"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

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

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

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

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' "

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/

Who To Trust - Federal Judges or Wall Street

THIS IS A RE-POSTING OF THE MARCH 18TH ENTRY DUE TO THE RECENT SENATE VOTE

The United States Senate has referred the one bill, S. 61, that could break the log jam of mortgages tied up in "TOXIC ASSETS" to "Committee" for review and reconciliation with the House version. The short version of the bill is that it would give Bankruptcy Court judges the power to modify residential home mortgages. The homeowner/debtor would have to prove that the loan was patently unfair, that the lender/broker/originator used Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, or that the borrower never received the proper documentation to know what product he/she was buying. The assignment to the committee will assure that there will be a delay in getting the bill to the full Senate for a vote. Keep in mind that the House of Representatives has already voted favorably on giving the judges the powers needed.

Unfairness? Didn't the borrower read the documents before signing them, and if he/she/they did not understand everything fully was the closing attorney asked for information or clarification? Unfortunately, many of the closings were done without any attorney present - representing the lender or the borrower. Just a notary was there to be certain the all of the right places were signed and that there was proof the the person(s) at the closing were in fact the person(s) borrowing the money. These are called "Witness Only Closings" and were commonplace during the boom years from 2004-early 2008.

Real Example: clients came into my office Monday ready to file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to save their home. The documents they brought, although unsigned, told the story of how a $1,326 monthly payment grew to nearly $2,300. They had contacted a broker who had helped them, in an earlier transaction, with a major lender. Because of the prior experience, the borrowers trusted that the closing would be okay. The entire transaction took less than 20 minute for a full mortgage refinance, and that was at a local sandwich and ice cream restaurant. Virtually nothing was explained despite questions from the borrowers.

I can state from doing hundreds of closings that an attorney cannot explain all of the documents, including mortgage, mortgage note, HUD-1 Statement, Truth-in Lending, Good Faith Estimate, and all of the other disclosure required by state and federal laws in an hour; not in 20 minutes less the time to be seated. This closing went so fast that no one even ordered a coffee. What is worse is that the loan was not a common loan.

The borrowers were told that they were getting a loan with a fixed payment for 2 years, and that after two years the rate would change periodically. They were not told that the loan was an "Interest Only" loan for the first five (5) years, so that none of the payments made during that time would be applied to principal - the amount borrowed. Further, they were not told nor were the papers explained to them, that the interest rate could move up as much as three percent (3%) at the end of the first two (2) years. It could not go down regardless of the market. Nor did they comprehend that after the first two (2) year period, the rate would be adjusted every six (6) months.

It was only after receiving the first bill from the lender that they found out that there would be a tax escrow in excess of $300 each month. They thought that the taxes were included in the $1,326 amount. Instead of paying $1,326 they paid $1,626. At the end of the two (2) years, though they had been promises that they could refinance as they were getting this great loan, the payments increased to $1,700+ without the $300 tax escrow. They were now paying $674 per month more than they had been led to believe they would pay.

The loan provisions, Fixed Rate for the first two (2) years and then variable/adjustable for the next twenty-eight (28),, is a common product. The interest only feature is rare for middle, middle class borrowers. Combining the 2/28 fixed/adjustable structure and coupling it with a five (5) year interest only provision, and NOT EXPLAINING it to the borrowers is why we have the mess we do.

The above real-life, in my office example, is the reason that the Judges have to be given the power to modify bad loans. They can eliminate the excuse/reason too often given that "it's not allowed in the contract... yeah, the one the Wall street guys made for us.

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

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