Showing posts with label predatory lending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label predatory lending. Show all posts

Monday, July 23, 2012

Student Loans: Legal Loan Sharking



Student Loans: Legal Loan Sharking



Student Loan Sharking. Harsh? NO! Outstanding student loans in this country have exceeded $1,000,000,000.00 (One Trillion Dollars). At least 15% of those loans are "private" loans, meaning not made by a government agency or sponsored lender. So what is the difference.

Remember all of the discussion (still heard throughout the country) about "Sub-Prime" and "Predatory" Lending? It's live and well on campuses all over. And why not? The Bankruptcy law change in 2005 created a form of indentured servitude. Have a PRIVATE student loan that is at a level 5 times the entire annual salary that can be earned, accumulating interest at 6%-20% (based on payment history - a default of a payment and the rate jumps to the maximum in most cases - how can anyone pay it?

"Too many student loan borrowers are struggling to pay off private student loans that they did not understand and cannot afford,...We must do our best to leave the next generation in a better place than we are today, rather than buried under a mountain of debt." - Richard Cordray, Director of the COnsumer Finance Protection Bureau ("CFPB"). Both the CFPB and the Federal Reserve are gravely concerned about the problem. 25% of the outstanding loans are in some state of default.

I deal with the problem on a daily basis. I have clients who have no possibility of ever paying their student loans, whether they be PRIVATE or FEDERAL. The issues include federal loans as well as private loans. It is true that Federal loans are able to be modified through the lender, and payments made based on a current income/ability to pay. They can also be consolidated through "DIRECT LOANS" which is THE WILLIAM FORD FOUNDATION". However the loans will hinder the student's ever purchasing a house or a car or anything else where credit is needed. The loans stay on credit reports until paid.

The 2005 Bankruptcy law change made it next to impossible to prove EXTREME AND SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP in repayment, the requirement for discharge.

The Bankruptcy Courts are able to modify all loans except First Mortgages on primary residences and STUDENT LOANS. The commonalities - the PREDATORY nature of the lending tactics and the LOBBYING by the respective trade groups. And, Private Student Loan Lenders DO NOT have to allow a consolidation, nor forebearance in payments.

Here is a link to the 131 page report which details the entire issue. The report was published by the CFPB and the Secretary of Education. (It's a .pdf so it's easily browsed) http://tinyurl.com/c8eudpr

Advice: Don't borrow more than is needed for SCHOOL costs and borrow from a Federal Agency. And READ EVERYTHING & ASK QUESTIONS. TRUST NO ONE!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq. July, 2012
http://www.isacofflaw.com/        isacofflaw@msn.com

Monday, January 23, 2012

"I Disclose... Nothing"





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




Thursday, August 12, 2010

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

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/

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

One Bank's Lies, Another's Obfuscation?


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

Monday, December 7, 2009

How Many Clients Does it Take....

"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

Monday, May 18, 2009

Foreclosures Skyrocket - Help Doesn't


(NOTE: For reasons that are obvious to most of us, the majority of the financial information published, in print or by broadcast, has been about the economy in general, the mortgage crisis and the "fix" to it, the looming credit card disaster, or the stock market's on-going saga. Consequently, nearly all of the postings to deal with these issues. Other legal matters have not been forgotten)
We have all heard about the various federal plans to help homeowners keep their homes. Unfortunately, nearly all of the programs have had little impact to date, which has left borrowers who are in trouble at the mercy of the lenders/mortgage companies or the manager of the mortgage backed security ("MBS") that really owns the mortgage.

According to an article in the New York Times, published on May 14th, 55,000 homeowners have signed for assistance with one of the federal mortgage-relief programs. At first glance that may seem like a good response. Put into perspective though, in April there were 342,000 foreclosures. The point? The programs are not working. (see the chart from the New York Times above)

The Senate, without any support for the Senate Bill 61 from the White House to pass it, voted down legislation that would have made the mortgage lenders and the MBS managers pay attention and try to fix this country's biggest economic problem. The Bill would have given Bankruptcy judges the power to modify loans that were deemed unfair and predatory in nature. Lenders would have had to compromise or face the Courts. The Banking lobby killed it.

