current homeowners on a nationwide basis?

Factor in those who lose houses to foreclosure and then the rest of the homeowners, from low-income to upper-middle class income, who manage to keep a house now worth half (1/2) of what's owed, and you have a "financial" (not economic") crisis. The economy will have way to much supply, and literally no demand for years.

Recession? Nah, the Greatest Depression

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, January, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Economy Getting Better? What Do You Have In Your Wallet?

2011-01-13T10:00:00.000-05:00

The latest news and business reports say that "the economy is improving. All economic indicators show..." If that is true, and not just hype, as the commercial for a credit card asks, "What do you have in your wallet?"

How can the jobless rate waiver between 9.8% and 9.5% and there be more than 450 unemployed persons (still receiving unemployment or registering at an unemployment office) for every job opening, if the economy is improving?

Well, WHAT IS THE ECONOMY? What does "THE ECONOMY" mean? The "hard and cold" definition is simply the management of resources of a community, region, country, etc. Put in other terms, it is a system of producing, distributing, and consuming wealth. Perhaps this definition would be better - "economy encompasses everything related to the production and consumption of goods and services in an area" (pick the size -city, state,country,world etc).

Economic purists would probably prefer "the system for the production (or acquisition), and allocation of limited resources". Put simply the Management of "SUPPLY AND DEMAND".

So, when you hear, "the economy is improving", all that means is that the system of managing goods and services, including such items as commodities (wheat, gold, orange crop (really)), "stuff" like cars and their production, houses both new and existing, is getting under control. Supply and demand for whatever is being managed better. There is no one person, nor any government agencies in charge of managing all of that. Entities like the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, Congress, and BUSINESS, each and all control parts of the management.

So, "THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING" has little immediate change for individuals. "Things" are getting better (managed better) but that has no affect for you or me. Maybe in 5 or 10 or 20 years, but not NOW.

Oh, and "The ECONOMISTS SAY that ..." Who are the ECONOMISTS. They are people or groups of people who study ECONOMICS which is the study of the ECONOMY.

ECONOMICS is a SOCIAL SCIENCE, (not science like chemistry, or physics, or biology) that studies the economy. Adam Smith in his 1776 publication "The Wealth of Nations" described the economy as a self regulating market system that adjusts to fulfill the needs of the populace - from his point of view, LAND, LABOR, and CAPITAL are the three factors/components contributing to a nation's wealth. Because of the competition to use the limited resources of a country/area/town , those with money will buy the resources and use them profitably which will result in a balance of all uses so the owner will get the biggest return. Smith's concept goes on to argue that it is in the owner of the capital to use it for the public good in order to get the best return.

Okay, so the Economy is getting better means that the government has a better understanding of what went wrong and an idea of how to fix it. Fixing it means that a balance will be reached between supply and demand. There will be no glut of houses for sale, nor high unemployment, because there will be a demand for goods and services, because people will be working to provide goods and services. Sounds like a circular argument. It is, but each time you go around, you move up just a little bit.

Look, in simple terms, the "economy" tanked when everyone realized that there was no true value in certain stocks and bonds - that they were being bought and sold based on assumptions that were wrong. In essence, the little boy cried out, "Mommy, the emperor has no clothes". The end of the world? NO! The end of what was thought to be a managed system of supply and demand? YES!

The economy is getting better - government is regaining control over the supply and demand and production and distribution of good and services. It will take time and no one knows how much time.

The question for PEOPLE is not about the economy, it is about "IS MY MONEY SITUATION GETTING BETTER OR WORSE?"

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., January 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

The Power To Heal

2010-12-06T11:00:00.004-05:00

I strongly believe that the role of lawyers as it affects society in law itself and finance has been corrupted. The corruption comes from greed and ego - not just on the part of the lawyer, but also on the part of the client. Lawyers should calm the waters not create a tsunami! The words of the President of the Mass. Bar Assoc. speak more eloquently than I ever could:

PRESIDENT'S VIEW
by Edward W McIntyre (immediate Past-President, Massachusetts Bar Association), May 2009

Simply defined, therapeutic jurisprudence is the use of social sciences to examine how the law impacts the well-being of those it serves.As a profession, we may underestimate our ability to calm a situation.

"The mere presence of a lawyer can bring comfort and solace to a person in need of help," according to American Bar Association Past President Dennis W. Archer. "Knowing that, we can positively affect change in what may otherwise be a difficult, adversarial situation."
Is our potential ability to heal an otherwise conflicted situation compatible with our primary duties as advisors, advocates and counselors?

Florida Coastal School of Law Professor Susan Daicoff believes so. She writes, "Law as a healing profession has great transformational potential...It could make the legal system a more inspiring, humane, and hospitable place for clients, lawyers, judges, and indeed society as a whole."

The late Warren E. Burger, former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, echoed the concept while speaking at the 1983 ABA Midyear Meeting —"the original role of lawyers was healing social conflict." He went on to urge the profession to return to and embrace that role again. Revisiting that theme a year later, Burger said, "The entire legal profession ... has become so mesmerized with the stimulation of the courtroom contest that we tend to forget that we ought to be healers of conflict .... Trial by adversarial contest must in time go the way of the ancient trial by battle and blood .... Our system has become too costly, too painful, too destructive, and too inefficient for truly civilized people."

Taking Burger's sentiments even further, former dean of Notre Dame Law School David Link has observed the law to be one of the great healing professions alongside the clergy and medicine.

Last fall (2009), at the University of Windsor Eleventh Colloquim on the Legal Profession, Archer said, "On an individual level, if we approach our life's work as healers, if we reorient our thinking to take advantage of the power of healing, we can do much good for our clients and others." The approach Archer mentions is timeless.

To argument and criticism, Abraham Lincoln would respond with commendation rather than confrontation. Critics and opponents ultimately, came to value his open, non-defensive language as he sought to heal the nation. In his lecture notes, Lincoln defined his understanding of the calling of a lawyer. "Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

According to Ronald C. White Jr., in A. Lincoln, Lincoln understood his role as a lawyer to be a mediator and recognized that while at first glance a dispute seemed to be between two persons it almost always involved the whole community. He would urge his clients to settle because he knew these people had to go on living together in their communities, after they had their day in court. Even when dealing with corporations, such as the powerful Central Illinois Railroad, Lincoln looked to be the mediator.

In modern times, healing and mediation are embodied in an evolving "therapeutic jurisprudence" movement. Simply defined, therapeutic jurisprudence is the use of social sciences to examine how the law impacts the well-being of those it serves. Professor Bruce Winick, a scholar of therapeutic jurisprudence encourages attorneys to see themselves as therapeutic agents. "Lawyers should seek to apply an ethic of care in their .practices, and the profession should teach this to subsequent generations."

In 2000, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators joined the lawyer-as-healer discussion with joint resolutions centered on unconventional processes to address complex social issues and problems; a focus on remedies; and the benefits of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Currently, therapeutic efforts are being applied in experimental pilots. Two involve domestic relations proceedings and the use of non-adversarial language in filings and pleadings.

Applying these thoughtful and wise principles more broadly in earnest today may help bring about Chief Justice Burger's vision of legal professionals as "healers of conflict." (All emphasis by R. Isacoff)

Author's Copyright (as applicable) by Richard I Isacoff, Esq, December 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Banks, Foreclosures, and Deceit

2010-11-18T10:00:00.002-05:00

In his article, in the Tuesday November 15th edition of the New York Times, about foreclosures, David Streitfield discloses the Banking/Mortgage industry’s callousness to the plight of homeowners across the country. Mr. Streitfield writes, referring to Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase "Both have maintained whatever missteps their personnel might have made... No one lost their house who should not have, the banks say". This arrogance is why we cannot fix the mortgage problem. Why did the homeowners end up in foreclosure? Perhaps the Banks and lenders did not follow the LAW about mortgage lending; so by their logic the mortgages should be discharged.

The technicalities that the Banks dismiss are the basis for the protection of property rights. If the foreclosure documents are forged or unverified, the Banks have no way to know if the borrower should have been foreclosed against. This is akin to law enforcement saying that the Miranda warnings given to suspects are not needed because the person would not have been arrested if he/she was not guilty. The same Banks, a mere 2 years ago, argued that they needed federal help to survive, while they really needed help to build profits. Can we hold them to the same standard in dealing with the substance of modifications - that they must grant a modification because the homeowner should have kept his/her house anyway, job loss and bad lending aside?

On the same day, the Times ran another article about the fact that Bank of America, the largest holder of mortgages, has the lowest percentage of Making Home Affordable or HAMP modifications, among the 5 major mortgage servicers/lenders. Maybe there is a mere technicality that will allow some Federal agency to force the mammoth B of A to follow the program in place for modifications, instead of arbitrarily denying such relief just because to paraphrase the Banks, No one will lose their house who doesn't deserve to lose it!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

HAMP: "You Probably Think This LAW Is About YOU!"

2010-11-15T14:00:00.008-05:00

This posting's title, with apologies to Carly Simon who wrote and sung Billboard's 72nd most popular song ever, is appropriate if any of us think that the Mortgage Modification issues and Programs, like HAMP, are about us; they are all about the Servicers/Lenders and the INVESTORS of the ubiquitous Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS").

The program, which has no teeth for enforcement by any entity (Treasury, FDIC, Federal Reserve, etc.) was established to protect the INVESTMENT pools of securitized mortgages. This means simply that the mortgage and investment communities refused to permit any government force-down of a program that might hurt "ROI" or "Return on Investment", or more crudely put, the PROFITS and INCOME made by the owners of these mortgage pools, and by the Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers of the world - the people who brought us the "great meltdown"

In fairness, the whole idea behind putting a large number of mortgages together, computing the average interest rate to be paid by homeowners, while at the same time calculating the expected or historical number of "bad" (non-paying) loans, was to enlarge the market of home ownership. By putting the mortgages into securities, all of the mortgage originators, brokers, lenders, banks, mortgage companies, who made these mortgage loans were "off the hook".

As stated in earlier posts, only the investors had anything to lose and they had done their homework. They figured out how much to pay for $1 billion of what became a BOND secured by home mortgages. What could be safer? Based on past experience, the Depression aside, the answer was Nothing Could Be Safer! Or maybe not!!!

During the early musings about what to do as the market was plummeting, and Mortgage-Backed Securities were being valued at $0 - high figures of 40% of face value, there were many theories put forth as to "What Do We Do Now?". One of those concepts was to have Congress and the Supreme Court declare that the contract making up these pools of mortgages, could be broken, for the sake of national security. Remember, our financial stability was gone and the markets were in free-fall.

Rejecting that idea, and rather than one of the Federal Government's arms publicly insuring that no MBS would drop below 70% of face value because the Federal Government would guaranty the FIRST 30% of losses which would have stopped the spiral down, the free-market system functioned as it is designed to do, and we ended up with the mess we are in currently regarding FORECLOSURES!!

The Making Home Affordable ("MHA") program which gave birth to "HAMP" really was a deal with the mortgage and securities industries. The program is about making sure that profits stay high enough to continue to attract buyers of MBS. The way to accomplish that goal is to NOT make modifications that will hurt the INVESTOR - Homeowners be damned. 9%-10% unemployment is no excuse for defaulting on your mortgage payment. If you can catch up fast enough you get to keep your house. If not, well, the house goes to sale at auction -but you can't bid -HA! Gotcha!

Realize that the reason the rules do not help most of the homeowners applying for modifications, or foolishly, a principal write-down, is that they are not supposed to. The rules are there, as written, to protect investors. Well, YES and NO!. If the investors take significant losses, the spiral down starts again and soon a family homestead will consist of two large tents.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

rii@isacofflaw.com

Judicial or Non-Judicial Foreclosure: Do I Keep My House!

2010-10-28T13:00:00.002-04:00

All of the news of late has been about the so-called "robo-signers" at mortgage companies dealing in 23 "judicial foreclosure states", and the impact that an unknown number of potentially improper foreclosures will have on our already troubled real estate and financial markets.

But, what exactly is the difference between those 23 "judicial foreclosure states" and the rest of the states?

In a so-called "judicial foreclosure state", before a lender can foreclose on a house, it must get approval from the court – whichever one is responsible for hearing Complaints/Suits to Foreclose in the particular state. In Massachusetts, the court would be either the Land Court, which deals exclusively with real estate issues, or the Superior Court. However, Massachusetts is not one of the 23 states mentioned above.

In a judicial foreclosure state, homeowners have the right to go to court and challenge the foreclosure – to have "their day in court." There are many grounds upon which a foreclosure can be challenged: that the bill has since been paid, that there is a discrepancy between the owner's records of payments and the mortgage company’s, or that notice of the request was never received (except if you are already in court, that’s a hard argument to make). The point is that you get a chance to plead your case to a judge before the foreclosure process can commence.

In a state like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, if you are in default of the mortgage note terms and owe money to the lender/servicer, a number of steps need to be followed as set out in the Massachusetts General Laws. But there is no mandate that the foreclosing party go to court first. In fact, the law specifically does not require any court action. That was the purpose of what is called a "Statutory Power of Sale" – the lender gets rights from the contracts you sign (mortgage and mortgage note) and the General Laws of Massachusetts.

The problem that is being discussed in the "judicial foreclosure states" is that employees with authority to sign foreclosure documents were doing so stating that they had reviewed all of the required files to begin a foreclosure. But, in actuality, they never did the analysis of those files. They simply signed that they did the review, and the courts were relying on the affidavits of these persons. In those cases, the court has a reason to stop a foreclosure or reverse one that happened (in some instances) if, upon examination, the foreclosure documents are not correct or complete.

For example, if there is a claim that the foreclosing party has ownership of the mortgage note and the mortgage, based on an assignment from one bank to another, but there is no such assignment in the file, then the foreclosing bank/lender may not have the right to do so. There may, in fact, have been an assignment, but if it is not on the record, or at least in the possession of the foreclosing bank/lender, the sale is probably no good.

What is the difference, then, in a non-judicial foreclosure state? NOTHING! The foreclosing bank/lender still must have the same documents showing ownership of the loan, and they must provide the same required notice(s) to a borrower, giving them a chance to pay the loan current and avoid a foreclosure.

As a safeguard in Massachusetts, for example, a lender has to give a minimum of 90 days Notice To Cure a Default, and in some circumstances 150 days. No foreclosure process can take place during that time. After and only after that period can a lender/servicer start to foreclose.

In reality – for purposes of "bad documents," affidavits that are false or meaningless, certifications of ownership and amounts owed that are never reviewed, and most of the other steps of the process – there is no difference in terms of judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosure states.

In essence, we are not dealing with a problem with documents for a court. We are dealing with the equivalent of falsified attestations — in legal terms, perjury or what is called "giving false oath." Or, in simpler terms, lying.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, October 2010

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Reverse Mortgages - The What's and Why's

2010-09-22T10:00:00.005-04:00

Reverse Mortgage - a mortgage that goes backwards? In a real sense YES! Instead of building equity by paying back what you owe, a lender determines how much equity you have in your home and gives you cash for a part of that equity. BUT each month that passes you lose a month's worth of equity. It truly is a mortgage in reverse. The key is that you do not pay it back. BEWARE! NOTHING IS FREE!

OVERVIEW
In exchange for taking a payment for part of the equity in your house, you give the lender the right to own you house at the time of your death, or at such other time as you no longer live there (think assisted living etc.). Having a second home is fine. Living 6 months in your primary home, the one with the reverse mortgage, and 6 months in some far away place, is okay. It is only when you move out for good that the lender can take your house and sell it. The idea is that the Lender will have calculated accurately enough to be able to sell the house and get all of the money it "loaned" to you back, along with interest.

