Long Island Judge Hammers Wells w/ $155K Tab For Kicking Out Homeowner Before Foreclosure Is Completed

From: www.homeequitytheft.blogspot.com

In a court ruling issued March 5, 2010, Suffolk County, New York Supreme Court Justice Jeffery Arlen Spinner clobbered another rogue foreclosing lender for its improper conduct in connection with the carrying out of a foreclosure action. This time, it was Wells Fargo, who felt the wrath of Justice
Spinner.(1) According to the ruling, Wells locked out a homeowner in foreclosure before the legal action was complete and, for its conduct, was ordered to pay the aggrieved homeowner:

* $200 in damages for the trespass to homeowner’s possessory interest in the property,
* $4,892 in damages representing the value of the personal possessions lost as a direct result of Wells Fargo’s actions in trespass,
* $150,000 in exemplary damages, which, in effect, serves as a reminder to Wells Fargo and any other lender to refrain from engaging in this kind of crap in the future.

A couple of excerpts from Justice Spinner’s ruling follows [my emphasis added, not in the original]:

* In the matter before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff [ie. Wells Fargo] has perpetrated a trespass against the real property of Defendant [homeowner facing foreclosure], which is actionable and subjects Plaintiff to liability for damages. Distilled to its very essence, trespass is characterized by one’s intentional entry, with neither permission nor legal justification, upon the real property of another, [citation omitted].

***

* Here, the Court is constrained to find that the conduct of Plaintiff in this matter was both willful and wanton, as evidenced by not one but two unauthorized entries into Defendant’s dwelling, occurring in complete derogation of Defendant’s right of possession. This conduct becomes even more glaring when consideration is given to the fact that Defendant affirmatively notified Plaintiff that he had secured the property and that it was not abandoned and still contained his personal property.

* Even so, Plaintiff maintains that it has entered the property under a color of right, which turns out to be illusory under the circumstances. In spite of these declarations, Plaintiff willfully took it upon itself to enter the property on more than one occasion, doing so unreasonably and without notice, in direct contravention of the terms of its mortgage promulgated to Defendant by its assignor. This is even more distressing when it is considered that Plaintiff breaches its obligations to Defendant under the mortgage, running roughshod over Defendant’s rights with a specious claim that it is acting to protect its rights and the property. In short, the conduct of Plaintiff was nothing short of oppressive and would best be described as heavy handed and egregious, to say the very least.

* Certainly, the trespass was willful and calculated and was not accidental in any way and the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act in good faith. Under these circumstances, an award of both actual and exemplary damages is necessary and appropriate in order to properly compensate Defendant for the losses he has sustained by way of Plaintiff’s shockingly wrongful conduct as well as to serve as an appropriate deterrent to any future outrageous, improper and unlawful deeds.

* The Court finds the appropriate measure of damages for the trespass to Defendant’s possessory interest in the property to be in the amount of $200.00. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover $4,892.00 representing the value of the personalty lost as a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions in trespass. Finally, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Plaintiff in the amount of $150,000.00.

For the entire ruling, see Wells Fargo v Tyson, 2010 NY Slip Op 20079 (NYS Supreme Court, Suffolk County, March 5, 2010).

Share

Long Island Judge Hammers Wells w/ $155K Tab For Kicking Out Homeowner Before Foreclosure Is Completed

From:  www.homeequitytheft.blogspot.com

In a court ruling issued March 5, 2010, Suffolk County, New York Supreme Court Justice Jeffery Arlen Spinner clobbered another rogue foreclosing lender for its improper conduct in connection with the carrying out of a foreclosure action. This time, it was Wells Fargo, who felt the wrath of Justice

Spinner.(1) According to the ruling, Wells locked out a homeowner in foreclosure before the legal action was complete and, for its conduct, was ordered to pay the aggrieved homeowner:

  • $200 in damages for the trespass to homeowner’s possessory interest in the property,
  • $4,892 in damages representing the value of the personal possessions lost as a direct result of Wells Fargo’s actions in trespass,
  • $150,000 in exemplary damages, which, in effect, serves as a reminder to Wells Fargo and any other lender to refrain from engaging in this kind of crap in the future.

A couple of excerpts from Justice Spinner’s ruling follows [my emphasis added, not in the original]:

  • In the matter before the Court, it is apparent that Plaintiff [ie. Wells Fargo] has perpetrated a trespass against the real property of Defendant [homeowner facing foreclosure], which is actionable and subjects Plaintiff to liability for damages. Distilled to its very essence, trespass is characterized by one’s intentional entry, with neither permission nor legal justification, upon the real property of another, [citation omitted].