As long as the housing market continues to slide, and as long as foreclosures continue to climb, we will not see a major recovery in the general economy. One might argue that it is the 650,000 lost jobs last month that is the root cause of the recession (5,000,000+ jobs lost in the past 8 months). BUT, the crisis started when the mortgage market collapsed, loans that people could not afford adjusted, and the MBS that were being held nationally and internationally became worthless overnight. The MBS and CMBS (Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities), both of which are derivatives, represented trillions of dollars - yet the downfall of one "Bank", Lehman Brothers, began the chain reaction that has brought us to our knees.

There is little that can be done on the national political level, except for writing our elected representatives and asking that work for their constituents instead of the lobbyists. However, there are other steps that can be taken to help stricken borrowers.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank and the New York City Bar Assn. have set up a program to train lawyers to help victims of predatory lending practices, or the economy as it relates to home mortgages. The courses, offered at no cost to the participants provided each takes at least one pro bono (no fee based on the homeowners financial hardship) case in the next 12 months, will give the attorneys the knowledge to review all phases of the loan transaction to determine if the Lender/Broker/Originator took advantage of the Borrower, or if the Servicer is now committing violations of the Federal or State rules regarding collections, notices, foreclosure procedures, etc.

In Massachusetts, The Boston Bar Association has run similar type training, although not as comprehensive, as has The Mass Fair Housing Association in conjunction with the Hampden County Bar Assn ( western Mass) Foreclosure Task Force. Further, attorneys with experience in the field are handling those cases which come to them either on a pro bono basis, or if the borrower can pay, for a fee based on the ability to pay. The idea here is to do as much as we can to save houses.

At any given time, I have 5-8 predatory lending/hardship cases in process. The results are good so far, but each case takes a great deal of time, mainly on the telephone, on hold (listening to bad music). Each Lender and Servicer has different procedures that have to be followed; that is easy once you know what they are. The biggest issue is speaking to someone, on behalf of my client(s), who can make a decision or at least refer me to someone else who can do so. When I am doing a training course, I caution attorneys to just try to get their client(s) back to the place that the client really bargained for, and to have the attorney's fees paid by the Lender; not to try to get a big judgement against the Lender etc. The goal is to stop foreclosures and keep homes.

For example, I have a couple who Borrowed from Wells Fargo through a Broker, Direct Finance, whose representative (originator) promised a $1,200 per month payment, matching the existing loan. My clients were getting cash out of the closing to payoff credit card and medical debt. The closing where my clients actually signed all of the paperwork was a farce. The attorney that actually was the settlement agent (closing attorney - all of whom represent the Lender technically) was filling in for the Lender because the attorney that was supposed to do the work had a conflict in his schedule. The closing lasted 15-20 minutes. There was no way that the attorney could explain all of the documents and the terms of the loan to the borrowers in that time. In fact, the borrowers, my clients now, were just given paper after paper to sign - the attorney had another appointment.

When my clients finally received documents with the actual figures on them, the payment was $1,900 per month PLUS taxes and insurance, for a total of $2,200. This was $1,000 above what had been promised. My clients had been told that the rate would drop from the 7.75% they had, to 5.75 % which would make up the difference for the "cash out" portion of the refinance. Further, the Originator cannot be found - by me, the Broker, or the Lender. However he did the same thing, working for a different broker, to a couple to which he was referred by my clients. This indicates that there was a pattern and practice of fraud and deceit, at least by the originator and quite possibly by the Broker.

My sole job in the matter above is to make a deal so my clients can keep their home. We are not asking for punitive damages, or compensation for the stress, anxiety and "conscious suffering" my clients have been enduring since receiving a foreclosure notice. e simply want was my clients thought they were "buying", and my fees which a nominal in the context of the loan itself and the Lender's attorneys' fees.

If you are facing a foreclosure and the reason is not simply that you haven't paid the mortgage company, but could have, but is because of irregularities in the lending process or what you believe were problems, contact your State or local bar association for a referral to an attorney who is handling these type of cases. If you cannot find an attorney, feel free to contact us at the email address below, and we will try to get you a referral to competent counsel

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