DETAILS
1. The amount of the loan is based on the value of the house minus any loans and other liens against it at the time of the transaction, or more succinctly, the EQUITY. That's it? Just call and get money? Well almost but the "devil is in the details" (that expression should be the topic of its own posting).

2. You or your spouse/partner/whoever owns the house jointly with you, must be at least 62 years old. Why? Because that was they rule that was made, and it's a rule that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has dictated. The theory is that at 62 you may be near retirement, there is a greater likelihood of serious illness, etc - basically income may drop more frequently than in the younger population. The older you are, the higher the percentage of equity you get. Why? Because you will die sooner (at least that's the way it works on paper).

3. The lender in a Reverse Mortgage acts more like a life insurance company. The Lender takes the age of the borrower and looks up the life expectancy to estimate "how soon will the old bugger die"! Obviously, the sooner the lender gets the house back the faster it can be sold, and the more the lender makes.

This is where it gets complicated. Why does a lender make more? When the loan is made, the lender considers how soon the person will die or move, and therefore determines how much to pay. Remember, interest builds each month.

The other element is the "time value of money". For example: If I lend you $100,000 and you give me a mortgage on your house, which is worth $166,666, and make no payments to me by agreement, but the interest is just accruing, or accumulating waiting to be paid, I have to take into account the interest I could be getting on my money if I bought bonds where I get interest every month.

Let's say that I assume you will live, per the "tables", another 12 years and that for those 12 years, I would earn an average of 6.333% per year with the bonds. I can do some math and figure out how much I need to get back at the end of the REVERSE MORTGAGE to be sure I get back at least what I loaned to you, ($100,000) and the amount I would have earned if I had bought those bonds in the example, instead of loaning you the money - $75,996, for a total of $175,996. If the house sells for at least this much I get all of my money and its earnings back. If it sells for less, I lose profit.

In theory, if you were to die after 3 years, and I sold the house for the $166,666 it was worth at the time of the mortgage, I make a large profit. THERE IS A BUILT-IN SAFEGUARD. A family member can always pay me back what I loaned PLUS the interest that was deferred - earned by me but not collected. If the payback is less than the house is worth, then the family would want to pay off the mortgage.

4. The program is regulated by the FHA and they also insure it. The insurance protects the borrower in case the borrower is getting monthly payments (instead of taking a lump sum at the time of the closing) and the Lender goes out of business; FHA pays the monthly payments for the duration. There is a hefty fee for the insurance that gets paid to FHA at the time the mortgage is closed (put into effect), but it's well worth the cost to know that you will get paid.

5. Let's say that in the above example the homeowner lives 10 years longer than expected and the house goes down in value. The lender in this situation takes a big loss. BUT that loss is NOT a debt of the homeowner's estate. The lender takes the loss. NEITHER YOUR CHILDREN NOR ANYONE ELSE has to pay anything to the lender.

REVERSE MORTGAGES SOUND GREAT BUT THEY ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE! There is a mandatory counseling session with a trained financial expert who will explain the reverse mortgage concept and apply it to the prospective borrower's situation. Further, the fees that the broker can take are regulated/set by FHA.

A Reverse Mortgage can make life easier for someone who has equity in his/her home, a mortgage payment that is preventing the person from retiring, or worse, causing a foreclosure due to lower income at retirement, by lending a big portion of the home's equity to the homeowner. There are NO monthly payments. There is no credit check. It is all by formula; Amount of equity, the homeowner's/borrower's age ( minimum of 62) and then the amount of the maximum reverse mortgage payment can be calculated. If it's enough to payoff the exising mortgage you get to live in your home without making another mortgage payment, and if there's enough so that money is left over, it can be paid to you in a lump sum or in monthly installment.

Who would have thought: a mortgage that pays you!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., Septmeber, 2010
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Tenants Protected After Foreclosure

2010-09-01T10:00:00.000-04:00

You are a tenant in a multi-family or single family house that has just gone through foreclosure. Can you be just "kicked-out" by the foreclosing bank? The answer used to be "yes" (after Court) but now, in Massachusetts, it is "NO"!

The new Neighborhood Stabilization Act, in addition to protecting homeowners against "quick" foreclosures, protects Tenants who are living in houses that have gone through foreclosure and been sold or taken back by the lender. ( THE LAW IS MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 186A)

The law states that the owner through the foreclosure SHALL NOT EVICT A TENANT EXCEPT FOR "JUST CAUSE", unless there is a sale to a bona fide third party (and there are rules about that case detailed below)

"Just Cause" is defined as follows:

1. Tenant has failed to pay the rent payments in effect before the foreclosure (or a use and occupancy charge) PROVIDED the foreclosing owner has notified the Tenant in writing of the amount of the rent and when and where it is to be paid

2. Tenant has violated an obligation of the tenancy/rental agreement (example: keeping a dog when no pets are permitted)

3. Tenant is committing a nuisance and interfering with other Tenants' rights (example: making excessive noise at 3 am)

4. Tenant is using or allowing others to use the unit for illegal purposes (example: selling drugs)

5. Tenant with a written rental agreement or lease that has expired has refused to sign an extension with similar terms as the original lease/rental agreement

6.Tenant has refused the new owner access to the unit even after proper notice to the Tenant that the new owner wishes to inspect the unit

EVEN FOR JUST CAUSE The law now requires that the owner through the foreclosure post a notice in a prominent place in the building (a place that all tenants will see) stating the names, addresses, telephone numbers and contact information for the foreclosing owner, and the building manager or representative, and stating the address to where the rent or occupancy charges must be sent.

THEN the foreclosing owner cannot evict for the following actions that are just cause until 30 days after the above notice has been posted and delivered to the tenants.

If the new/foreclosing owner disagrees with the amount or rent being charged he/she can bring an action in District/Superior/Housing Court and claim that the amount is unreasonable and ask the Court to set a new rate. HOWEVER, if there is a pre-exisiting written lease or rental agreement with the prior owner, the one who was foreclosed on, the amount or rent SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REASONABLE.

THERE ARE TEETH IN THE LAW: If a foreclosing owner evicts a tenant in violation of the law, the foreclosing owner/new landlord shall be punished by a fine OF NOT LESS THAN $5,000.

Tenants now have the right to stay in their home despite a foreclsoure PROVIDED they

1. Pay the rent

2. Follow the rules

3. Don't do anything illegal in the unit

The only exception is that if the property is sold to a true third-party unrelated buyer - then the normal rules regarding evictions (Summary Process) apply.

This is great news and strong protection for tenants in houses that have gone through foreclosure. CAUTION: Tenants who do not follow the rules have little chance of surviving the eviction process.

The law is brand new. There have been very few cases dealing with it so do not be surprised if the bank that takes back a house is unaware of the law and its details.

As a Tenant you now have real rights. Follow the rules and be happy. Ignore them and be evicted.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

"...and Wining, Winning, Winning" - (re-post)

2010-08-12T10:00:00.004-04:00

As a solo practitioner I must acknowledge my work limitations; I cannot compete against the Boston or other big-city law firms employing 20 or more attorneys.

In the Foreclosure Prevention work I have been doing, I have had to bring actions against players like HSBC (and its subsidiaries HFC, Beneficial, Household Finance), America Home Mortgage Servicing Inc ("AHMSI"), Wells Fargo, CitiMortgage, etc. In so doing I lost my ability to do any work other than fighting these lenders, which hire Big Firms, 40th Floor Boston, 50th Floor New York, water-front Rhode Island etc. offices. They have associates, attorneys trying to become partners, being paid to fight anyone who gets in the way of a foreclosure.

The fighting is "civil" - sort of. The filing of a claim brings a ream of paper filled with questions for my client (Interrogatories) meant to elicit the smallest details about the case, and pages of "Request for Production of Documents". These legal tactics are used in reality to flood a small office with paper and consume time. Well I just drowned in the latest flood and there was no one to perform CPR.

Make no mistake - these firms are within their legal rights to protect their clients through any legal means, but are they and their clients acting "morally" or, using the word in the common sense, ethically? In many cases I believe the Lenders/Servicers/Investors are not. They claim not to have any responsibility for the loans they made/service, regardless of how onerous, regardless of "bad faith", "bait and switch", unconscionable, and just plain improper and misleading. What's worse is that by the time the problem hits, most of the laws enacted to protect consumers have run their course - the "Statute of Limitations" has expired - it's too late to argue about the violations.

The Lenders are about taking no losses, granting no relief to someone facing foreclosure, just WINNING! I concur that winning is nice but how about DOING WHAT IS RIGHT?

I have been generally successful in preventing foreclosures and reversing some that have occurred, and in getting modifications. I have been unsuccessful in making a living because I could spend every week, all week, working on foreclosure cases where the BIG FIRMS for the BIG LENDERS know how to kill a case - bury the other "guy" in paper.

The best and most apt summary of what it's like to work against the lenders is from lyrics of one of Don Henley's (formerly of the Eagles) songs:

"Today I made and appearance downtown.
I am an expert witness, because I say I am.

And I said, 'Gentleman....and I use that word loosely...I will testify for you; I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar - Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated.

I can get you any result you like....what's it worth to ya? Because there is no wrong, there is no right; And I sleep very well at night;

No shame, no solution No remorse, no retribution.

Just people selling t-shirts just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus

And winning, winning, winning' "

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July 2010
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

New Homeowner Protection - Neighborhood Stabilization Act

2010-08-09T10:01:00.001-04:00

The new Neighborhood Stabilization Act, which was enacted with an Emergency Preamble, became effective, in part, upon signing by Governor Duval Patrick on Thursday, July 29, 2010. The new law gives meaningful additional protections to Homeowners facing foreclosure, and tenants living in houses that have gone to foreclosure sale. We will deal with the Ownership issues in this post and the Tenant issue in the next.)

In order to foreclose on a property in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a mortgagee/creditor MUST give the homeowner/mortgagor a 150 day Notice To Cure the default giving rise to the foreclosure threat. This "Cure Period" is subject to the following rules:

1. If the lender/servicer certifies that is has "engaged in a good faith effort to negotiate a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure..." (defined below) and

2. If this effort "has involved at least one meeting either in person or by telephone, between a creditor's representative and the borrower or borrower's attorney or the borrower's representative..." and

3. "After such meeting the creditor and the borrower were not successful in resolving their dispute, then the creditor may begin foreclosure proceedings after a right to cure period lasting 90 days..."

4. If the borrower does not respond to mail offering to negotiate within 30 days (does not state when the 30 days starts) then the borrower must live with the 90 day period allowed the creditor instead of the 150 days

KEY DEFINITION

"Creditor has made a good faith effort to negotiate and agree upon a commercially reasonable alternative to foreclosure shall mean that the creditor has considered"

a. "an assessment of borrower's current circumstances including without limitation (they can consider more, not less) income, debts, and obligations"

b. "the net present value ("NPV") of receiving payments pursuant to a modified mortgage loan as compared to the net recovery following foreclosure" -(this is a calculation taking into account the following factors to arrive at a value to compare to the value of the modified loan)

1. the current market value
2. the costs of foreclosure
3. foreclosure stigma discount to re-sell the house
4. the total unpaid balance
5. number of months expected before sale
6. taxes and insurance costs
7. the appreciation/depreciation forecast.

The creditor must use the Mass Housing Finance Agency formula, FDIC formula, or Treasury formula.

c. "...The creditor shall provide by first class mail and certified mail or private carrier to the borrower documentation of the good faith effort 10 days prior to meeting, telephone conversation specified..." (in paragraph 2. above)

The importance of this law cannot be overstated. While it grants an extra 60 days to the borrower, sixty days which did not exist until the Commonwealth passed an earlier law in 2009, it REQUIRES the creditor to assess the situation OR wait 150 days to BEGIN a foreclosure process. It is as far as the Commonwealth can go to try to force a creditor / mortgagee to negotiate a modification.

The notice that has to be given to the borrower/mortgagor before the creditor can start the foreclosure process, whether it is a 90 day notice or a notice after the 150 days, MUST contain the following information

1. Nature of the default and the amount of money needed to cure/fix the default
2. The date by which the default must be cured (stating "150 days after the date of this letter" or "90 days after the date of this letter" is not good enough. The creditor must give an actual DATE)
3. That is the borrower/mortgagor does not cure the default (pay the back amount owed) the creditor can take steps to foreclose on the house
4. The name and address of the creditor and the telephone number of a representative whom the borrower/mortgagor can contact if the borrower/mortgagor disagrees with the statements in the notice
5. Name of current and former mortgage broker or mortgage loan originator for the mortgage
6. Statement that the mortgagor/borrower may be eligible for help with the names and telephone number of the agencies
7. That the creditor may sell the property to pay off the mortgage
8. That the borrower/mortgagor may redeem the property anytime PRIOR to the sale by paying all amounts due
9. That the borrower/mortgagor may be evicted after the sale (this does not mean 5 minutes after the sale but after proper eviction proceedings in the Court)

NO PROPER NOTICE, NO FORECLOSURE

The Act gets technical - do not try to navigate it yourself. If you are behind and you receive a Notice to Cure, and you cannot PAY ALL ARREARS, contact a lawyer or Housing Agency immediately
Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Massachusetts Passes Homeowner Relief Bill

2010-07-30T14:00:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature passed and Governor Duval Patrick (D) signed a bill that will grant additional safeguards to homeowners facing foreclosures.

In short, Lenders/servicers/anyone trying to foreclose on a 1-4 family residence will have to give the homeowner a 150 day notice that there is a default and that if it is not cured/paid within 150 days from the date of the notice, the foreclosing party will have the right to start a foreclosure proceeding.

The bill also makes lenders offer a modification or other workout plan unless a formula shows that to do so will net the foreclosing party less than a foreclosure sale (net present value test).

A full analysis will appear on Monday August 2, 1010

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq. July, 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Class Actions for Modifications or Divine Intervention

2010-07-30T13:00:00.001-04:00

There has been movement in some state courts to shore-up the failure of the legislation enacting the Making Home Affordable program initiatives to modify loans (HAMP etc); Federal Courts seem paralyzed.

As stated in an earlier post, there is no private right of action under the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") or any of its siblings. Congress, the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and all of the alphabet soup of regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, TARP Oversight, etc), evidently did not want (or caved-in to the mortgage investment community) homeowners to be able to sue mortgage servicers and actual lenders just because the servicers and lenders uniformly and regularly ignore the intent and actual RULES and REGULATIONS set out in the MHA/HAMP enacting legislation/rule-making.

The lack of this "private right of action" means that no matter how slip-shod, devious, lying, resistant, unethical, and immoral the servicers and lenders are in reviewing, analyzing, and denying modifications, homeowners/borrowers CANNOT sue in Federal Courts, and specifically Bankruptcy Courts, to force a modification OR sue because the servicer/lender has REFUSED to follow Federal regulation, rules, and guidelines. Even if the home is foreclosed and sold after the servicer/lender promised a modification, Congress and the White House, in their hurry to curry favor with the Banking interests (Goldman Sachs, Chase, Bank of America) and keep lobbyists happy, failed to put any teeth in its MHA/HAMP legislation.

Only the regulators like the Treasury, FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), Federal Reserve, can even recommend/urge/push the Banks and Investors in mortgages and Mortgage-Backed securities to follow the rules. There are no teeth in the rules and regulations.

Some State Courts have seen fit to force Lenders and servicers to show that they have acted in good faith when a Homeowner manages to get before a judge. The key here is "acting in good faith". If there has been no "good faith", or worse, demonstrated "bad faith", State Courts are allowing injunctions to stop foreclosures. No one expects there to be a modification when a homeowner is 30 months behind and cannot make a payment even if it based on 2% interest rate for 40 years, unless the problem was fraud in the origination of the loan. But most issues are regular people with regular problems in today's economy: job loss, reduced income, illness or death.

