Due to the segment that was aired on Nightline July 4. 2012 we are experiencing high call volumes and an overwhelming number of emails from homeowners asking for our assistance.
If you are trying to contact us please be sure to let us know if you have a sale date on your home by including that in your phone message or typing it into the subject line of your email.
Please be patient. We will do our best to get in touch with everyone who has contact us.
Here are some of the most common complaints about mortgage servicers we hear from homeowners:
Eligible homeowners denied for Hamp modifications because of sloppy handling of documents by the servicer.
Servicers pushing homeowners into less than affordable “in house” modifications when they clearly qualify for the more affordable government Hamp program.
Foreclosing while in review for a modification.
Misapplying trial modification payments or processing incorrectly so the homeowner is disqualified for a Hamp modification.
Misapplying mortgage payments so the homeowner is deemed in default.
Processing escrow accounts incorrectly.
Declaring homes vacant (when they are in fact occupied by the homeowner) which disqualifies them for HAMP.
Granting 3 month trial modification, but the bank insists that the homeowner continue to make the trial payments for months or years, leading them to believe they will receive permanent loan modification documents in the mail, but they never arrive.
Servicers abrubtly refuse payments or send payments back to the homeowner when they have been participating in an extended trial modification plan, then informing them they are denied for modification.
Requesting loan modification and financial documents repeatedly and telling the homeowner they were never received.
Improperly calculating the homeowner’s income to disqualify them for a loan modification.
Discriminating against minorities and single women.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is taking mortgage complaints. If you are having issues with your mortgage servicer we encourage you to file a complaint at www.consumerfinance.gov. It is our hope that the CFPB will see the patterns of abuse as more complaints are submitted by homeowners.
Moveon.org’s nationwide Save Our Homes rally touched Lincoln March 15. From left, Rachel Kendall, Raeleen Lester (Kendall’s mother), Marlene Koons, Linda Kuruhara and Howard Koons gathered in front of Lincoln’s Wells Fargo as part of moveon.org’s nationwide Save Our Homes Rally. The rally was organized by Lincoln resident Kendall, who said she “almost lost” her Lincoln Crossing home in December. Kendall owed $7,000 on her home after she went on disability and was not paid for four months, according to Kendall. She said Wells Fargo bank put her home up for sale in December. After working with HSI Trust Home Savers, Kendall said, she “was able to negotiate with Wells Fargo and keep” her home. The March 15 protest coincided with a meeting between President Barack Obama and the Senate’s finance committee “to discuss people staying in their homes,” Kendall said.
Excerpt from Huffington Post:
The greatest moral hazard now confronting the nation is what appears to be increasingly brazen criminal activity by financial industry executives. With each decision not to prosecute, Wall Street executives justifiably conclude that they are immune to the rules. As a result, it appears that Wall Street criminal activity is increasing in frequency and severity, as opposed to the reverse. The activities surrounding the collapse of MF Global are one example.
So what can be done about it? We can change the behavior in the financial service industry for a full generation in just seven days. This plan may seem to be tongue and cheek, but it harkens back to a similar action in the era of the Great Depression. In the final months of Herbert Hoover’s presidency, the Senate Banking Committee began an investigation into the causes of the Great Crash of 1929, and a young prosecutor named Ferdinand Pecora was appointed as Chief Counsel. Subsequently, the Roosevelt administration conveyed to Pecora that “the prosecution of an outstanding violator of the banking law would be the most salutary action that could be taken at this time. The feeling is that if the people become convinced that the big violators are to be punished, it will be helpful in restoring confidence.” Ultimately, this investigation, which came to be known as the Pecora Commission, led to the indictment of one of America’s most prominent financiers; demonstrated widespread self-dealing in the financial sector; and, as noted by historian Alan Brinkley, generated “broad popular support” for Roosevelt’s reform agenda, including the creation of the SEC and the Glass-Steagall Act.
My seven day plan is based on a simple premise: When criminal laws are egregiously violated, the guilty parties should face appropriate punishment. Here’s the plan:
Day One: Read the HUD Inspector General’s reports and the public records of past mortgage foreclosure cases from across the nation.
Day Two: Meet with the team at the Office of the Inspector General at HUD that prepared the audits. Obtain the names of all the bank officials, lawyers, and notaries whose behavior, as cited in the audit reports or otherwise known to the investigators, represent clear and unquestionable criminal violations. Add to this list other individuals who have similarly demonstrated or testified to behavior unquestionably constituting criminal acts, as indicated by the public records of the mortgage foreclosure cases reviewed in day one.
Day Three: Indict all of the individuals on the list compiled on day two.
Day Four: Indict banks and financial institutions on criminal charges where criminal behavior by employees (as demonstrated by day three indictments) appears to be endemic. The Justice Department guidelines for prosecuting firms include: (1) the pervasiveness of such activity, (2) the compliance procedures in place, (3) attempts by the corporation to end bad behavior, and (4) cooperation with federal investigators. In 2008, the Justice Department adopted a policy of accepting “deferred prosecutions,” involving agreements to change corporate behavior without damaging innocent third parties through prosecution.
Corporations receive the benefits of “legal persons,” as demonstrated by Citizens United. But they must also bear the responsibilities of these privileges. A reading of the HUD reports, and other public records, suggests several banks should clearly be prosecuted.
Day 5: Discuss plea bargains with indicted lower-level officials in return for cooperating in investigations of higher-level officials.
Day 6: Consider plea bargains with indicted banks, which require the removal of all remaining officers and directors who were serving when egregious criminal activity occurred, as well as senior officials who were in a position to exercise appropriate supervisory responsibility but chose to look the other way.
Day 7: Indict any senior Wall Street officials implicated by new cooperative testimony resulting from activities on day five. Adopt and announce a policy that future criminal violations will be prosecuted in a similar fashion.
What is particularly disturbing is that a look at the evidence already in the public domain (much less what investigators already know) shows that none of the actions discussed above are entirely absurd. The purpose of prosecution is not simply punishment. It acts to deter further illegal activity and to restore public confidence in our system of governance. The nation desperately needs both of these benefits today.
Moreover, these ongoing, almost certainly criminal activities are ultimately dangerous threats to our economy, the success of capitalism, and our democracy. In his recent New York Times column on the collapse of MF Global, Joe Nocera noted that “customers need to be able to trust” the laws protecting their money. “Otherwise, the markets can’t function.”
Today, as in the era of FDR, we must send a message to the financial community that illegal behavior will not be tolerated. By prosecuting blatant felonies now, we will deter future misbehavior and begin the process of recreating a fair society where equal justice prevails.
Top law enforcement officials in several states are signaling they will pressure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to correct what is widely seen as one of the biggest deficiencies of the $25 billion mortgage settlement announced on Thursday: It simply doesn’t help that many homeowners.
Borrowers whose loans are backed by the government-controlled mortgage giants — nearly half of all outstanding mortgages in the United States — are not eligible for payouts under the deal. State officials who negotiated the deal say they could not convince Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees the loan giants, to join onto the settlement because they are steadfastly opposed to principal reductions — loan write-downs for borrowers whose homes are at risk of foreclosure.
“This is a glaring weakness of the overall settlement,” said one state official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Fannie and Freddie were absolutely opposed to principal reduction. You’d ask why, and they’d say ‘moral hazard to the taxpayer.'”
So far, the mortgage giants and the FHFA have only said that they’re avoiding principal reduction because of the cost to taxpayers.
Principal reductions are hailed by many economists and housing experts as the most effective way to help homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, owing more than the home is worth. About 1 in 5 homes in the U.S. are currently underwater.