News: NY Unions Want Chase to Modify Mortgages

On February 10, 2011, in Foreclosure, Message/News Board, by Robbie L. Vaughn, Esq.

The following is from The New York Times:

Unions to Press Chase on Modifying Additional Mortgages

By CARA BUCKLEY

Published: February 9, 2011

Leaders of two large New York City unions said Wednesday that they would push for their pension funds to sell their stocks and bonds in JPMorgan Chase if the bank did not help more struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.

The declarations were part of a campaign by New York Communities for Change to force the bank to modify more mortgages.

Jon Kest, the group’s executive director, said Chase was singled out because it serviced a large number of mortgages in the city yet turned down a majority of requests for long-term mortgage modifications.

In the coming weeks, Mr. Kest said, elected and union officials and religious and community leaders would urge other investors to divest their Chase assets, and would stage weekly protests outside the bank’s headquarters in Manhattan.

John Samuelsen, president of Transport Workers Union Local 100, which represents the city’s transit workers, and Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, said they would urge their pension funds’ trustees to sell holdings in Chase if the bank did not allow more people to adjust their mortgages.

About $40 million of the Teachers’ Retirement System’s $40 billion pension fund is invested in JPMorgan Chase. The transit workers are covered by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System pension fund, which has $271 million in Chase stock and bonds, out of $39 billion in assets.

It is not clear whether the union leaders could successfully sway the pension boards, which include both union and government representatives.

By one measure, JPMorgan Chase is not out of step with other big banks. According to a Treasury Department report in December on its loan-modification program, which pays banks to modify mortgages by reducing interest rates or principal or extending the loan period, JPMorgan Chase permanently modified about 34 percent of the troubled mortgage loans it held that met eligibility criteria for relief, roughly the same as the average for all banks.

According to Mr. Kest, only 6 percent of 1,027 city homeowners who sought to reduce their mortgages with Chase between July 2008 and last December were able to get permanently modified loans. Michael Hickey, executive director of the Center for New York City Neighborhoods, a nonprofit group that provides mortgage counseling, said New Yorkers had more trouble getting modifications than homeowners elsewhere because their mortgages far exceeded the national average.

In a statement, a Chase spokesman, Thomas Kelly, said the bank, which inherited thousands of troubled mortgages when it bought Washington Mutual, had avoided foreclosures twice as often as it has foreclosed on homes, and had opened five centers in the New York area for mortgage counseling.

“Chase is doing everything possible to help homeowners stay in their homes,” Mr. Kelly wrote. “If we find we have made mistakes, we try to fix them.”

Tagged with:
 

Facing foreclosure, should I consider bankruptcy?

On January 14, 2011, in Bankruptcy, Foreclosure, by Robbie L. Vaughn, Esq.

Yes.

Why?

Because the longer you wait to file bankruptcy, the more difficult it may be to save your home.

But the bank might modify my mortgage.

Sure, but what if the bank doesn’t modify your mortgage. While you wait for a potential loan modification – your mortgage arrears and the interest are piling up. This could potentially prevent you from putting forth a confirmable chapter 13 plan.

NY bankruptcy law just got better.

On 1/21/11 new bankruptcy exemptions go into effect (see our earlier posts Changes to NY Bankruptcy Exemptions and Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions & NY).

You should at least consult with a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney to find out how filing bankruptcy can save your home (see our earlier posts Filing Bankruptcy to Save Your Home From Foreclosure and How Can I Use My Ch.7 Bankruptcy to Avoid Foreclosure).

We understand that bankruptcy is not for everyone. That is why we also offer foreclosure defense, debt negotiation, etc. We are simply stating that bankruptcy is an option that should be considered. At The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC, we don’t push our clients to file bankruptcy. We give you all of your options and assist you in deciding which course of action is best for you.

This is not legal advice!

The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC routinely represents homeowners facing foreclosure. We examine each homeowner’s specific situation to determine their best course of action.

We proudly assist residents of Long Island (Nassau county, Suffolk county) and New York City (Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Manhattan) with their bankruptcy and foreclosure matters. We are conveniently located in the heart of Nassau County, Long Island, at 393 Jericho Tpke., Ste. 208, Mineola, NY 11501.

Call (516) 858-2620 to arrange a FREE  consultation with a bankruptcy and foreclosure attorney!

 

Please visit our Foreclosure category to learn more about foreclosure issues.

Please visit our Bankruptcy category to learn more about filing for bankruptcy.

News: FTC Bans Upfront Loan Modification Fees

On November 19, 2010, in Message/News Board, Real Estate, by Robbie L. Vaughn, Esq.

The following is from the website of the Federal Trade Commission:

FTC Issues Final Rule to Protect Struggling Homeowners from Mortgage Relief Scams

Rule Outlaws Advance Fees and False Claims, Requires Clear Disclosures

Homeowners will be protected by a new Federal Trade Commission rule that bans providers of mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they decide is acceptable.

“At a time when many Americans are struggling to pay their mortgages, peddlers of so-called mortgage relief services have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of homeowners without ever delivering results,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “By banning providers of these services from collecting fees until the customer is satisfied with the results, this rule will protect consumers from being victimized by these scams.”