The exception may be CLASS ACTION SUITS. Simplifying a complicated legal issue, simply put, if there can be shown that as a pattern and practice a lender/servicer systematically and consistently rejects modifications, or acts so negligently as to de facto reject modifications (never gets paper processed etc), and there are enough diverse persons affected, then there may well be a "CLASS" of persons affected enough to demonstrate that all are "third-party beneficiaries" of the federal law.

Homeowners and their attorneys should begin to think about such Class Actions. Perhaps if there are enough suits against Lenders/servicers and the "investor-managers" of the Mortgage-Backed Securities, Congress may take action: Don't count on the mortgage industry or the Banks to help any more than they are forced to by some higher power (as morality is out, do not plan on Divine Intervention).

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

"...And Winning, Winning, Winning' "

2010-07-13T11:00:00.000-04:00

As a solo practitioner I must acknowledge my work limitations; I cannot compete against the 40th floor Boston or other big-city law firms.

Make no mistake - these firms are within their legal rights to protect their clients through any legal means, but are they and their clients acting "morally" or, using the word in the common sense, ethically? In many cases I believe the Lenders/Servicers/Investors are not. They claim not to have any responsibility for the loans they made/service, regardless of how onerous, regardless of "bad faith", "bait and switch", unconscionable, and just plain improper and misleading. What's worse is that by the time the problem hits, most of the laws enacted to protect consumers have run their course - the "Statute of Limitations" has expired - it's too late to argue about the violations.

The Lenders are about taking no losses, granting no relief to someone facing foreclosure, just WINNING! I concur that winning is nice but how about DOING WHAT IS RIGHT?

The best and most apt summary of what it's like to work against the lenders is from lyrics of one of Don Henley's (formerly of the Eagles) songs

"Today I made and appearance downtown.

I am an expert witness, because I say I am.
And I said, 'Gentleman....and I use that word loosely...I will testify for you; I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar - Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated.
I can get you any result you like....what's it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right; And I sleep very well at night; No shame, no solution No remorse, no retribution.
Just people selling t-shirts just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus

And winning, winning, winning' "

They have won...I have lost! So have my clients!!!!!!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Synthetic Derivatives -What are They and Who Cares?

2010-06-14T10:00:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, the Senate interrogated the guys from Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street so-called "Investment Bank" The argument was about regulating Synthetic Derivatives. HUH? What are those and why does it matter anyway?

Here’s the easiest way to think about it - there is a real Football league made up of real football teams. In each game played there is a winning team and a losing team. And, in each game players do good or bad.

Then we have a Fantasy Football League, made up of the same teams but with the players on each team made up of peoples' "dream team" - players taken from any team and put together (only on paper). Based on how each player and the REAL TEAM he plays on does each week, these made up teams are ranked. People actually bet on these MADE UP TEAMS- "FANTASY TEAMS"- which are DERIVED from the real teams. A Fantasy League is a DERIVATIVE.

Now imagine a second "Fantasy Football League" made up of the same players and BUT instead being based on the outcome of the Real Teams, it’s based on the outcome of the FANTASY TEAMS and ranked according to how the players and the FANTASY TEAMS do each week. This is a Synthetic Derivative - it’s a bet about how well another bet will do! Will Pete win or lose on his bet on Fantasy Team #1. That’s what is being bet on.

A SYNTHETIC DERIVATIVE IS A BET ON A FANTASY FOOTBALL TEAM BASED ON A FANTASY FOOTBALL TEAM

Here's an example of REAL Derivatives and Synthetic Derivatives:

A bank (we'll call it "Bank 1") puts 10 mortgage loan together and creates what is called a "Collateralized Debt Obligation" abbreviated to "CDO". In this case, Bank 1 sells the CDO to an investor, possibly another bank called "Bank 2". Both Bank 1 and Bank 2 can actually see the collateral; go from house to house to be certain that the loan has collateral enough, that the houses are worth enough, to assure payment in case of a foreclosure (This is the way the "secondary market" used to run, but that was 20 years ago).

The key here is that while Bank 2 bought a "security", the pool of loans, called the CDO, it could actually see the collateral and was paying Bank 1 for the CDO (the 10 mortgage loans) based on reality. This was not a gamble but a true investment.

Now, let' take the CDO Bank 2 bought and make it part of a large pool of CDOs, maybe 100 of them, that a mortgage Bank puts together, a place like Goldman Sachs. . Now we have 1,000 mortgages comprising a "Mortgage Backed Security" ("MBS" for easy reference), spread out over a large geographic area. We have something that no one can really examine - the collateral is spread out over maybe 5 states, and there are 1,000 houses. It becomes a MBS because no one bank or institution bought this bunch of 1,000 mortgages as mortgages. Keep in mind that if each mortgage loan was originally for only $200,000, the MBS has a "value" of $200 million!

The MBS that was created by Goldman Sachs (in or example), is sold in pieces (of the $200 million MBS) to investors. For instance, a Mutual Fund that wants to provide a stream of income to it's customers who might be employees with a 401K or and IRA etc, might buy $10 million of the MBS. Another mutual fund might buy $20 million etc.So far, everything seems simple. Bank 1 puts 10 loans together and sells then to Bank 2. Bank 2 sells the loans, for a profit to a Mortgage Bank which is buying 100 of the CDOs like the one that Bank 2 bought and sold. The Mortgage Bank now has 1,000 mortgages (100 CDOs) and it calls them a "Mortgage Backed Security" or "MBS". THIS MBS IS A DERIVATIVE.

The MBS itself is nothing more than a security, something for sale which is DERIVED from the value of the mortgages that make it. Once the MBS is created no one thinks about looking at each house. Because of the number of loans, investors in the MBS are just betting that there will be an average number of mortgages defaulting and going to foreclosure. This is a gamble based on historical trends. Go back 4 years and think about what you considered the safest investment in the world - the value of your house!!

Now comes the weird part. There is a market for "investors" who will bet that the MBS will pay 100% of what it should and "investors" who figure that something will go wrong and the people who bought the MBS will get back only 80% of their investment. These Bets based on another Bet are bought and sold.

The price to buy one of these bets on a bet is based on hundreds of factors, like the disaster in the Gulf, the number of jobs created in a month, the value of the Euro in relation to the Dollar, the state of the war in Iraq, the problems in the Middle East as they can affect the oil supply, North Korea's testing of a missile, and on and on and on. These Bets on Bets are Synthetic Derivatives. Basically it is a bet placed on whether someone else's bet will pay off 100% or if it will pay only 80%.

That is what Congress is trying to regulate; the whole process that led to our economic collapse!

Maybe we should bet on whether Congress will get it done or not. I bet it won’t!!!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, June 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Better Now Or A Year Ago?

2010-05-19T10:00:00.001-04:00

Now that all of the drama of the Goldman Sachs vs Congress (actually Sen. Carl Levin) is over, what did it all mean. More importantly, WHO CARES? (well, I actually do but it's my job to care).

The reality is that regardless of who caused the financial crisis most of us just want to know when it will end and how will we survive until it does. Will knowing what a "Synthetic Derivative" help? NO, and it's not something you add to your cars oil or take out of it for that matter! If the crisis is over, if we have turned the corner on the recession, if the economy is improving, why is the unemployment rate still at record or near record levels, after adjusting for those who have fallen off of the rolls because benefits ran out, and deducting the Census workers?

The answer is easy, well at least explainable, or at a minimum, less confusing than Synthetic Derivatives. The term "Recession" is a technical economic word that rarely intersects everyday life. It deals with the number of consecutive calendar quarters that the "gross domestic product' declines. And when most TV types discuss the economy getting better they are really talking about the stock market, which a world unto itself.

For real people - are you better or worse off financially than you were 1 year ago? That's far from scientific and can be misleading, but it isn't a bad way to gauge the problem.

Foreclosures are still way up. April's figures showed fewer foreclosure sales but more actual cases where the lender has actually taken possession of the properties it foreclosed against months ago. And, the number of borrowers in default is not leveling yet. And the modification programs are still not really working. And people have so little left from their paychecks that they cannot afford to file bankruptcy using a lawyer, or even a document preparer (which is worse than filing themselves anyway).

In my office, we are taking payments for months from clients who want the expertise of a lawyer but can only pay $50 or $100 per month. The extra part-time job is gone; the overtime hours aren't available. Money is tight.

HOWEVER, at this point it doesn't appear that "the economy" will get any worse. This may not help every individual but it is an indication that we may have bottomed. How long we stay down is any one's guess.

Synthetic Derivatives? Think of a fantasy sports league based on a fantasy sports league, based on a real sports league! - (Next time I will try to explain in fewer than 5000 words)

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, May 2010
rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

The Sale is Over - My House is Gone!

2010-05-14T10:00:00.004-04:00

The first step in reversing a foreclosure is to prevent it in the first place. Makes no sense but it is true. Very few people (almost none) lose a house to foreclosure without knowing it is going to happen. This is true in a state like Massachusetts which does not require a Court hearing before a foreclosure sale, or one like Connecticut where there is a Court required mediation before any sale can take place. The first clue that there might be a foreclosure sale is that the homeowner HAS NOT PAID HIS/HER MORTGAGE FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS!

Hire a lawyer and if you do not know who to call, call the State Bar Association. Or go to or call a Housing Agency or go to a Court and ask someone in the Clerk's Office what to do, especially if there is a Housing Court where you live. Do whatever you can (legally) to stop the sale.

Okay, the sale takes place and the Lender buys back the house. What now? How have I managed to reverse a sale or actually 4 or 5 of them (one pending now)? The secret, which really is just good lawyering, is to understand the process; from the time a loan application is completed - the origination process, closing, recording of the documents, servicing (sending bills and collecting monthly mortgage payments), all of the steps in the actual foreclosure process, and, critically, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE SALE!!

In almost all States, there is a short period after a sale takes place for the homeowner and borrower to contest the validity of the sale. It may involve going to a Court, or registering the opposition at the place recording the Land Records or filing a grievance with a special Board; but there is a way to contest the proceeding. This step is important because it stops the process in its tracks. Stop the Foreclosure Deed from being put on record. Remember the purpose of the sale is for the Lender to get money - that is why it is called a foreclosure SALE. It get incredibly more difficult to reverse the sale if there is a second transfer to another buyer.

Do not forget that the lender which has your mortgage ordered the sale. Call them as soon as possible after the sale. You may have to wait on hold for an hour but so what! It's your home. Get to the foreclosure department at the lender, which may take another hour, but again, so what! You may be referred to the law firm or auctioneer which held the sale -call it. Do not give up until there is no one left to call. Make detailed notes of every number you called or department to which you were transferred, the name of the person(s) to whom you spoke, the length of the call, the length of the conversation, the CONTENT of your conversation, and anything else you think might be important.

The legal work really comes down to a few issues:

1. Was the sale conducted in strict accordance with the State statute - there are no federal laws?
2. Was the sale and the property properly advertised? (this is part of state procedure)
3. Were all of the steps required after the sale followed by the Lender and the "Buyer"?
4. Can you get to a Court and file a suit to prevent the deed from being recorded while things get sorted out?
5. Were you in the middle of a modification program, especially one under the Making Home Affordable program (HAMP modification), the so-called Obama Plan? If so contact the Lender IMMEDIATELY, and call a lawyer or housing agency.
6. Even though you were behind, can you make any payments to show good faith - family/friends who didn't realize the seriousness of the problem?
7. If you had previously spoken to a bankruptcy attorney CALL HIM/HER IMMEDIATELY.
8. Is the loan one owned by FannieMae or FreddieMac? If so, there is a good chance you can get the foreclosure fixed, rather undone.

There are another dozen legalities and related matters that should be examined, but the ones above will be the most critical right after the sale.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., May 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

FORECLOSURES 1 - MODIFICATIONS 0

2010-04-19T09:00:00.001-04:00

There is no way to maintain this BLOG as frequently as would be liked because FORECLOSURES ARE NOT DECREASING! We are saving at least one (1) house a week and for a small office that is a huge investment of time.

If you have your home sold at a foreclosure sale and you have not taken all possible steps to stop the sale, shame on you. If you never knew what options were available, shame on the attorneys and the mortgage industry. Keep in mind that a MORTGAGE SERVICER would rather foreclose than modify despite HAMP. The why is simple!

Servicers are paid a fee to handle the payments and billing on a monthly basis, of all loans in the portfolio. If a percentage of those loans get delinquent enough to warrant legal action the servicer wants no part of the process. They are paid for collecting money and sending bills, and referring mortgages to legal firms for foreclosure. THEY ARE NOT PAID FOR MODIFICATIONS! Yes, there is a provision in the Making Home Affordable package that theoretically pays $1,500 to a servicer for each modification, but that only applies to FannieMae and FreddieMac loans.

MOST IMPORTANT, A SERVICER LOSES NOTHING IF A HOUSE IS FORECLOSED AT A HUGE LOSS. The owner of the loan losses but the Servicer does not care. It gets paid for servicing the loan and gets paid for taking it to foreclosure. For example,there is no loss TO THE SERVICER because the loan was for $200,000 and the foreclosure sale resulted in the mortgagee (lender) buying the house back and then selling it for $100,000. No one has any risk of loss except the HOMEOWNER

So, we are left with the problem of a company spending money (salaries) to try to work on a modification by contacting the owner(s) of the loan and asking for permission and not getting paid for the work. Now, most servicing agreements (the contract between the owner of the loan, or the Trustee of the Mortgage Backed Security that actually owns the loan) grant a certain amount of leeway for the servicing company (A.S.C., AHMSI (old Option One), Ocwen, HomeEq, CitiMortgage etc, Chase Mortgage etc., ETC.). This flexibility is very limited. What is not limited is foreclosing, and each foreclosure gets money to the servicer for finalizing the loan.

If this all reads like "Lost in the Fun House" or "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or the housing equivalent of FEMA during Katrina in Louisiana, that is because it is counter-intuitive and counter-productive, and costly. The monetary costs can be calculated and written-off as a "cost of doing business". The Servicer or owner of the loan, the Mortgage Backed Security or the Bank, may even receive money from the bail-out programs for foreclosing and "taking a loss"

The good news - It is possible, sometimes, to reverse a foreclosure. I know this because I have done FIVE (5). There are no tricks, no easy ways to do it, and no lender will want to cooperate AT FIRST. Details in the next installment

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, April, 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

The Recession:It Has An End (We Hope)

2010-03-16T17:02:00.006-04:00

I recently saw a billboard that read " THE RECESSION: IT HAS AND END". Tell that to the people who have been irreparably damaged by the economic collapse we have just been through and the slow recovery we are in now.

The recession and the increase in foreclosures has actually aided one sector of business. If you watch cable television, especially after 8pm almost any evening you will instantly recognize the verbal headline "STOP FORECLOSURE NOW!" or one of my other favorites "IF YOU OWE AT LEAST $10,000 IN CREDIT CARD DEBT WE CAN HELP WITHOUT BANKRUPTCY". The telephone number to call is the same "CALL 1-800-WE SCAM U"

Jaundiced, cynical view? Just a hard cold look at an industry that preys off of peoples’ misery in these very difficult times. While the pace of NEW consumer credit debt has slowed, it is more because of the fact that card issuers have increased rates to 30% (just before the Feb. 22, 2010 deadline) or because they have cut back credit lines so that there is virtually no available credit on many card-holders cards - they have been MAXED OUT (Read James Scurlock’s book of that name or get the DVD of this award winning documentary on consumer credit in the US)

The Mortgage rescue scam companies are out there in force promising to save your house provided you pay them anywhere from $1,500 to $7,500 up front for their services. The most that nearly all of them can do is to direct you to complete documents for participation in the President’s "MAKING HOME AFFORDABLE" program.

