Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts

Thursday, June 21, 2012

U.S. Banks to Pay $125,000 to Many Hurt in Foreclosures


By Jesse Hamilton on June 21, 2012

    Companies Mentioned

    • JPM
      JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
      • $35.51 USD
      • -0.94
      • -2.65%
    • C
      CITIGROUP INC
      • $27.83 USD
      • -1.03
      • -3.7%
    • BAC
      BANK OF AMERICA CORP
      • $7.82 USD
      • -0.32
      • -4.09%
    • WFC
      WELLS FARGO & CO
      • $32.34 USD
      • -0.47
      • -1.45%
    U.S. banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) (JPM)and Citigroup Inc. (C) (C) will pay as much as $125,000 plus equity to individual customers most harmed by mishandled foreclosures in 2009 and 2010, according to a remediation plan released by federal regulators.
    “While we’ve made great strides since we took enforcement action against large mortgage servicers last year, much work is still ahead,” said Thomas Curry, U.S. comptroller of the currency, in a statement. This industry guidance “helps people who are considering requesting a free review to understand how they may be compensated for the financial injury they may have suffered,” he said.
    A group of the largest mortgage servicers were ordered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and other banking regulators last year to clean up their foreclosure practices and hire independent consultants to see whether their methods in 2009 and 2010 unfairly hurt customers. The 14 firms, also including Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) (WFC), could be instructed to give lump-sum payments between $500 and $125,000 in each case involving improper practices, the regulators said.
    Besides lump-sum payments, loan servicers who improperly handled foreclosures may have to rescind them, modify loans or correct credit reports, according to industry guidance issued today by the OCC and the Federal Reserve.
    “I think the range of potential recovery is surprisingly large,” said David Dunn, a lawyer who represents lenders at Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP in New York. “Is there a rationale for those numbers? I haven’t seen it if there is.”

    Potential Claimants

    The universe of potential claimants includes an unknown portion of the 4.4 million borrowers to whom regulators sent letters informing them they can ask for reviews. Of those, 4.4 percent, or 193,630, had done so by the end of May, according to a six-month report on the process also released by the regulators today. The independent consultants picked another 144,817 files to examine. About 12,000 cases have gone through review so far.
    The guidance says a person whose house was foreclosed on when the mortgage wasn’t officially in default should be given $125,000 if the foreclosure can’t be rescinded. That borrower would also be entitled to any positive difference between what was owed on the mortgage and what the house was worth at the time of the error.
    People who lost homes to foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 are being given a deadline extension from July 31 to Sept. 30 for filing to have their cases reviewed for potential errors and misrepresentations, and can do so through www.independentforeclosurereview.com.

    Top States

    Borrowers from California have so far led the requests for review with 35,480, followed by Florida and Texas, according to the report.
    “The servicers see this guidance as an important step toward completion of the Independent Foreclosure Review process,” according to a statement from the Housing Policy Council of the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington-based trade group representing the largest mortgage servicers.
    Consumer groups are concerned the payouts won’t amount to much in regions with high real-estate costs.
    “Whether it’s enough really depends a lot on where you live,” said Paul Leonard, the California director for the Durham, North Carolina-based Center for Responsible Lending. “If you no longer have your home, $125,000 may or may not get you back in a home in California.”
    To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Hamilton in Washington at jhamilton33@bloomberg.net.
    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Maura Reynolds at mreynolds34@bloomberg.net.

    Wednesday, February 29, 2012

    Lenders Must Be Named in Foreclosures, New Jersey Court Rules

    From Bloomberg

    New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that the lender must be named in documents indicating a bank’s intention to foreclose on a mortgage before a residential property can be seized.
    The case involves the foreclosure on an East Orange home owned by Maryse and Emilio Guillaume, who received a notice of intention to foreclose in May 2008. That notice included the name of the mortgage servicer, America’s Servicing Co., while omitting the name of the lender.Credit Suisse AG (CSGN) made the loan and assigned it to US Bank NA.
    A sign sits above the entrance to Credit Suisse Group AG's headquarters in Zurich. Credit Suisse AG, Maryse and Emilio Guillaume's mortgage lender, was omitted on a notice of intention to foreclose the couple's home in May 2008. New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled that documents indicating a bank’s intention to foreclose on a mortgage must name the lender before a residential property can be seized. Photographer: Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg
    The state high court in Trenton ruled yesterday that the notice sent to the Guillaumes failed to comply with New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act, which requires the name and address of the actual lender, as well as contact information for a loan servicer. Failure to do so creates “potential for significant prejudice” to homeowners, the court said.
    “A misunderstanding about a lender’s identity could prompt a homeowner to make a critical error at a time when he or she is struggling to avert foreclosure,” the court said in the opinion.
    The court ruled that while a trial court judge erred on that point in interpreting the Fair Foreclosure Act, the judge reached the correct conclusion in ordering a default judgment against the couple. The Guillaumes failed to demonstrate either “excusable neglect” or a “meritorious defense” to their foreclosure, according to the ruling.

    ‘Restores Order’

    The decision “restores order” to New Jersey’s real estate market, said Mark Melodia, a lawyer for Minneapolis-based US Bancorp (USB), the parent of US Bank.
    “This is a reaffirmation that our Chancery Court judges are best positioned to determine in a given case whether a technical defect in foreclosure paperwork requires the extraordinary step of dismissing the case -- which, like this one, may have been pending for years before the defect was identified -- or whether a less drastic remedy, such as sending a new notice, is the fairer way to proceed,” Melodia, of Reed Smith LLP, said in a statement.
    An attorney for the Guillaumes, Rebecca Schore of Legal Services of New Jersey, said that while she was pleased with the ruling on the need to name the actual lender in a notice of intention to foreclose, she was disappointed that the court didn’t require dismissal of the complaint.
    “We hope that the New Jersey legislature will take this opportunity to clarify the statute and require dismissal of a foreclosure complaint where the plaintiff fails to comply strictly with its requirements,” she said in an e-mail.
    The Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice and the Center for Responsible Lending filed a supporting brief. The Mortgage Bankers Association of New Jersey and New Jersey Bankers Association also filed briefs.
    The case is US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, 11-068176, New Jersey Supreme Court (Trenton).
    To contact the reporters on this story: David Voreacos in Newark, New Jersey, atdvoreacos@bloomberg.net; David McLaughlin in New York at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net
    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net; John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net