The FTC is issuing the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule to protect distressed homeowners from mortgage relief scams that have sprung up during the mortgage crisis. Bogus operations falsely claim that, for a fee, they will negotiate with the consumer’s mortgage lender or servicer to obtain a loan modification, a short sale, or other relief from foreclosure. Many of these operations pretend to be affiliated with the government and government housing assistance programs. The FTC has brought more than 30 cases against operations like these, and state and federal law enforcement partners have brought hundreds more.

Advance fee ban

The most significant consumer protection under the FTC’s new rule is the advance fee ban. Under this provision, mortgage relief companies may not collect any fees until they have provided consumers with a written offer from their lender or servicer that the consumer decides is acceptable, and a written document from the lender or servicer describing the key changes to the mortgage that would result if the consumer accepts the offer. The companies also must remind consumers of their right to reject the offer without any charge.

Disclosures

The Rule requires mortgage relief companies to disclose key information to consumers to protect them from being misled and to help them make better informed purchasing decisions. In their advertising and in communications directed at individual consumers (such as telemarketing calls), the companies must disclose that:

  • they are not associated with the government, and their services have not been approved by the government or the consumer’s lender;
  • the lender may not agree to change the consumer’s loan; and
  • if companies tell consumers to stop paying their mortgage, they must also tell them that they could lose their home and damage their credit rating.

Companies also must explain in their communications to consumers that they can stop doing business with the company at any time, can accept or reject any offer the company obtains from the lender or servicer, and, if they reject the offer, they don’t have to pay the company’s fee. The companies also must disclose the amount of the fee.

Prohibited claims

The MARS Rule prohibits mortgage relief companies from making any false or misleading claims about their services, including claims about:

  • the likelihood of consumers getting the results they seek;
  • the company’s affiliation with government or private entities;
  • the consumer’s payment and other mortgage obligations;
  • the company’s refund and cancellation policies;
  • whether the company has performed the services it promised;
  • whether the company will provide legal representation to consumers;
  • the availability or cost of any alternative to for-profit mortgage assistance relief services;
  • the amount of money a consumer will save by using their services; or
  • the cost of the services.

In addition, the rule bars mortgage relief companies from telling consumers to stop communicating with their lenders or servicers. Companies also must have reliable evidence to back up any claims they make about the benefits, performance, or effectiveness of the services they provide.

Attorney exemption

Attorneys are generally exempt from the rule if they meet three conditions: they are engaged in the practice of law, they are licensed in the state where the consumer or the dwelling is located, and they are complying with state laws and regulations governing attorney conduct related to the rule. To be exempt from the advance fee ban, attorneys must meet a fourth requirement – they must place any fees they collect in a client trust account and abide by state laws and regulations covering such accounts.

All provisions of the rule except the advance-fee ban will become effective December 29, 2010. The advance-fee ban provisions will become effective January 31, 2011.

NEW YORK, NY – New York City Comptroller John C. Liu, on behalf of the trustees of the New York City Pension Funds, is calling on directors at Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC), Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) to conduct an independent audit of their banks’ mortgage and foreclosure practices. The four banks are the largest mortgage servicers in the country representing 56 percent of the nation’s $10.64 trillion mortgage industry.

Comptroller Liu – the investment advisor, custodian and trustee of the New York City Pension Funds, collectively valued at $106 billion – made the request in a shareholder proposal filed at each of the four banks.  The proposal calls for the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors at each bank to conduct an independent review of the bank’s internal controls related to loan modifications, foreclosures and securitizations and to report their findings to shareholders by September 30, 2011.

“We raised concerns with the banks in July that misaligned incentives, inferior customer service and repeated requests for paperwork were undermining the loan modification process and leading to unnecessary foreclosures for homeowners,” Comptroller Liu said.  “The magnitude of these problems suggests a larger systemic failure with consequences that have not only adversely affected homeowners and become a drain on regional economies, but also left shareholders vulnerable to substantial liabilities.

“Directors are elected by shareholders and as shareholders we intend to hold them accountable,” Comptroller Liu continued.  “The banks are under intensive legal and regulatory scrutiny and the independent directors are ultimately responsible for compliance. It’s time they step forward and reassure shareholders that the banks’ internal controls are robust.”   Under both NYSE listing requirements and the banks’ own governance documents, the Audit Committee of the respective boards — typically comprised of independent directors — is ultimately responsible for legal and regulatory compliance.

The shareholder proposal states that when the Boards of Directors report back to shareholders, the report should specifically address:

  1. Policies and procedures to address potential financial incentives to foreclose when other options may be more consistent with the Company’s long-term interests;
  2. Whether management has allocated a sufficient number of trained staff; and
  3. The Company’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and its own policies and procedures.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is Attorney Advertising. It does not form an attorney-client relationship. We are a debt relief agency and a law firm that helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code – Title 11. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Proudly assisting residents of Long Island, Nassau county, Suffolk county, New York City, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Manhattan