From experience, most lenders, while they do not want to take houses, do not want to have a mortgage loan on the books that is not paying the monthly installment. It is inconceivable that there are these super companies out there in TV world which can work miracles and force a mortgage lender or a mortgage servicer to take less than it is owed. Some will have your mortgage documents audited - reviewed for any irregularities or violations of the laws that govern consumer lending and specifically mortgage transactions. Others will just keep stalling, using your money until the house is foreclosed on, or right until the week before a foreclosure sale and then return some portion to you. They will blame the lenders - You will not have a home!

On the credit card side, there is at least one company that is offering assistance with credit card debt as "...authorized by the President's Stimulus Plan". The Treasury Department’s, FDIC’s TARP’S, the Federal Reserve’s plan all allow debt reduction. BUT, such plans were always allowed. . The promise that for a "reasonable fee" a company can force a creditor to take 50% is absurd. It is especially harmful to those who stop making regular payments because of the promised salvation described in the 60 second "magic pill"commercial

Quick tips :

1. There is no secret to reducing the debt (see earlier posts). If it is a mortgage, you need an attorney or someone from one of the government sponsored programs to help you through the maze of paperwork.

2. Credit Card debt? - Most companies will not even talk to you about a compromise settlement until you are 90 days late. By then, if the company will not accept the "settlement offer" you are so far behind that you will never be able to catch up. There are a few like Consumer Credit Counseling Services of Southern New England (or your location) which will try to negotiate reduced interest rates to lower your payments BEFORE you get too far behind. They change a nominal monthly fees but no up front fee for their service.

3. If you are in danger of losing your home, or of losing your sanity, contact an attorney who works in these fields. You should get objective and non-leading advice. If a bankruptcy is the only way to protect your house, you will be so informed. If you cannot make even minimum monthly payments on your credit cards, a brief consultation, normally free, with an attorney will point that out to you. On the other hand, if there is another way around the problems, a knowledgeable and ethical attorney will be able to show you the way.

In summary - do not fall for the "1 800 we save u" companies. If they were that good, the TV advertising wouldn't be necessary and the Treasury Department would hire them to straighten out the federal budget

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

rii@isacofflaw.com

Recession In Real Life

2010-02-22T10:00:00.003-05:00

Has anybody stopped to look at real people, and not just to discuss economic theory. The theory states that a "recession occurs when there are two or more consecutive quarters when the gross domestic product ("GDP") falls". GREAT - what does that mean? To most of us NOTHING. It’s just another scorecard for the government and the entities that control the money supply, the interest rates, the federal budget, and the stock market, and of course, it is important for economists.

The problem for the un-wealthy is that this country is "...Of the People, By the People, and For the People...". The key word is "people" - that is opposed to "person". The government, out of necessity, looks only at the TOTAL financial picture of the ENTIRE country. Policy is made for a GRAND SCALE, the people, so that "on average" a stimulus package will work; a foreclosure prevention program will actually abate the crisis of people losing their homes; the unemployment rate starts to decline.

"On average" does not help any individual, just the larger group. By that I mean that there will be a few that do very well, a few that really get hurt, and the vast majority probably survive - but barely!

Look at the results of the Making Home Affordable Program, the parent to the Home Affordability Modification Program ("HAMP"). Foreclosures continue at numbers far exceeding what we have seen in the past, and much of the slow-down in the pace of foreclosures is because mortgage companies just do not want any more inventory.

SOME EXAMPLES OF THE PROBLEM:

1. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. ("AHMSI"), the 6th largest servicer in the country, has 124,300+ loans it was handling that are more than 60 days delinquent and program eligible. Just 10,000 (9%) of these were in the first step to a modification, a Trial Modification Program; and only 232 (less than 2/10ths of 1%) had permanent modifications. No wonder - I submitted a package, with ALL of the required documents for a client, and after waiting 3 months, he was offered a Trail Modification that INCREASED his payments by $180/month - 17%. His loan was sold through Predatory practices, a fact of which AHMSI and its attorneys are aware but, so what! ON AVERAGE, when they do a modification, it helps.

2. Wilshire Mortgage (technically Wilshire Credit Corporation) buys and services large blocks of mortgages. My clients fell behind due to a loss of pay - (company closing so $18/hr became $8.10/hr), and because of very bad accident, where husband was out of work, getting grafts etc, for 8 months. I submitted a COMPLETE HAMP package to Wilshire, using their forms and comprised of 40 pages, on August 19, 2009. In early January I called as we had received no response despite many telephone calls to the company. I was told that they had the documents but they were now out of date - please update. I sent a full new package per instructions on 2/2/2010, but the scheduled foreclosure sale for 2/17/2010 would not be postponed. So I filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code THE DAY BEFORE THE SALE, and have filed suit against Wilshire within the week.

3. HSBC/HFC/Household Finance (I & II)/Beneficial (all the same owner - HSBC) had been sent documents over a month ago. I contacted both the foreclosure attorney and HFC’s (et al) primary litigation counsel for help. Literally the day before the sale was to take place I had to file suit to stop the sale. The loan was a "bait and switch" with multiple sets of original documents, with a last minute increase in the interest rate, federally and state required disclosures not given to the borrowers, or or incorrect on the face of the documents. No modification was ever even offered to the borrowers despite their submission of documents.

4. The mortgages I have with JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Bank of America Home Mortgage (the old Countywide), Saxon Mortgage, OneWest (formerly IndyMac Bank)and several others, follow the same pattern

"ON AVERAGE":

In ALL of the above cases, my clients can afford their mortgage with a rate reduced to 5%. In all cases, the necessary paperwork was filed timely to prevent a foreclosure sale, but WITH THE SPECIFIC MORTGAGE the lender/servicer was just too busy. ON AVERAGE the claim is that the companies are responsive and adhering to the MHA program guidelines. That may be true but dealing with SPECIFICS, people are losing their homes. I have at least 15 cases just like these with more coming in every day - and most are taken with the hope that the lender will have to pay attorney fees because the clients do not have the money.

MHA, HAMP, HARP, TARP, and the other acronym programs, work "ON AVERAGE" - or in these cases they DO NOT. Even the Government’s grand scale of looking at problems for the mass solution do not make any sense. It’s like looking through binoculars backwards. Everything looks fine until you hit the iceberg.

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

New Credit Card Regs Effective Today

2010-02-22T08:30:00.001-05:00

(See entire posting on this issue at February 10, 2009)

New Credit CARD Act of 2009 rules went into effect TODAY, and the are actually some decent regulations

1. Card Issuers will have to check on the customers ability to repay before issuing cards. Sounds common sense doesn't it! It will be unreasonable, under the new regulation and always has been based on life, for a card issuer to give a card to someone without income or assets, and for a card issuer not to review such information.

2. Before you can be assessed an over-limit fee, you will have to AGREE to allow over your limit charges to be accepted. It is not like so many other programs where you have to say "no" or your in, here if you do not say "YES" you cannot be assessed a fee or penalized in any way if you are approved for an over-limit charge

3. If the Card Issuer is going to increase your rate, for any reason, you must receive at least 45 days notice, and then the increase can only apply to charges/cash advances AFTER the 45 day date. Old balances pay at the old rate of interest.

4. Your rate cannot be increased, in nearly all circumstances, for the first 12 months you have your card. The exceptions include if you get a variable rate card where the interest rate is supposed to go up and down; or if you are more than 60 days late in the first 12 months.

5. If you are under 21, you will have to show that you can afford the payments on your maximum credit limit, or have an over 21 co-signor.

6. Card issuers will not be able to make deals with colleges or high schools to come onto campus to offer cards if the card company offers the school an incentive to let it in.

7. Payment dates must be the same day (1st 4th 8th 27th etc) each month and if the payment date falls on a holiday or weekend, not late fee or penalty can be assessed

8. The new statements must contain information in bold type of the New Balance, Minimum Payment Due, and the Due Date. There must also be a warning of what will happen to the rate and when it will happen if a payment is late. The biggest change in statements is that each month it MUST show how long it will take to pay off the balance at the present interest rate if you make Only The Minimum Payment; AND HOW MUCH YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY, TO PAY OFF THE BALANCE IN 3 YEARS. It must also show how much in total you will pay in each case

9. Credit Card Issuers MUST post their agreements on their websites, have the agreements first approved by the Federal Reserve, and have the Federal Reserve Board post them on the Fed’s comprehensive and advertised Card Agreement Website. (WELCOME TO 2010!)

Note: The full 841 page bill with commentary before final adoption is available at the Federal Reserve’s website but a shortened version along with the long one is at: www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/wyntk/creditcardrules.htm

Others At:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1400.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=7252770

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGY0jooXIsU&feature=player_embedded

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

New Credit Card Rules - Finally!

2010-02-10T10:00:00.001-05:00

In August of last year some of the new Credit CARD Act of 2009 rules went into effect, saving the most far reaching provisions until February 22, 2010. That’s right, just a few days from now. So, what has Congress in store for us now? Actually some decent regulations

1. Card Issuers will have to check on the customers ability to repay before issuing cards. Sounds common sense doesn’t it! It will be unreasonable, under the new regulation and always has been based on life, for a card issuer to give a card to someone without income or assets, and for a card issuer not to review such information.

Currently, most card issuers just check the credit ("FICO") score, or maybe the score and the recent payment history. NEW: Now there must be policies in place to determine the ratio of debt obligations to income; or the debt obligations to assets; or the amount the consumer will have remaining after paying debts. The card issuer may rely on the information provided by the consumer on his/her application. Otherwise the company will have to gather information on deposits, assets, income - just like a real lender. If you "stretch" your income on a credit application (show more significantly income than you make each month) do not look for the laws to help defend you.

2. Before you can be assessed an over-limit fee, you will have to AGREE to allow over your limit charges to be accepted. It is not like so many other programs where you have to say "no" or your in, here if you do not say "YES" you cannot be assessed a fee or penalized in any way if you are approved for an over-limit charge

Right now, many card issuers love it when someone goes $.01 over the authorized limit because the card company can charge a fee of whatever it wants, but commonly $39. True, you do not get rejected at the check-out counter but, maybe you would want to know before buying a hamburger at McD’s for $1.00 and paying $39 for the privilege.

3. If the Card Issuer is going to increase your rate, for any reason, you must receive at least 45 days notice, and then the increase can only apply to charges/cash advances AFTER the 45 day date. Old balances pay at the old rate of interest.

At the present, if you get a rate increase, your fault for being late too often or because the card company is greedy, the increase applies to all outstanding balances - old/existing and new. Now it will be only on the new activity.

4. Your rate cannot be increased, in nearly all circumstances, for the first 12 months you have your card. The exceptions include if you get a variable rate card where the interest rate is supposed to go up and down; or if you are more than 60 days late in the first 12 months.

Teaser rates - will be nearly a thing of the past. The company will have to disclose the teaser rate period and the actual rate it will charge after that period is up And the teaser period must be at least 6 months

5. If you are under 21, you will have to show that you can afford the payments on your maximum credit limit, or have an over 21 co-signor.

We all know of the horror stories about the 17 or 18 year old high school student who get an offer in the mail, sends back the YES I WANT IT postcard, gets a $7,500 credit limit, and then cannot make the minimum payments after one payment is missed and the rate goes from 5% to 30.99% Will this be annoying? Sure, but it will prevent a good deal of anxiety on the part of those under 21 who got "swindled"/misled/were easy marks. If the under 21 can show that he/she can pay, from a provable source, then the card company is permitted to issue the card.

6. Card issuers will not be able to make deals with colleges or high schools to come onto campus to offer cards if the card company offers the school an incentive to let it in.

Surprised that schools would get kick-backs? Why be surprised - look at college football! If there is any kind of permission given, both the school and the card company MUST disclose all arrangements; any that pay the school will be deemed illegal.

7. Payment dates must be the same day (1st 4th 8th 27th etc) each month and if the payment date falls on a holiday or weekend, not late fee or penalty can be assessed

Credit card companies love changing the day a payment is due to, for instance, "25 days from the date the last payment was received if it was not received late". Who knows when the company receives a payment. Also, weekends and holidays are bonus days for companies because they have earned a great deal of late fees the day after those days.

8. The new statements must contain information in bold type of the New Balance, Minimum Payment Due, and the Due Date. There must also be a warning of what will happen to the rate and when it will happen if a payment is late. The biggest change in statements is that each month it MUST show how long it will take to pay off the balance at the present interest rate if you make Only The Minimum Payment; AND HOW MUCH YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY, TO PAY OFF THE BALANCE IN 3 YEARS. It must also show how much in total you will pay in each case

9. Credit Card Issuers MUST post their agreements on their websites, have the agreements first approved by the Federal Reserve, and have the Federal Reserve Board posat them on the Fed’s comprehensive and advertised Card Agreement Website. (WELCOME TO 2010!)

Note: The full 841 page bill with commentary before fianl adoption is available at the Federal Reserve’s website but a shortened version along with the long one is at:

www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/wyntk/creditcardrules.htm

Others At:

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1400.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=7252770

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGY0jooXIsU&feature=player_embedded

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, February 2010
rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Keeping Your House

2010-01-28T11:00:00.005-05:00

"Making Home Affordable", Loan Modifications, Loss Mitigation, "HAMP", "HARP" "HASP" - all are programs of one type or another to help homeowners from losing their house. They are not working very well as detailed in prior posts. So, WHAT DO YOU DO TO KEEP THE HOUSE?

There is no easy way. Outlined below are steps that should be followed and followed and followed to stop a foreclosure or fend off the possibility of facing a foreclosure.

1. As soon as you believe that you might have a problem making payments, contact the lender's loss mitigation department or the Making Home Affordable ("MHA") department.

2. Get written instructions from the lender/servicer of the steps to follow and documents needed to get a loan modification.

3. Keep in mind that a loan modification ("loan mod") can be a reduction in rate for the balance of the loan, or just a deferral of a few payments. Do not under-sell your problem and if the suggested solution will not work over the long term, ask for a different program.

4. Typically, you will be asked to supply documents including at a minimum: a. Hardship Affidavit (check http://http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/ for the form), b. Financial Statement (form lender directs you to retrieve from website), c. one or two years tax returns, d. your two most recent pay stubs, e. proof of homeowners insurance being in-place on the property, f. copy of recent real estate tax bill g. one or two months bank statements. There may be other documents required.

5. PAY ATTENTION. Provide ALL requested/required documents the FIRST TIME you send in your request/plea for a Loan Mod. The biggest reason for denial of help to a homeowner is that no all of the paperwork was sent

6. Make several copies of everything you send to the lender as the first package has a 50/50 chance of being lost

7. Send the package Certified Mail, return receipt requested. You may need proof later that you DID send the documents

8. Begin calling for the status of your Loan Mod 4-5 days after the package was received. Be prepared to spend 45 minutes on the telephone navigating the computer enhanced telephone answering system. DO NOT JUST HANG UP! This is what military folks call "Hurry up and wait". DO IT!

9. Call every 3-4 days, without fail, to check on the progress. Call even if the customer representative says not to call so often. It is your house at stake, not his/hers.

10. If you are told after 10 days that your package was not received, send a new package. Be sure to update the pay stubs. It shouldn't be necessary to re-submit everything, but it is. Just do it!

11. Check the Lender's/servicer's website to see if the is the ability to track your Loan Mod application online.

12. If you have a problem, call the lender as often as is necessary to get your answer - get a live person on the telephone. You might not get the answer you need, but it is a start

13. If it looks like a foreclosure will begin against you, or if one already has, call an attorney who deals with foreclosure prevention. One of the organizations that can help you find a lawyer is the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys at http://www.nacba.org/ ; another is the American Bankruptcy Institute at http://www.abi.org/ (look for the consumer bankruptcy center). Other resources - your local Bar Association. Explain your problem and ask for a referral

14. DO NOT sign up for the "Send us $2,500 and we will fix your problem" companies. Too many of them are scams.

15. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE A FORECLOSURE TO START TO TAKE ACTION. You will lose!!

