Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision

Sarah Portlock, Star-Ledger

florida foreclosures,mortgage fraud,mortgage audit,florida mortgage timelineIn the nearly five months since the state Supreme Court effectively allowed six of the country’s biggest banks to begin filing foreclosures again, attorneys and court officials have been expecting a flood of new filings to hit the courts.

Except it hasn’t happened. Foreclosure filings are down 83 percent as of October this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to court figures, and there are at least 100,000 cases either pending in the system or waiting to be submitted.

Attorneys involved in the work in New Jersey point to at least one reason for the significant delay: a court case that has reached the state Supreme Court, with oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case, US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, is important because the court is asked to determine who must be named as a point of contact on the document that initiates the foreclosure process, known as the Notice of Intent to Foreclose. The state Fair Foreclosure Act requires identifying the lender and its contact information. But because the original lender has often bundled and sold the loans to investors, the current lender lists the servicer, a third party that collects monthly payments and dispurses it to the mortgage holder. In this situation, the lender’s attorney argued it was unnecessary to name his client on the notice because the servicer had been assigned the mortgage rights.

Attorneys for the homeowners, Maryse and Emilio Guillaume, said listing the servicer is not sufficient, should the homeowner want to work out a solution and stay in the house, and any foreclosure judgment without the lender having been named should be voided.

Read more here

Share

Legal issues slow foreclosures In NJ

Kathleen Lynn, Bergen Record

In a small Bergen County courtroom one recent Friday, a sheriff’s officer auctioned off two foreclosed properties in a matter of minutes, as a handful of investors kept their eyes open for bargains.

It was a far cry from the typical sheriff’s auction of mid-2010, when 15 or more properties were auctioned weekly and up to 100 investors crowded the courthouse’s large jury room.

Sheriff’s auctions are among the most visible symbols of the housing crisis, which left many homeowners saddled with mortgages they couldn’t afford. But foreclosure auctions have slowed dramatically since questions arose more than a year ago about “robo-signing” — that is, sloppy paperwork by mortgage lenders and servicers.

Though lenders were given the go-ahead in August to start foreclosing again in New Jersey after showing a judge they were following the rules, they have been slow to resume activity.

The reason: an August appellate court decision, Bank of New York v. Laks, according to Kevin Wolfe, head of the state’s Office of Foreclosure. In that case, the court dismissed a foreclosure, finding the lender violated the state Fair Foreclosure Act because it didn’t properly identify itself in a notice sent to the troubled homeowners.

Under new state court rules, lawyers working for foreclosing plaintiffs have to personally certify that they have checked the facts behind a foreclosure filing with an employee of the lender or the lender’s servicer. Many have indicated to Wolfe that they are reluctant to sign such a certification, because they’re concerned that the lender’s paperwork may not meet the requirements set out in the Laks decision.

E. Robert Levy, executive director of the Mortgage Bankers Association of New Jersey, said he believed there was no “real question about the validity of the loans being put through the foreclosure process.”

“The money is still owed; it’s just a matter of making sure you meet the procedural requirements, and we agree the requirements should be met,” Levy said.

Read more here

Share

Lender Accused of Predatory Lending

Hugh R. Morley, NewJersey.com

A lawsuit filed by a Ridgefield Park couple and three other New Jersey home buyers alleges Cresskill-based 1st 2nd Mortgage Co. of New Jersey targeted Latino and African borrowers and deceived them into taking out so-called predatory loans that eventually defaulted.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, alleges the loans failed because the borrowers earned too little to make the payments, which inflated dramatically after several years as adjustable mortgage rates kicked in.

The company targeted poor immigrants with limited education and little or no English, who knew little or nothing about mortgages, the suit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Newark, alleges.

“Plaintiffs were deceived into signing the loan documents and suffered an ascertainable loss of money and of equity in their homes,” according to the suit.

Defendants in the case are the 1st 2nd Mortgage Co. and any subsidiaries.

Ridgefield Park couple

The plaintiffs include Christian and Bernadette Lelina, who got two mortgages from the bank to help buy their Arthur Street, Ridgefield Park, home that were too large for the property and their ability to pay, and eventually went into default, the suit says.

The filing follows a suit filed in March 2010 making similar allegations against the mortgage company and more than 100 others, and filed by the same attorney who filed the suit Monday, Feng Li.

The earlier suit was voluntarily dismissed in June. At the time, the court ruled that the suit “failed to state a claim,” said Anthony Laura, a Newark attorney who represents 1st 2nd Mortgage Co.

Read more here

Share

Appeals Court Restores Sanctions Against Foreclosure Law Firm

Peg Brickley, Wall Street Journal

A federal appeals court has reinstated sanctions against a New Jersey law firm and attorney for attempting to foreclose on a suburban Philadelphia couple using “robo-produced” mortgage data that was fraught with errors.

In a case that was one of the first to expose trouble in the high-tech, high-volume mortgage foreclosure industry, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a bankruptcy judge who punished the Udren law firm and attorney Lorraine Doyle for showing up in court with unverified, computer-generated mortgage data that was wrong.

A call to Doyle and to the firm Thursday seeking comment on the ruling was not returned.

The wave of mortgage foreclosures that followed the collapse of the housing market brought to light the industry practice of having clerical employees “robo-sign” mass-produced mortgage documents. Robo-signers presented themselves as officers of numerous banks, swearing to information they had never checked out. Exposure forced the mortgage servicers to shut down foreclosures for awhile for document repairs.

The Udren case highlights the role of foreclosure law firms, whose lawyers walk the robo-produced mortgage data into court, without checking whether it is correct or not. The law firm said it was not able to verify the data under the system established by client HSBC, using technology from Lender Processing Services Inc.

HSBC did not appeal sanctions imposed on it for using a system that did not allow its lawyers to check on the truth of the computer-produced data. LPS, a major provider of technology and services to the mortgage industry, was not sanctioned in the case before the Third Circuit.

“However, both the accuracy of its data and the ethics of its practices have been repeatedly called into question elsewhere,” the appeals court noted, citing cases in Louisiana, Mississippi and South Dakota.

A spokeswoman for LPS did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.

The appeals court and the bankruptcy judge found the flawed high-volume system that handles mortgage data does not excuse an attorney’s failure to verify information before presenting it to a court.

“Where a lawyer systematically fails to take any responsibility for seeking adequate information from her client, makes representations without any factual basis because they are included in a ‘form pleading’ she has been trained to fill out, and ignores obvious indications that her information may be incorrect, she cannot be said to have made reasonable inquiry,” the court of appeals wrote.

The case began in January 2008, when the Urden firm presented a bankruptcy judge with the wrong mortgage note, wrong monthly payment information and wrong value for the home of Niles and Angela Taylor, and sought permission to foreclose.

Read more here

Share