***

  • Here, the Court is constrained to find that the conduct of Plaintiff in this matter was both willful and wanton, as evidenced by not one but two unauthorized entries into Defendant’s dwelling, occurring in complete derogation of Defendant’s right of possession. This conduct becomes even more glaring when consideration is given to the fact that Defendant affirmatively notified Plaintiff that he had secured the property and that it was not abandoned and still contained his personal property.
  • Even so, Plaintiff maintains that it has entered the property under a color of right, which turns out to be illusory under the circumstances. In spite of these declarations, Plaintiff willfully took it upon itself to enter the property on more than one occasion, doing so unreasonably and without notice, in direct contravention of the terms of its mortgage promulgated to Defendant by its assignor. This is even more distressing when it is considered that Plaintiff breaches its obligations to Defendant under the mortgage, running roughshod over Defendant’s rights with a specious claim that it is acting to protect its rights and the property. In short, the conduct of Plaintiff was nothing short of oppressive and would best be described as heavy handed and egregious, to say the very least.
  • Certainly, the trespass was willful and calculated and was not accidental in any way and the Court finds that Plaintiff did not act in good faith. Under these circumstances, an award of both actual and exemplary damages is necessary and appropriate in order to properly compensate Defendant for the losses he has sustained by way of Plaintiff’s shockingly wrongful conduct as well as to serve as an appropriate deterrent to any future outrageous, improper and unlawful deeds.
  • The Court finds the appropriate measure of damages for the trespass to Defendant’s possessory interest in the property to be in the amount of $200.00. The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to recover $4,892.00 representing the value of the personalty lost as a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions in trespass. Finally, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to recover exemplary damages from Plaintiff in the amount of $150,000.00.

For the entire ruling, see Wells Fargo v Tyson, 2010 NY Slip Op 20079 (NYS Supreme Court, Suffolk County, March 5, 2010).

Share

One West Accused Of Pushing People Into Foreclosure

Kevin Smith, Whittier Daily News

Allegations that OneWest Bank is systematically pushing home loan borrowers toward foreclosure has elicited concerns from two Southland lawmakers.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, said the claims contained in several lawsuits – if true – don’t bode well for people who are trying to remain in their homes.

“I personally don’t know what the evidence is, but I’d be quite shocked if that was going on,” he said. “I don’t know how banks can unilaterally raise mortgage rates when a bankruptcy is going on.”

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood, also voiced concerns about the claims leveled at OneWest, or any other bank, for that matter.

“I’m concerned about recent allegations that banks in Southern California may be victimizing homeowners,” Sanchez said. “With the current economy, banks – especially those that received bailout funds – should be working with borrowers rather than pushing them into foreclosure.”

Sacramento attorney Peter Macaluso and Mark Wolff, another attorney from Elk Grove, recently filed several lawsuits on behalf of struggling borrowers whose mortgage loans are held by OneWest.

The actions allege the bank routinely performs an escrow analysis soon after a borrower files for bankruptcy.

Following that analysis, the homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment is hiked – sometimes substantially.

“They changed the mortgage payment for one of my clients eight times in eight months,” Macaluso said earlier

Share

Citibank’s Foreclosure Alternatives Program is a Trap

Dan Fielding

Today Citibank announced its “Foreclosure Alternatives Program,” which has a goal (according to Citi) “to help homeowners make a smooth transition into the next chapter of their lives.”

That’s a nice way to describe a program that’s designed to trap homeowners into paying for utilities, HOA dues, and ongoing maintenance expenses.  This can easily cost homeowners thousands of dollars throughout the lengthy foreclosure process. Their reward? $1,000 of relocation money that they were going to get anyway.

From MarketWatch:

In exchange for the deed on their property, CitiMortgage will allow borrowers to stay in their homes for a period of up to six months. At the end of the six months, the borrower will turn over the property deed to CitiMortgage, and CitiMortgage will provide a minimum of $1,000 in relocation assistance to the borrowers. Citi will also provide relocation counseling by trained professionals and will cover certain monthly property expenses if Citi determines that the borrower can no longer afford them. Payment of utilities costs will be the responsibility of the borrower. Other costs incurred by the borrower, such as homeowner’s association and escrow fees, will be determined on a case-by-case basis considering the borrower’s specific financial circumstances. As part of the agreement, borrowers must maintain the property in its current condition and agree to bi-monthly meetings during which trained relocation professionals will help the borrower prepare for the next chapter of their lives.

Before a borrower enters the Foreclosure Alternatives Program, they must first be evaluated for a permanent mortgage modification. For those who do not qualify for a modification or another solution, CitiMortgage will explore the possibility of a short sale in which the company might accept a buyer’s offer for less than the outstanding amount of the mortgage. If a short sale is not feasible, then the borrower may be considered for the deed-in-lieu program. In addition, in order to be eligible, homeowners must hold first mortgages with a clear title owned by CitiMortgage, occupy the property, and be at least 90 days delinquent on their mortgage payments.

This program does nothing to help homeowners. The modify-short-sale-foreclose process is basically the same that homeowners go through anyway.

Here, Citi is asking homeowners to sign a contract that they will continue to pay for utilities, HOA dues, and all property maintenance all the way through the process. Considering that trial modifications and failed short sales could easily cover six months each, the homeowner could easily be on the hook for 1-2 years worth of costs that they could have simply walked away from.

Plus possibly six months more? When exactly does the six months start?

And what happens if the homeowner can’t keep up the property or misses an HOA payment? Can the bank then come after them for that money? It’s a pretty safe bet that the fine print in this Program contract could only open the homeowner up to more future liabilities.

Why would any homeowner agree to something like this? For the $1,000? They’d get that anyway as cash-for-keys. For the Deed-In-Lieu instead of a foreclosure?  Many banks will allow that option without any additional contract.

This is nothing more than a way for Citi to trap homeowners into paying for upkeep, utilities, and HOA dues that the bank would otherwise have to pay.

Greg Fielding is life long Realtor in Danville, California.  He can be reached at gfielding@rockcliff.com

Share