Below are listed the websites for 5 major lenders' Homeowner Assistance programs.

Wells Fargo https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/account/paymenthelp

JPMorgan Chase https://www.chase.com/chf/mortgage/hrm_options

OCWEN https://www.ocwencustomers.com/openFCLSPreventionPlan.action

Bank of America and Countrywide http://homeloanhelp.bankofamerica.com/en/loan-solutions.html

CitiMortgage https://www.citimortgage.com/Mortgage/Home.do?page=homeowner_assistance
Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq. January 2010

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

Never Mind Who's On First; Where Is First?

2010-01-18T11:00:00.003-05:00

In the on-going saga of the Making Home Affordable Program, which spawned HAMP and HARP, no less a giant in news than the New York Times, carried what seems to be directly contradictory information about the program's success/failure.

In the Saturday January 16th edition the Times ran two stories: "JPMorgan Chase Earns $11.7 Billion" by-lined to Eric Dash, and "U.S. Mortgage Plan Aided 7 Percent of Borrowers" by-lined to Sewell Chan. Both stories are well-written and intriguing, but neither can be accurate. The problem is that no one knows the truth.

Eric Dash recites that JPMorgan has been so successful that it has $26.9 billion set aside for employee bonuses. That is attributed in large part to the fact that the "...bank has agreed to temporarily modify 600,000 mortgages. Only about 89,000 of those adjustments have been made permanent." Mr. Sewell, in his news story states that "Mortgage payments have been permanently lowered for more than 66,000 borrowers under the Obama administration's $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure..." He goes on to write "as of the end of December, they said [Treasury and HUD] more than 853,696 homeowners were actively in the modification program... The figure includes 787,231 trial modifications and 66,465 permanent modifications"

Assuming the number of trial modifications is correct in both stories, that means that all other lenders COMBINED account for only 253,696 modifications - less than 29%. Has JPMorgan really outpaced ALL OTHER LENDERS COMBINED and done 71% of all modifications? And if Treasury and HUD are reporting only 66,465 permanent modifications, how has JPMorgan Chase managed 89,000? That would mean that JPM Chase has done all of the reported HAMP modifications and 23,000+/- of their own!

The reality is that NO ONE KNOWS! Further, the Treasury Department and Housing and Urban Development do not have a clue about what is really happening "in the trenches". Yesterday I received an e-mail from a client who had applied for and been approved for a trial modification. Now, 4 months later, after making all of the required payments, she received a letter from the venerable JPMorgan Chase asking for a "complete Trial Modification Package".

This scenario is playing out in 1/2 of my clients going through HAMP. Who knows what the percentage is nationwide? The program is not bad, it's just that no one is in charge. Washington feels good because "they" can say that "they" have committed $75 billion to help the entire country - 4 million homeowners. It's not working! (And think about the amount of money - $75 billion for all 4 million (and increasing) mortgages in trouble: $26.9 billion for bonuses at JPMorgan Chase Investment Banking.)

HAMP and HARP are disasters - there is no enforcement of the rules set out by Treasury and HUD. There is no monitoring on an institutional basis. All reporting is unaudited. What is worse, there is no one for a borrower seeking help to call.

The lenders/servicers have call centers staffed with people who try to be helpful but just do not have much information. They read from a computer screen to tell borrowers what they need to supply to apply. The call center folks may have an FAQ section to which they can refer. But, if there is a problem such as the one my client has, where she is being asked to start over, there is no one who can help her. The call center people will say that documents have been received and processed but they cannot fix the problem of the new request; nor is there anyone else with whom the borrower can speak. Give up? Do Not! Ask for a supervisor, send in new documents, certified, return requested mail.

Next installment - what to do until the Doctor comes. An outline of how to navigate MHA a/k/a HASP and the off-spring HAMP and HARP

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., January 2010

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

Mortgages, Foreclosure, Morality

2010-01-11T11:00:00.001-05:00

It is unfortunate but we must deal with the economics of keeping versus "walking away from" your house.

Housing values have fallen dramatically over the past 18 months, to a level that many homeowners owe more than the house is worth. That is not so bad if the owner can make the payments without struggling. But what happens when a foreclosure looms? The choices seem obvious - 1. Let the house, your home, go to a foreclosure sale, and you move; or 2. Scrape and fight and get money any honest way you can to try to keep that house you call home.

Ah, one might say - you are acting immorally by walking away from the home and the debt. Or, someone might think, "Gee, if I give up my house I will never be able to get another one." Better yet is the argument bringing the kids into the equation "Well, I can't move my kids to a different school or a different neighborhood. I MUST keep my house even if it kills me. I will work 20 hours a day if necessary!"

First, there is nothing immoral about making a contract with a bank or other lender that states "We, the BANK, will lend you money to pay for a house, and YOU promise to pay us back, a little each month. IF YOU DO NOT PAY we will take your house away from you and evict you." That is the deal. The contract, mortgage and note" do not mention heaven, hell, purgatory, or even limbo (if it still exists). It does not state that if you do not pay, and you believe in reincarnation, that you will come back as a rock, or a brick that get put into a house destined for foreclosure.

Let's be realistic: which is worse - 1. Kids having to move to a different house (same school through school choice in Mass. at least) and have to make new friends in the new neighborhood [even that doesn't work if they are past grammar school] or 2. Mom/Dad in a foul mood, bickering and fighting as to who is to blame for the money problems. That "discussion" typically goes something like this:"You were paying the bills. You knew we were getting behind. Why didn't you do something about it?" Responding in a louder voice "ME? You are the one who went to work for that sleazy contractor/sales force/outlet store/whatever. Why aren't you back to work yet. I mean why haven't you gotten a second (or third) job? I told you not to get that mortgage" Now, yelling back, "How dare you talk to me like that. I earned $XXXXX - how was I to know that..." Shrieking, the retort is "Is was your job to know! And you should have seen that the mortgage was no good (or that the house would drop in value or whatever).

That is great for kids to hear and feel - feel the tension in the house; understand that Mom/Dad (one or both) are angry, scared, "in a mood", ignoring those kids except to yell at them. And if there are no kids, but a spouse or companion, the battle rages on, neither party stopping to work out a solution - analyze the options. Just move ahead blindly because he/she MUST keep the house!!

There is no shame in finding out that you cannot pay the increased payments, or the regular payments because hours were cut. Do not try to blame yourself by believing "I should have read the papers more closely - even though I did not understand anything" or convinced that, if you are on lay-off, you will be called back to work and you can catch up then.

The mortgage companies had no problem or regrets in selling loans they knew might not be good. These same banks and lenders do not hesitate to let their own investment properties go to foreclosure if there is no value and it would be "good money after bad". They had no difficulty with their collective consciences when the mortgages were packaged and sold to mutual funds that crashed. They do not feel immoral when they refuse to modify loans so you can keep you house, or when they send you paperwork to complete which you send in which they lose so you send it in again, which they don't ever get etc.

I am not advocating just walking away from the debt/house without a full examination of whether there is a solution that will let you keep your home. But, I am pushing you to "do the numbers". Is it realistic to try to keep the house? Is there any equity in it or will you paying on value that was never there or that disappeared? How about the relationship with your partner, family, your kids?

If there is any shame in any of this housing mess, it would be that families are devastated and torn apart - not by having to move, but by trying to hang on to a dream that is not lost, just postponed.

It is just money - Contact an FHA Home Preservation Counselor or an attorney who deals with these issues regularly so that you can at least have all of the facts BEFORE you make a decision. If you are concerned about the Lender coming after you for any deficiency (difference between what you owed and the foreclosure sale price) there are ways to avoid that, legally. Do not despair - there is help available.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq. , January 2010

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

rii@isacofflaw.com

Foreclosures, Jobs, Bank Mergers, & What Retirement ?

2009-12-27T11:30:00.003-05:00

As we approach the end of the year there are a number if issues we should keep in mind. All are important but at differing levels depending on our own circumstances

1. The Foreclosure Crisis is far from over. There are currently approximately 3.5 million homes in some stage of foreclosure. It is projected that 2010 will see another 3 million enter foreclosure (that's 6.5 million without any further economic deterioration). Keep in mind that this does not include mortgages in default, by even as much as 90 days, that have not been moved to the "F" status by the lender.

The Making Home Affordable Program ("MHA") is broken, probably beyond repair. Very few (less than 1% of the loans in the Trial Modification period) have made it to a permanent modification. Lenders are blaming borrowers for not sending in documents timely or for not making payments within the successive 30 day periods. True, the are a certain number of borrowers who will not be able to keep their homes because they could never have afforded it, or have had a life altering experience from which they cannot recover.

BUT, I have had to submit documents for 40% of my clients, for whom I am working the MHA program, 2, 3, and even 4 times; and sometimes Borrowers are promised coupons for payments, never get them, make a payment late and are disqualified from the program - this again from my personal experience as an attorney with knowledge of the MHA program, bankruptcy, mortgages, real estate conveyancing, finance and financial planning, money management, banking and economics.

2. Un-Employment and Under-Employment exceeds 14%. Add to that sobering figure the numbers of jobless who no longer have unemployment benefits and who have given up registering for jobs at the local State Agency, and we move to the 18%-20% range or 1 in 5 or 6 people in the eligible labor force. This does not help the foreclosure problem - it's hard to pay for your house with no job, or with receiving a cut in hours by 25%, or by getting a "new" job paying $11/hour instead of the $18/hr in the job just lost.

Un/under-employment doesn't help consumer spending either. People are spending less, especially for true discretionary items, like the new car, new television, new washing machine, extra pair of shoes, and eating out. That is bad for business profits which is bad for job creation or just job market stability. And it is not just the big stores that are suffering; in fact, they can weather the storm better than the mom and pop stores and small businesses nationwide. All of this leads to a further erosion in jobs and then another round of foreclosures, and then another bank failure and on and on.

3. In a mere 15 months there has been such a massive consolidation in the Banking and Finance sectors that 3 years ago the Justice Department would have been bringing anti-trust actions daily (yes, that is hyperbole but barely). How has this hurt? Try to get a loan from any non-local bank, especially if you have average credit individually or are a small business with no access to equity markets (selling stock for example) or public debt offerings (like corporate bonds).

So now we have businesses, under the gun because of a downturn in business which is caused by un/under-employment, which cannot get money to stay in business waiting for the economy to turn positive - thus another business failure. Or we have an individual who cannot convince his/her lender to modify a loan or refinance it (no cash out at closing, just a lower interest rate) because the bank finds the Borrower's credit does not meet the lender's NEW credit criteria.
Guess what? Another foreclosure! Oh, and by the way, each foreclosure tends to lower the values of homes around the foreclosed property, so equity evaporates making it impossible for the under-employed with an above-average but not stellar credit score to refinance because the loan-to-value ratio (amount of loan divided into the value of the house) is too high (greater then 70-80%).

4. The "golden years" of retirement? They may be gone for an entire generation who had investments in 401k plans, IRAs, and the stock market generally. Sure the markets are up in the sense that the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P indices are up from their lows, but have average people recovered their losses. Basically NO! When we hear "The stock market is up 24% from a year ago" (still 30+% below where it was before the crash) that means that the securities traders are making money and some large corporations are as well. Sure, some individuals' portfolios have gained back part of the loss but recovered? NO! And we still do not know about Social Security, or health care, or ....

Further, as discussed on NPR's show "Marketplace Money" this morning by Knight Kiplinger, editor-in-chief of one of the most respected financial publications, there is a new reality: People cannot depend on the equity in their homes for part of their retirement funding. His comments went on to state that "... now housing has returned to its rightful place, as a place you live. It is shelter; it is not an investment".

This is a major change in approach from what had been a belief held for decades by homeowners, and was part of the advice given by investment counselors/financial planners to their customers/clients. It went something like this: "With the yearly appreciation on your house being 5%, in 14 1/2 years the value will have doubled and the mortgage will be paid down by one-half, so you'll have plenty of equity when you sell to buy that nice condo by the beach".

Now we cannot plan to use the house we live in for retirement money - after 25 years and 5 refinances, but never beyond 80% of the house's value, we will be lucky to have the funds to pay off the then existing mortgage and have a few dollars left for? Certainly not the condo on the beach. Is that what has happened in the housing market and if so, what is being done to stop the further erosion of value, goes down every time there is a foreclosure in the area of your home.

We go back to the Mortgage meltdown, the continuing high un/under- employment, the rampant crimes committed by Wall Street mortgage securitizers, and our own use of our homes as the means to get money for vacations, a new car, a new porch or pool etc. When you get a Home Equity Line Of Credit ("HELOC") and it comes with a debit card to make using the credit line easier, we should have known something was not right. Paying for a cup of coffee with your house's equity? Maybe not that bad but...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

More crucial is our attitude, the way we all believe this will turn out. There is growing despair among those hit hardest - those who have lost jobs and those who are losing homes. EMPLOYMENT is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcome. If people are gainfully employed they can begin to recapture their lives. Then and only then there is the potential to save the home, or not worry about whether the heating bill should be paid or the electric bill; and the car payment?

After a sign that the job scene is getting better, people NEED to see and believe that the government is taking real steps to stop foreclosures. Earlier posts have discussed some of the ways the loans which have become securitized can be modified. That said, our current financial services (banking, brokerage, insurance) regulators like FDIC, Federal Reserve, Treasury Department must take action to force the lenders to modify those loans that already qualify for the MHA program. Lost documents, unreasonable deadlines given to borrowers, no clear instructions on where to send payments, an endless loop of telephone prompts without human intervention for 30-45 minutes, all have to stop.

Maybe the outcome of the foreclosures will be to create jobs with the companies that service the loans, inspect the properties, go to Court to evict you, and clean up the property to get the house ready for sale.

Prognosis? the patient, us, will live but what will be the quality of life?

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, December 2009

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

One Bank's Lies, Another's Obfuscation?

2009-12-16T11:00:00.005-05:00

The answer to the title question is a qualified MAYBE! (Obfuscate: to muddy the waters so no one has a clue about the real answer or even the question) Based on ever changing figures, the Wall Street Journal reported, in its December 11th edition, that there are nearly 5% of the homeowners in the Making Home Affordable Program ("MHAP")who have "permanent" mortgage modifications. If we go back to the beginning of the MHAP, it was estimated that there were 2,700,000 homeowners eligible. That figure did not include loans that did not fall within modification guidelines, even if they did come within the HARP (Home Affordable REFINANCE Program) structure.

The math on the 2.7 million figure equates to about 1.15% of those eligible have a permanent modification. That is substantially up from the numbers reported only 3 weeks ago but... The reality is that the Banks, including the biggest in the country (Bank of America, CitiBank, JPMorgan Chase) are not making loans or loan modifications without being forced to do so.

In my practice in western Western Massachusetts, I am dealing with a multitude of lenders, in every case, trying to save a home. While I have the occasional client who got into financial trouble of his/her own doing, the vast majority, 90-95%, find themselves facing foreclosure because of job loss, fewer hours available, ill health/death and the related medical bills, or family problems such as divorce, or some combination of these factors. ADDING TO THESE ISSUES IS THERE DEVASTATION OF BAD LOANS AND THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

The only way I can get the attention of some of the lenders is to file suit. That is my last resort - whether the action is in a State court or in U S Bankruptcy Court. There is little interaction with loan workout specialists, now called Loss Mitigation Specialists, before documents, often obtained from the MHA.gov website, are sent to the lender. It is at this critical juncture that lenders or their servicing companies are lying or obfuscating.

All of the current articles quoting lenders as to the reason so few modifications are becoming permanent, cite the lenders as stating that only a small percentage complete all of the required paperwork, and of those, 1 out of 5 default on the "Trial Payment Period" payments. It is my personal experience that fully 50% of the submissions to the MHA program at any specific lender are LOST. I have sent 2,3 and sometimes 4 packages to the MHA department of a mortgagee/servicer before I get a set of documents that are not lost. Seldom will anyone in the servicing side say "I am sorry, we misplaced the documents we need." It is generally a form letter, received by me or my client, that states that the client did not qualify because inadequate information was provided, specifically that the package of forms was never received.

Even at that a new problem arises: after 45-60 days of waiting the documents sent are stale (outdated) or the foreclosure, which had been postponed due to the eligibility and contact under MHA, is re-scheduled. As for the default in payments - if someone receive a notice on Dec 4th that states the beginning payment under the trial period is due Dec. 1st, how can anyone comply? If I am lucky enough to get a lawyer for the lender involved, the process moves much more efficiently, as the lawyer knows the stakes for the lender.

In fairness (a phrase I am getting tired of having to use) to the mortgage folks, they are overwhelmed. No one could prepare for this number of "problem" mortgages. Okay, fine! Why then are modifications being refused by lenders? Has not the Treasury, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, along with the "Administration" said they want the program to work, and NOW? Yes, but none of these folks tried to assist in getting a bill through the House of Representatives that would have put pressure on the Banks etc. to MAKE Homes affordable.

When the House debated a bill to allow Bankruptcy Judges to modify home mortgages, and it seemed like it would pass, but the Mortgage Backed Security holders and big investors said NO! and the spike in permanent modifications was announced to show that nothing else was needed.
On Monday the bill was defeated and I predict it will be back to business usual - just the endless loop of automated prompts from one department to another and the seemingly coordinated 45 minute wait for a representative.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, December 2009

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

How Many Clients Does it Take....

2009-12-07T10:00:00.002-05:00

"How Many Clients Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb?" is the name of a small but funny (to a lawyer anyway) book by a fellow attorney from the other end of Massachusetts. Val (actually Giovanni) Diviacchi has written this short but all to true statement, not just about clients, but about all of us in reality. The Answer? One! He/she holds the light bulb and expects the world to revolve around him/her!

Looking at the growing number of foreclosures and the ever-increasing unemployment, we do not have the luxury of waiting for the world, the state, the Feds etc., to help us. As was reported in the New York Times last week by Peter S. Goodman, the modification programs, including the so-called Obama Plan, the Making Home Affordable program, are not working. Under MHA only 2,000 out of 700,000 modification in process have become permanent. Considering that there were 2.7 million loans eligible for that one program, the percentage is scary - 7/100ths of 1% (or .0007 for decimal lovers)

If you are facing a foreclosure or might be in the near future because of a job loss or cut-back, illness, marriage, baby, or just bad money management you should act now. First, contact the lenders loss mitigation department or its "troubled borrower" department. Ask what they can do to help. If you were out of work for 3 months and are just that same 3 months behind, you should be able to work out a plan quickly. I say "should" because even easy problems can be made into full blown wars .

If you have received a notice that states that the Lender is or intending to foreclose, CALL A LAWYER who works in one or more of the areas of foreclosure prevention, predatory lending, loan modifications, and bankruptcy. This is not the kind of problem that will go away. Do not think by not picking-up that certified mail that you are safe! THE WORLD WILL NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU.

The following link is to an interview of me by a local television host, Andrew Cort, DC, JD. It describes how it came to pass that mortgages were bad and foreclosures happen in Mass. at the rate of 125 each day.

Spend the time to watch the video. I may not be pretty, but the words are worth it (Just close your eyes and LISTEN!).

http://www.andrewcort.com/spirit12RichardIsacoff.html

Instant Transfers, Instant Profits (for Banks) - UPDATED

2009-11-29T17:00:00.000-05:00

In the Banking sub-sector of Financial Services, there is a process in effect which will make the Banking business substantially more profitable, although at the risk of customer dissatisfaction. "Check21" is a 1year old law that allows banks and any other business to accept checks as EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) debits to the customer (like a debit card- immediate withdrawal) , and EFT credits to the bank. This eliminates "float" for all practical purposes (the time people writing checks had from paying a bill or buying something and the time when it actually posts to the customers' account.) You won't have the 1 day's grace when you write a check until it clears.

When ATMs and POS (point-of-sale) terminals were first introduced in the early 1980s, there was an insufficient infra-structure to support the wide-spread use of them and to generate their true value. Many transactions were simply captured electronically and still processed in "batch". Checks were still checks with float. Now, with the Internet providing the connectivity needed, banks can move to eliminate checks as we know them. Even mail order/bill pay by check services are processing checks as EFT (instant debit to your account, instant credit to theirs) occurrences. With the first significant upward movement of interest rates, the issue will become moot. All transactions will be electronic; there will be no more checks

Checks in the clearing process take 1-2 days ("float") to be processed, or possibly longer if it is a "foreign" item. For every $100 million in float, and for each 1% increase in the rates being paid or earned by a bank, for each day of float the difference amounts to $1 million dollars annually. Assuming rates move back to 5% from the current 0.5% in 2-3 years, and a large bank has $1 billion in float for 1 day, there is $45 million per year in earnings, either gained/retained or lost. Further, the cost in manpower and technology to process the incoming & outgoing checks and other items is staggering.

In the mid 1980s I wrote a paper on this issue for a Mutual Savings Bank trade publication. Remember that those were the days of 10%-15% interest. Even a $2 million per day float cost $200,000-$300,000 a year. Seems small now but it was not then. The issue preventing the change to all electronics was the lack of the Internet. Every device had to be a direct connection; even the ATMs were on dedicated lines. That obstacle is gone. Add to the equation the fact that checks cannot be processed faster without them ending up shredded in the machines, and the machines need time to read the manually typed numbers that reside on the bottom of items showing the amount of the transaction.

Currently there is a debate in Congress about Banks' fee income - overdraft charges, ATM fees, etc. Fee income is the line item all Banks are trying to get; there is no risk like there is in loans. A move to all EFT debits and credits, such as checks, deposits and charges, will result in instant profits for Banks. But then again, so have 30% interest rate credit cards.

Interesting Interest Rates

2009-11-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

30 Year Home Mortgage Rate Hits 17% Prime Rate at 16%+ Savings account interest reaches 12% Ancient post depression history NO - 1982

The graph above shows the history of the Prime Rate (interest rate charged to a bank's least risky and best customers) - compare those rates to what you pay for credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages, for a real eye-opener

Here is a little chart of the Fed Funds Rate (the interest rate the Federal Reserve Banks charge member Banks to borrow - single day loans), the 30 Year Mortgage Rate, the Daily Savings Account Rate, and the 1 Year CD Rate (all averaged for the respective year) :

1982: Fed Funds 12.25% Mortgage 17% Savings 12%

1989: Fed Funds 9.17% Mortgage 11% Savings 8.5%

1995: Fed Funds 5.9% Mortgage 7.9% Savings 4.75% 1 Year CD 7%

2000:Fed Funds 6.42% Mortgage 8.1% Savings 5.5% 1 Year CD 6.625%

2005:Fed Funds 3.33% Mortgage 5.9% Savings 2.35% 1 Year CD 3.25

2007:Fed Funds 5.04% Mortgage 6.3% Savings 4.25% 1 Year CD 4.9%

2008:Fed Funds 1.85% Mortgage 6% Savings 2.5% 1 Year CD 2.5%

2009:Fed Funds .25% Mortgage 5.1% Savings 0.5% 1 Year CD 2%

Why are all of the numbers important? They show the level of inflation, the cost to consumers for borrowing, and perhaps most significantly, the profit the banks are making on money. For example, in 1982, while mortgages were 17% plus points, banks were being charged 12.25% by the Fed and paying 12% to depositors. Keep in mind that a deposit in a bank is nothing more than a customers loan to the bank for the rate of interest being paid on the savings account or CD.

At that time, there was a 5% margin between the cost of money and the rate that could be charged to consumers for a mortgage. The MARGIN narrowed to 2%+/- for the next 27 years; then at the height of the crisis, the margin grew to 5% again. So, in inflation and in recession, the Banks made the same margin. Rates were so stable that savings bank bankers were called "3-6-3" bankers: take it in at 3% (savings deposits) lend it out at 6% (mortgage) and go home at 3 (afternoon) (That was the time before securitization of mortgages).

There are two lessons to be gleaned from the figures other than the fact that Banks make money: 1. When the Cost of Funds (to Banks) is low Banks charge what the market will bear. It is a "free market", unlike the regulated days of the 60s and 70s, and Banks can take advantage of this era. 2. The current interest rates are so low, that as to Banks, there is almost free money. This will not stay so cheap for Banks.

With the interest rates so low, and Banks making 5% on mortgages, and more than 3% on Prime Interest Rate loans (the rate charged to the best customers (those with no risk of default - like GM, right?) why are Banks charging 19%-30% for credit card debt? This is the primary debt for consumers beyond a mortgage. The Banks are making an obscene 15% to 25%+ on the average borrower's credit card balance!!

What is worse, in anticipation of the new laws which prohibit card issuers from arbitrarily raising interest rates because of a one time-one day late payment, or because a payment was a day late on A DIFFERENT CARD, Interest Rates on credit cards have jumped 10%-20% and credit limits have been reduced by 50%-75%.

The next post will deal with the profits being made by banks in real dollar terms. Why is any of this important? The so-called recovery is only in the financial markets. Unemployment is soaring, the dollar is weak (to be explained next post) and the average consumer has seen no relief. Oh, and in case anyone has missed the news, foreclosures are still going strong.

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

A Note About "Notes"

2009-11-02T11:00:00.012-05:00

The Judge said if you can't prove you own the loan/mortgage, then you don't get any money! The October 25th edition of the New York Times reported on a very important legal case brought in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney David Shaev had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (repayment plan) for clients facing imminent foreclosure. In the process he discovered that no entity could prove it owned the loan on his clients' home. Judge Robert D. Drain then determined that the lack of proof of ownership by anyone of the loan meant the homeowners did not have to pay "the mortgage" at all. He erased the debt!

The servicer of the loan, PHH Mortgage, was left without any defense. In theory, it was just sending statements and collecting checks for the owner, supposedly U S Bank. Unfortunately for the bank and PHH, there was no proof of who actually was entitled to the monthly payments. It was not a situation where the Promissory Note (the I.O.U. to the Bank) was presented with several parties claiming it was theirs. What is worse, the ownership had been transferred several times, but no one had the assignment (proof of the sale) showing that PHH or U S Bank was the owner - or any other party to the action. You can be certain that the case will be appealed.

THIS IS DIFFERENT from the current street wisdom of "Gee, if they don't have the ORIGINAL note, then I get my house for free". As is often the case, the street is not very wise. In the New York case, no proof of current ownership was provided. No one was questioning whether there was a loan, just the right of U S Bank or PHH to foreclose. Neither one could even show an assignment, the legal document that transfers ownership of a note from one party to another, to either PHH or U S Bank.

If there was an assignment, the issue of the Promissory/Mortgage Note itself would have become an issue. However, even if the original note was lost but a copy could be presented with the assignment, ultimately that would have been good enough , in most states. In litigation there is what is called the "best evidence rule". Simply put, a copy, if it can be authenticated, is acceptable. Authentication would happen in trial or deposition quite simply; the bank's lawyer would ask Mr. Jones, the owner:

"Mr. Jones, do you own the house located at 123 Elm Street, Blackacre, USA?" (in case Mr. Jones wants to lie, the attorney would have a certified copy of the deed and recording information to prove Mr. Jones "owns" the house).
"Mr. Jones, did you ever borrow money to purchase or refinance the house?"
"Mr. Jones, is this a copy of your current mortgage?" (again, the lawyer would have a certified copy, just in case).
"Now, Mr. Jones, would you examine the document I am handing to you and read the title." (unless he cannot read, or it really does state something different, Mr. Jones would answer "Promissory Note" or Mortgage Note" or something similar).
"Mr. Jones, please look at the signature line on the bottom of page 2. Please read aloud the name typed under the signature line" (it will be "Mr. Jones" in this example).
"Do you recognize the signature?"
" Is that your signature?" (meekly "Yes" says Mr. Jones)
"Thank you Mr. Jones" (unsaid, "you have just authenticated the copy as being the note that obligates you to make payments in order to keep you house in Blackacre")

The loss of an original is not the end of the world, or more importantly, the DEBT. The foreclosing Bank not having the right to claim that it owns the note is the end for that proceeding. The right is proven only with the note (or authenticated copy) AND an assignment to the current owner , if there was a sale of the mortgage.

Confusing? Not in principle. The Bank needs to PROVE it owns the mortgage or has been given the right to foreclose by the real owner, and has to PROVE who is the real owner. No proof, no foreclosure (but no free house)!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November, 2009

Photo Credit: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/80793502/

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Money Money Everywhere But....

2009-10-29T11:00:00.000-04:00

The money supply to Banks is there. Interest rates for Bank borrowing is still near 0%. But, homeowners are now subject to much tighter rules for borrowing because the Banks follow the BOOK, or in this case the Federal Reserve Regs. As a result, home mortgages are MORE DIFFICULT to get than anytime in the past decade or two.

There are new rules to try to reign in the high-cost, so-called "subprime" predatory loans. As of October 1st "High Cost Loans" have a new definition: any loan that is "1.5 percentage points" above the average prime mortgage rate. (Note: that is not the prime rate mortgage index but a prime rate mortgage - a mortgage given to a "prime borrower" or a so-called "a" borrower - great credit). If a loan is a "high-cost loan" under the new definition lenders must verify that the borrower can repay the loan through earnings and other income, not simply by a foreclosure or refinance.

That rule may not appear to be a departure from the "old" way but it is. The crisis we are still in was caused by some large lenders/brokers making loans to anyone who could pass a basic screening:"Can you hear thunder and see lightning?". Greedy and ignorant brokers/lenders would often give loans to borrowers without requiring any proof of the borrowers ability to pay.

Sometimes the borrowers knew exactly what they were doing and did not care - they gambled that the market for houses would keep rising and that they could refinance their way out of any problem There were no verifications of employment or verifications of deposits send. No bank statements showing a steady balance, for the self employed were requested, and often, for employed borrowers, W-2 copies were ignored or not sought.

Basically, the new rules that the Federal Reserve has put into effect as of October 1, 2009, merely force lenders/brokers AND borrowers to do what they should have been doing all along. That borrowers would fabricate income and lie on applications was ignored, or even encouraged.

Some states, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and a handful of others across the country have already put regulations in place that make the lender/broker certify that the loan is in the best interests of the borrower. In fact, Massachusetts REQUIRES this criteria be met for high cost loans, as defined by the Commonwealth General Laws. Also, many states, Massachusetts among them, have enacted legislation or have had the highest court in the state rule that certain threshold questions (like can the borrower repay and is does the loan lower payments or allow for home improvements, or lengthen the term) must be met on a refinance before the lender/broker can consider itself safe from violating such laws. UNFORTUNATELY, many of the National Banks, and some Savings Institutions governed by the Office of Thrift Supervision, claim that state law does NOT apply to them.

The Federal Reserve Rules also state, in part, that Prepayment penalties are banned if the mortgage payment can change in the initial four years of the loan. For other higher-priced, mortgage loans, a prepayment penalty period cannot last for more than two years. (this is the link to the 65 page Regulation:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/formsreview/RegZ_20080109_ifr.pdf

Banks have over-reacted so NO MONEY TO HOMEOWNERS. Foreclosure proceedings are still climbing. The worst may not be over for the average homeowner who has a financial problem, or a first-time home buyer who does not have a high (700s) credit score.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, October 2009

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

Good News/Bad News - Is There a Difference?

2009-10-26T11:00:00.006-04:00

Foreclosures are up 23% from the end of the 3rd quarter last year. Foreclosures are up 5% from the end of the second quarter this year. If the numbers continue, this year will have more foreclosures than any before. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS!

With all of the money given (loaned) to banks, and with the likes of JPMorgan Chase having a profit for the last quarter of $3,600,000,000 ($3.6 Billion), having doubled the amount of money it has planned on for loan losses, you might think that there would be money for you to borrow to refinance your house (after all your credit is good ), or borrow for your business. WRONG - THINK AGAIN! Banks are bracing for the next wave of losses; commercial real estate mortgage backed securities failing because the loans that make up the securities are defaulting. Additionally, because of the financial crisis we are still in, the "normal" way of making loans will not work.

In the April 13th posting (and several others), the whole issue of securitization was explained. The basics: agree to buy a large number of mortgages so that the value, on paper, of what the security maker controls is huge, like $1 Billion. Rather than holding the loans in any Bank, and risking borrowers not paying the mortgage regularly, sell the loans in a package (pool) to investors on Wall Street; investors like mutual funds, individuals, pensions, and of course the Federal Government. So now the $1 Billion portfolio is owned by thousands of people, plans etc. The security eliminates the risk of loss for all of the banks involved in making the loans, because no bank owns one of the actual mortgages - not one. Investors, not lenders/banks, each own a small portion of the pool. Again, they own a security, that acts like a corporate bond, but not a mortgage.

Because of the recent losses and the enormous rise in foreclosures, no one wants to buy these mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). If no one will buy them, then they will not be created, because the creator does not want to get stuck with a long-term investment (pooled mortgages). If they are not being created, the banks will not lend; even to good borrowers. THIS IS THE BAD NEWS.

There will be no real recovery until credit is available again. The government's mortgage lenders FannieMae and FreddieMac, FHA, have new and very strict guidelines. If you have a blemish on your credit report, NO LOAN.

Businesses use borrowed money all of the time to keep operations running, to buy new equipment, and to expand. If banks won't lend to them, the business shrinks and dies. More jobs are lost, and not just at that business. if people lose work, then they cannot spend money and other businesses fail. That is the cycle we are in for unemployment. And more unemployment means more defaults on mortgage payments, and that means more foreclosures.

The new Bank regulations that will require banks to keep more money set aside for bad loans, and the fact that only the Federal Government will buy the existing MBS and not new ones, means that Banks will not make loans, except to the very best customers. The noose gets tighter and tighter. The recent run-up of the stock market is not a reflection of consumers’ and "Main Street" types’ (us) confidence. The profits are being made by traders, Wall Street professionals, and companies like JPMorgan Chase.

So, the very kinds of investments, the MBS or pools of mortgages, that allowed the housing boon, has led us to the housing boom - it’s imploded. Breaking the cycle we are in will take time; actually a great deal of it

Stopping Foreclosure When the Lender Says "NO!"

2009-10-12T11:00:00.002-04:00

(THIS IS A RE-POSTING FROM AUGUST 12, 2009)

Bankruptcy is a good option if you are facing foreclosure and cannot get the lender to accept reasonable terms for a modification; terms that will allow you to either catch up on back payments over time, or which will put the arrearage at the back of the loan.

The filing of any type of Bankruptcy, which is asking for protection from creditors, will stop ALL actions for money, foreclosures, repossessions etc, against you. BUT, for most consumers, only a Chapter 13 will give you the ability to spread out payments for the arrearage over a period of up to 60 months. So, assuming you are 6 months behind in payments of $1,500 each, and there are $3,00 in legal fees because you are in a foreclosure status, and you have $300 in late fees, and the lender has paid $1,200 in taxes for you because your escrow account (where the lender collects money to pay real estate taxes each month as part of the mortgage) is short because you haven't paid in 6 months - you owe the bank $13,500.

Most of us do not have that amount of pocket change, and if you did, you wouldn't be 6 months behind. Spreading that amount of money over 60 months adds only $225 per month to your expenses. Please understand that there is no misunderstanding about a desperate financial situation, but if the arrearage occurred because of a temporary drop in income, for whatever reason, you can get caught up. Too many people give up once they get that far behind because they know they cannot pay $13,000+/- all at once, and once the foreclosure starts, the lender is not inclined to "make a deal".

The Bankruptcy Laws were established so that people could get a "FRESH START". The whole concept is to give people who get into a financial bind a way out, without losing their home, car, retirement accounts etc. Details of the protections a Bankruptcy gives you are on my website www.isacofflaw.com . Once in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the United States Bankruptcy Court controls what a creditor can do. If you make payments on time, including the $225/month in the above example, the lender can only sit by a wait until you finish the Plan of payments. If you make all of them, your loan is put back into "regular" good payment status.

Also, if you miss a payment due to a temporary problem (broken arm with no sick time available from your job or a seasonal drop in hours so the overtime you have been counting on isn't available) the lender CANNOT just foreclose. It must ask the Bankruptcy Court for permission and there will be a hearing on the request. There, your lawyer (don't try a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy on your own) can explain the situation to the Court and usually work some type of compromise with the lender. The Bankruptcy Court is there to protect Debtors, provided the Debtors do what they promise.

Further, if you have equity in your house of $30,000, and your payments are $1,000 per month, the Court normally will not allow a foreclosure even if you are 2 or 3 months behind. While that is not specified in the Bankruptcy Code, the concept, called "adequate protection", is clearly spelled out. In essence it states that if the lender is not at risk of losing anything by waiting and using some of your equity to guaranty the arrearage will be paid, then the Court WILL NOT allow the lender to foreclose. The lender has no risk in waiting so you get a chance to get caught up again.

The Bankruptcy laws are complex, but the concept is not. If you are behind in your mortgage payments, and the lender wants to foreclose, and the lender will not "make a deal" with you, and you do not have a lump sum to pay all of what you owe from payments not made, a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy filing can be used to save your home. You can find a qualified Bankruptcy attorney by going to the website of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys www.nacba.org , www.abi.org, or by calling my office for a "no charge" referral.

www.isacofflaw.com

rii@isacofflaw.com

"Making Home Affordable" Program Is Not Working

2009-10-10T15:00:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration's Making Home Affordable program, you know the one to stop foreclosures on millions of homes, is missing the mark. As was reported in the New York Times by Peter Goodman in today's edition, "The Congressional Oversight Panel, created last year to keep tabs on taxpayer bailout funds, said the Obama administration’s program would prevent fewer than half of predicted foreclosures." (To read his full story go to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/10modify.html ).

Mr. Goodman's article discusses the overriding problems with the program, but does not deal with the situation from a day-to-day point of view. In reality, the Obama Program, as it is called, (which is really named Making Home Affordable ("MHA"), and has under it two programs - Home Affordability Modification Program "HAMP" and the Home Affordability Refinance Program "HARP") does not accomplish the goal of home preservation.

Basically, if a homeowner is behind now, but was current as of January 1, 2009, and meets other criteria, the homeowner should be eligible for a loan modification. The modification allows the participating lender to set up a 3 month trial period wherein the borrower makes affordable payments based on actual financial information submitted to the lender, after which the lender can decide to modify the loan or not. The terms are dictated by the lender and may not ever become permanent.

The most disturbing part of the situation is that homeowners are going into foreclosure at a record rate, and the programs at best are being outpaced by the foreclosures by 3 or 4 to 1. Elizabeth Warren, head of the TARP Oversight panel, estimates that even when everything is working at full speed, the programs will lose the battle against foreclosure schedules by 2 to 1. The honest homeowner who "bought" a mortgage without really understanding the terms and was sold "a bill of goods", like thinking he/she had a 30 year fixed mortgage when in reality the rate changed after 3 years, has no recourse.

The lenders, Wall Street folks, and investors, who pushed and packaged these loans, and now do not want to take any loss of income, are not being held accountable. They still have no risk of loss. Taxpayers, meaning the homeowners who are in trouble, are the ones paying the entire cost of the programs, YET CANNOT EVEN GET HELP IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.

With the jobless rate being reported at near 10%, which means it is probably over15% (people off benefits and not looking anymore are not reported), and layoffs continuing, more and more people will be a situation where foreclosure is inevitable. The MHA could work, but not without the full cooperation from the lenders and mortgage servicers. With no one being in charge to enforce ACTIVE participation in MHA, and there being no regulator with teeth to force compliance, the people who own the loans will not allow the programs to work. They will lose money if modifications become permanent. Guess who wins this battle.

For now, it's the only game in town. If you are facing foreclosure, apply for an MHA program. Once it's determined you are eligible, any foreclosure action is put on hold while your application is considered.

(A correction from 9/28/2009 post: I incorrectly stated that Rep. Barney Frank was from Western MA. He is, of course, from Eastern MA)

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, October 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com
www.isacofflaw.com

Credit Cards - Rep. Barney Frank's Frustration (Mine Also)

2009-09-28T10:00:00.018-04:00

Rep. Barney Frank (D), Congressman from Western MA, wants to "push up" the effective date of the new Credit Card regulations. He is prompted by the frenzy of card issuers raising rates, cutting limits, changing terms, and adding fees, all to beat the starting date of the laws. The laws merely set limits on how and how often card companies can change the terms of the agreement you have with them, without prior notice.

The standard argument, that there is no contract unless both sides agree, is not able to be put forth, because in the agreement you signed originally you gave the company the right to make all of these changes, even to your detriment. Is it fair? NO!, Is it legal? Yes, but only until the first of the year.

Congressman Frank's frustration is understandable, especially if you have a card and have been "slammed" by the card company with rates and fees you never anticipated. That these same companies, CitiBank, Bank of America, Chase, all have Federal Money from the bailout is beside the point. As stated in an earlier post, this is how they were able to report record earnings last quarter.

Congress will not change the date to October as Congressman Frank wants, but at least the issue is again being discussed. Unfortunately, the Congressman may suffer a decline in his credibility with his colleagues, but he will have a boost from his constituents.

Right now, everyone should be examining his/her cards and statements to determine if the terms have suddenly changes, if rates are higher, credit limits lower. If you need a card try a local financial institution. If none issue cards, shop for a new one, if yours is not playing fair. Be certain that you read the "Agreement and Terms" disclosure that will be your contract, BEFORE you use the card. Do not hesitate to decline the card even after it is issued to you. Be certain however, that you follow the rules on terminating the relationship or you could find an open credit line, detracting from your credit score, all the while believing that the card account was closed.

To be safe about credit, whether it is cards, loans, mortgages, joint accounts, "authorized user" cards (where the credit is based on someone else who has given you a card to use), get at least one credit report every six months. They are free from http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ .

Check to be certain that only the cards you use are open. Close everything else. While there may be a slight drop in your credit score (see posts of 7/27/09 and 6/11/09), the risk is far less than if you have unused and unwanted open credit lines affecting your score and overall credit standing.

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Foreclosures; Another Shoe is Dropping

2009-09-23T10:00:00.002-04:00

Currently, in the City of Pittsfield, MA, there are 190 properties in some stage of foreclosure; 69 are currently in default, 30 are Bank owned, 16 are awaiting a foreclosure sale date, and the rest are in some part of the process (such as sale completed but deed not yet recorded or waiting for the sale with a date set).

For a city the size of Boston, or Atlanta, or even Springfield, MA, that number might not be worthy of note, but in a city of 40,000, to have 190 HOMES in some state of being taken from the homeowner is alarming. What is more concerning is the fact that there is no action on the part of the city to assist those homeowners in trouble. There are no meetings inviting homeowners to learn how to protect their home which is probably their biggest investment; the local community college, which offers courses and seminars in all types of subjects, has no offerings to educate homeowners about how to avoid the common pitfalls that lead to defaults and foreclosure. There isn't even a hotline that is well publicized, that a homeowner in trouble can call to get emergency legal assistance/counseling.

What is most disturbing is that the situation in Pittsfield is not the exception, but the rule. This issue pervades the country and, yet, because we have moved to a new news cycle, gets no attention anymore. The stock market is nearing 10,000 again; the dollar is low so exports are high; oil is over $70/barrel but not too much; gold is over $1,015 per ounce but that is because of the weak dollar; inflation is under control; and the Federal Reserve is continuing to give the banks cheap money to lend. The fact that it isn't being loaned to consumers or small businesses also goes undetected.

We are facing a real housing crisis. As has been commented on and explained in earlier postings, the next wave of adjustable rate increases is about to hit - the so-called Option-Arms, were "prime" borrowers could get a mortgage, and pick a payment for the month. Well, that period of pick as you may is starting to change. Most had that scheme for 3-5 years. The 3 year period is beginning to end (2006-2008) was most of the activity, so we will start to see loans that have to have PRINCIPAL & INTEREST PAID each month for the remainder of the loan term (27 years generally). That will be coupled by a rate increase of 2%-3%, based on the contract (mortgage documents).

So, will the better qualified borrowers start to default and hit the statistics as a "property in foreclosure"? Not all of them but YES, many will! Keep in mind that many of these borrowers no longer have the jobs they did when they got the loan, or hours have been cut, or the second job is gone, or there is no overtime. This will start another decline in home prices and cycle of panic.

Mortgage lending has already slowed to a trickle of what it was. That is not all bad, but when people cannot refinance or buy a new home, even when they have a steady job and decent income, but only a 670 credit score (680 being the line between prime/regular and the evil sub-prime borrower) we have a major problem.

In many areas, local banks and credit unions are trying to fill the void, but the demand is greater than the supply of loans. And, many institutions have new financial requirements to meet per FDIC, OTS, OCC and the rest of the alphabet; the locals have little to lend on anything but the best prime loans.

One hidden factor regarding the recovery of home prices and the market: banks that have foreclosed on homes, many homes, are NOT putting them on the market for sale, hoping for a recovery in pricing and not wanting to flood the market and further depress prices by increasing the supply of "existing" homes beyond the demand.

So much for the good news!

More On Modfications - The Borrowers' Hidden Costs

2009-09-16T10:00:00.003-04:00

Mortgage Modification, as stated in earlier posts, can mean anything from allowing a late payment without a fee attached to it, or reducing interest and principal substantially. Unfortunately, most are closer to the deferred penalty than a true modification of terms which will allow the borrower to keep their home.

In today's USA Today, there is a brief analysis of the business of mortgage modifications. The article "Many mortgage modifications push payments higher" by Stephanie Armour, recites the history of 2 borrowers, but details the problems with the program. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-09-14-mortgage-modifications-not-helping_N.htm?csp=34

The MHA (Obama) program concentrates on lowering payments. This is accomplished by lowering the interest rate, and, if necessary, extending the term of the loan to 40 years, so that the payment of principal, interest, taxes and insurance, is no more than 31% of the borrowers gross income each month. HOWEVER, the amount of principal owed can actually increase substantially in the process. Per USA Today's quote of government studies "Of loans modified from Jan. 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, monthly payments increased on 27 percent and were left unchanged on an additional 27.5 percent, according to a recent report by banking regulators." Dismal? Yes! The light might be that the new program, MHA, will do better.

For a borrower that has fallen 6 months behind with his/her $1,500/month payment, accumulated interest, penalties, late fees and other costs, such as legal and inspections, all get added to the amount ultimately owed by the homeowner. In this example, that translates to a minimum of $14,000 added to the amount owed. This in turn would normally increase the monthly payments so a balance has to be reached, generally by adjusting the rate.

NOTHING IS FREE as we all know. Many of these mods (common slang now for mortgage loan modifications) are fixed for only 5 years, and can then adjust. The mod itself creates a new Adjustable RateMortgage ("ARM"). Is this just postponing the inevitable foreclosure? Maybe so - but at least there is a chance for the borrower (who can find new/additional employment, and can clean up his/her credit score, and can make every payment on time) to keep the house by a refinance at the 5 year adjustment period.

Other issues with modifications. There are a number of agencies, well-intended, which help borrowers at risk for foreclosure, to get a modification. The thought there is that by postponing the foreclosure at least the borrower has an opportunity to keep the house. One of the problems here is that many of these agencies are ill-equipped to go toe-to-toe with a mortgage company, be it the servicer or the actual lender. To many of the agencies, any modification is better than none - right? MAYBE!! If the agency is funded by getting modifications done, it can turn into a numbers game. A modification completed is one towards the quota for funding. Keep in mind that a modification can be simply delaying 2 or 3 payments until the end of the loan, or even creating a balloon payment at the end of the term of the loan.

Well, some may say, at least the borrower kept the house for a few more years. Well, I say, "SO WHAT"? The modification should give the borrower a real shot at keeping her/his home for as long as she/he wants.

Recapping, we have a federal program that was put into place for loan mods - fixes - to allow homeowners, who are facing imminent foreclosure or who will be falling behind over the next several months because of a job cut or an UPWARD MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE ADJUSTMENT, to keep their homes. The program allows the mortgage industry, company by company to participate or not. There is only one standard program and that is the Making Home Affordable ("MHA") plan.

Lenders can opt to modify any way they would like to, and are doing so, especially to those borrowers who do not qualify for MHA. The modification may be detrimental to the borrower in the long term but who cares? CreditSights, which is a firm that tracks such matters, states that of the more than 1/2 million mods this year, 90% have resulted in higher principal balances. Good? Bad? It would seem that just adding back interest and fees to a delinquent loan is not good. It seems and is counter-intuitive, and counter to success. It is a short term fix - a band-aid.

HERESY but perhaps there are those who would be better-off losing the house that is a constant struggle to pay for, month after month, year after year. Maybe some homeowners would be better-off losing a house, regrouping and getting finances straight, renting for a few years and saving money each month for a down payment on a house that is affordable.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, September, 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Mortgage Modificiations To Get More Difficult?

2009-08-28T10:00:00.004-04:00

Countrywide, now part of Bank of America was one of the major lenders to sub-prime borrowers (that only means a credit score below 680 (or 640 depending on the day). It also packaged and sold the loans it originated, as Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS"). It continued to service the loans (collect money and send bills from and to borrowers) and was paid by the owners of the MBS to do so. The owners were just investors - they bought $xxxxx of a bond, not any different than if they bought a corporate or municipal bond.

When the mortgage/housing crisis hit, in large part due to Adjustable Rate Mortgages ("ARM") there was tremendous pressure on the Servicers, of which Countrywide was one, to MODIFY loans so that they were affordable for the borrowers. Some servicers modified loans, which they may or may not have been permitted to do in their contract, called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA"), with the "packager"/"owner" of the bond. Countrywide modified loans and then, ignoring its PSA, refused to re-purchase the loans that had been modified by lowering the interest rates or even putting payments at the back of the loan. In simpler terms, Countrywide altered the amount of interest the owners of the MBS would receive.

A federal court ruled that Countrywide's motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against it by the investors would not succeed. The Court stated that the case was one which should be brought in State Court, the the modifications were not protected by the recent legislation and Congressional acts to force lenders and servicers to modify loans. Basically, the Court said that if there is a contract, Countrywide must observe it - any quarrels with that belong in a state court on a case by case basis. No "get out of jail card" was given to Countrywide.

WHY DO YOU CARE? Because Servicers, if they aren't protected when they make modification from the investors, who expect a certain percentage return, will refuse to modify citing the Court ruling but relying on the contract they made, and arguing that they cannot breach the contract! This means more difficulty getting Servicers, which are not participating in the Federal program to modify loans, now for fear of a lawsuit.

This issue was brought up months ago and detailed in my posts of 10/25/2008 and 11/9/2008 -
http://finance-for-us.blogspot.com/2008/10/foreclosure-crisis-how-to-stop-it.html and http://finance-for-us.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-is-bailout-helping-right-now.html.

This just points out the disconnect, the lack of communications and an efficient coherent policy to deal with the foreclosures. Maybe Congress would act if it the home of a member!!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August 2009
http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

Mortgage Modification Mandates

2009-08-18T10:00:00.002-04:00

As a follow-up to the last post, several important matters:

1. If you have submitted the application for a loan modification under the "Making Home Affordable" program, any foreclosure proceedings must stop. The exception is if you do not meet the basic criteria (see http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/)

2. To see if your lender/servicer MUST participate in the program go to http://www.financialstability.gov/impact/contracts_list.htm - if it is listed, it has to deal with the modifications

If the lender or servicer received any TARP funds or "volunteered" to be part of the Home Afforability Modification Program "HAMP" or the Home Affordability Refinance Program "HARP" it should be on one of the lists

3. If a mortgage company or servicers tells you not to send any money until the paperwork is received or not to send money for any other reason, ask for the person's name or employee number. Also, ask how you be certain that you should not send any payment. Even if you are satisfied that you do not have to send a payment "that" month, DO NOT USE THE MONEY for anything else. Set up a separate savings account and put all of the money for the payment(s) in the account. If the MHA modification doesn't work, and the lender has its own program, you WILL be asked if you have the last "X" payments, since the last one mailed.

4. If you get mail offering to help you get a loan modification, and the solicitations asks you to send in any money, even after you have called the company and spoken with a "counselor" DON'T DO IT, unless it is your lender/servicer and you have an agreement. There are hundreds of scams right now - 15% of my clients have paid money to some company that cannot help, except to help themselves.

Two expressions come to mind: "God helps those who help themselves" and "God help those who help themselves". (Interesting what one "s" can do!)

5. If you have questions, call a bankruptcy attorney or a foreclosure attorney in your area. If you don't know who to call, check http://www.naca.org/ or for a lawyer http://www.nacba.org/ OR send me an e-mail

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August, 2009

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

Making Homes Affordable? It's Not Working!!

2009-08-17T10:00:00.007-04:00

In a report released by the "Making Homes Affordable Program", only 9% of those mortgages eligible (estimated) for a modification are in the process. Essentially the lenders, mortgage companies, loan servicers, ARE NOT doing their jobs.

The information through the end of July shows that of an estimated 2.7 million mortgages, all of which are 60 days+ delinquent, only 235,247 (actual) have been offered a modification or are in the process of obtaining one. This does not necessarily mean a change in all terms, but could be nothing more than the lender allowing 3 payments to be moved to the end of the loan term, but as a modification.

The lenders doing the best job are 1. Saxon 2. Aurora (small number of loans) 3. GMAC 4. JP Morgan Chase -all having in process 20% or more of the estimated eligible loans. CitiBank has 15% being worked on. BUT American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc (AHMSI) has done 0%, Wilshire 1%, Wachovia 2%, Select Portfolio 3%, Bank of America 4%, OCWEN 5%, and Wells Fargo and Citizens 6% each.

Who's fault is it - primarily the lenders/servicers. They never got ready for the program and they prefer to try to wait out the bad times, thinking, it seems, that suddenly the housing and finance markets will turn positive.

IT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE that once a borrower has submitted the necessary paperwork for a MHA Loan Modification, and has passed the initial screening (see below) FORECLOSURE PROCESS MUST STOP! - 1. home is your primary residence 2. currently employed or have other regular income 3. default caused by a hardship or there has been a drop in income or increase in expenses 4. your mortgage payment including principal interest, taxes and insurance is more than 31% of your monthly GROSS income, and 4. your loan was current at the start of 2009, you qualify for the full analysis. (Go to http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/modification_eligibility.html

If you meet the basics and have filed for a modification, and you then get a letter stating that the foreclosure process will continue during the evaluation, send a certified return receipt requested letter to the address to which you sent the documents, and state that the law requires them to STOP foreclosure proceedings.

If you are having a problem, call a qualified Bankruptcy attorney in your area (you can find one at www.nacba.org), or, contact your local Bar Association for a referral to an attorney working to stop foreclosures. In Massachusetts for example, you can contact the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, or any of the local housing authorities for a referral.

The program is a reasonable one. I am having excellent results for my clients, but it requires a great deal of patience. As always, contact my office if you have a problem finding help.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August, 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Legal Aid Crisis - Is there a Free Lawyer in the House?

2009-08-16T18:00:00.001-04:00

Providing legal assistance for those who truly cannot afford to hire an attorney has been taken for granted. We see the "public defenders" on TV, and hear about lawyers working, without financial compensation, for the good of the public - "pro bono".

Nationwide, legal aid programs are being ravaged by budget cuts, and in many states, due to the low interest rates. Massachusetts, like many other states, has a requirement that attorneys place clients money in a segregated account, often called an IOLTA account. If the funds will be held for any length of time, a separate interest bearing account is set up for the client's benefit. But money being held for a few days or even a week is put into the IOLTA account where the interest earned funds a large part of the legal aid programs.

Interest rates have fallen significantly to merely .5% from 5% in just 2 years. In Massachusetts for example, 2007 revenue from these accounts for legal aid was $31.8million. In 2008 it had dropped 50 $15.6 million, and as of July of this year, the interest earned was only $4.1 million - that is on track for a $7 million 2009. Couple this with the monetary cuts due to a drop in federal aid and less taxes being collected, and you have a system that can handle only a fraction of the cases it should. According to Lonnie Powers, the Executive Director of the Mass. Legal Assistance Corporation, there are and will continue to be battered women, people facing foreclosure, tenants being evicted, workers having wages withheld illegally, with NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION. Thoughout the Commonwealth there will be Thousands of people who would normally qualify for legal assistance, who will not! Even criminal cases are now lacking lawyers for defendants, so the cases take longer.

This financial problem is not unique to Mass. It's a nationwide problem and one that has no easy answers. There simply is not enough money to go around. It is like the perfect storm: lower interest rates being paid for deposits, federal money being cut due to the financial crisis, and the creation of probably 25% more work due to foreclosures, an increase in domestic violence caused by money worries, and tenants falling behind in rent with their landlords evicting them (rightfully in most cases but sometimes without following the right procedures).

In my small office alone, I could have an additional 100 foreclosure cases in a month or less if I could afford to work for free (keep in mind that small law offices are just like any other small business, with salaries, rent, insurances, and other expenses to pay).

Unfortunately, there appears to be no answer in the near future;. it is a sign of the times.

Author's Copyright, by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August 2009

www.isacofflaw.com

rii@isacofflaw.com

Get Protection from Creditors - But Wait, There's More!

2009-07-29T11:00:00.000-04:00

"Protection from creditors" - just a euphemism for Bankruptcy? No, it is what filing Bankruptcy is and does. There are no more Debtors' prisons and no one has to walk around with a big scarlet "B" on his/her chest. Fine!, but what really happens, and who can file for protection? Before going any further, filing Bankruptcy WILL NOT force you to lose your house or car. In fact, it may help you to keep them.

My post of Monday July 27th discussed the need for completing a full personal budget for you and your family (if there is one to consider). Again, make a list of ALL regular living expenses, including cigarettes, gasoline, socks...EVERYTHING EXCEPT UNSECURED DEBT like credit cards and personal loans (Beneficial, CitiFinancial, HFC/HSBC etc. Then figure out your regular monthly income, including OT you ALWAYS get, bonuses you ALWAYS get, child support/alimony, pension, steady part-time jobs etc. then deduct all payroll taxes and insurance costs to get a net income. Next, if you are paid every 2 weeks, multiply the NET INCOME by 26 and divide that result by 12 to get a net monthly income.

THE MOMENT OF TRUTH - deduct your regular monthly expenses from your regular monthly income.If you have money remaining, is it enough to pay all of the minimum payments PLUS 1% of the principal for each card/debt? If the answer is yes, start by making a real month by month budget and start paying down each debt every month. Be sure to be on time, and that means the payments have to be in the mail at least 7 days before they are due, or 10 days before the start of the next billing cycle.

If you cannot make the payments and meet your expenses, then consider a bankruptcy consultation with an experienced Bankruptcy Attorney. You can find one on the web by going to www.nacba.org , which is the site for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, or by e-mailing me and we will get you a referral.

Bankruptcy is a RIGHT, not a privilege. The laws and rules are "spelled out" in Title 11 of the U.S. Code. It states clearly in Congressional intent and is sen again and again in cases, that the purpose of the Bankruptcy laws is to give Debtors, who cannot repay their debts, a "FRESH START". It is not punitive - it is a RIGHT.

For consumers, there are 2 sections of the Code that apply: Chapter 13, which is a way for people who have some money left over at the end of the month to repay a percentage of what they owe, be it 5%, 10% or 100%. The repayment period is up to 5 years, and the 30% interest rates stop immediately; and Chapter 7, where the consumer/debtor cannot make ANY payments for a 36 month period, or the amount of the payments would be so insignificant that the consumer really should keep the funds for emergencies.

Most good Bankruptcy lawyers will not charge for the initial consultation which is where she/he will help you determine if a Bankruptcy is the correct financial decision for you. The rules for filing are not that difficult to understand and the next Post will go into the details.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., July 2009
www.isacofflaw.com
rii@isacofflaw.com

Credit Card Rules - Explained (sort of). What to Do Until Then

2009-07-27T11:00:00.000-04:00

On June 11, 2009, I wrote extensively about the new credit card laws - the ones that do us no good at the moment but might as the varied effective dates arrive.

Attached/Linked title of this posting, and again at the end of this entry, is a video that goes through the major points of the new rules.

None of the rules will erase any debt that has already been incurred, regardless of how unfair the borrower believes the debt to be. Interest rates jumping to 30% , late fees of $39 on a balance of $100 with a report of late payments (over 30 days) to the credit agencies, with, of course the accompanying rate increase, and perhaps the most difficult for regular card users, the arbitrary elimination of the available credit/decrease in credit line, without warning or apparent reason.

The 2 real banks, and the 1 "investment bank" (see last post for that definition) that had record profits, Bank of America, CitiBank/CitiGroup, and Goldman Sachs respectively, are the worst offenders. Yesterday, in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, there was a story by David Streitfeld dealing with Bank of America specifically, but the industry in general. In it he describes a woman who could not keep up with the higher and higher interest rates being charged. After pleading with Bank of America to lower the interest rate on her account without success, she just stopped paying her monthly bill. A wise decision? - probably not! - except in this case it was born out of desperation. The result: Bank of America called her with "deals" so she could afford her payments.

Look at the video - read the article in the Times and think about your position. Are you able to go without Credit Cards? Can you pay the minimum payments PLUS 1% of the balance owed to lower the principal and actually pay down the debt? If you can, then you may be able to get out of debt.

Factor in all of your debt - especially the credit cards. IMPORTANT!! - Put together an accurate list of your regular monthly living expenses. Include such things as cigarettes (if you smoke), a reasonable amount for food, eating out if it's unavoidable, enough for gasoline and a monthly budget for car repairs (during the entire year), all of your insurances, clothing (include shoes and underwear), income taxes expected to be paid over and above payroll deductions, student loans, cell phone, cable, Internet, utilities, rent/mortgage, and everything else that you really need to spend or save for each and every month. After all of that, can you pay the minimum PLUS at least 1% of the outstanding balance on all debts, whether each is a credit card, a personal loan from CitiFinancial/HFC,HSBC,Beneficial, or from anywhere else.

If after doing that budget exercise you can make the payments GREAT!! Do not be late on one payment or your plan might become dust in the wind. BUT try. If you cannot, seek financial counseling - not from a TV advertiser promising to reduce your debt to "pennies on the dollar" for a mere $XXXX.XX per month and a non-refundable processing fee of $XXX.XX

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July 2009
http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/05/19/your-money/1194840368370/guide-to-new-credit-card-rules.html