Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Hi there, I have a question about a new law related to the QWR:

It is true that when sending a QWR to the servicer, they have only five (5) days to
acknowledge, and 30 days to respond?

**Other question is:
                                what I should do if a servicer only respond a small fraction of the QWR?, let's say they answer 10% of the questions?

**and the last question; I heard that the servicer should have an specific address
to receive the QWR,  They do not have yet an specific address to that.

Any help will be greatly appreciated





Quote 0 0
Sandy
You're right, the Dodd-Frank Act shortened the response time for QWR, go here for more info:

http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=USFN_E_Update&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16355

Quote 0 0
Moose
jose acosta wrote:
Hi there, I have a question about a new law related to the QWR:

It is true that when sending a QWR to the servicer, they have only five (5) days to
acknowledge, and 30 days to respond?

**Other question is:
                                what I should do if a servicer only respond a small fraction of the QWR?, let's say they answer 10% of the questions?

**and the last question; I heard that the servicer should have an specific address
to receive the QWR,  They do not have yet an specific address to that.

Any help will be greatly appreciated







Jose, from a purely strategic sense you should not try to put too many questions in a single QWR.

Why?  Well, mixing issues can allow them to dodge responsibility - for example, they could mount a defense to a RESPA suit based on good-faith efforts to say, answer two out of the three questions in a letter.

That doesn't mean you paper them with letters with just one question each, it means you address an issue individually and ask specific questions about that issue in one letter and other issues in other letters.

Moose



Quote 0 0
You reponse is invaluable, thanks.

In the other hand, generally speaking, the discovery is allowed in a judicial state
under what conditions? I mean; I can serve for discovery even before answer a suit?

I know, this is not legal advice.


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Another helpful and informative post by Moose!

*

I would like to broaden the issue to discovery more generally and suggest the the principle enunciated by Moose as to QWRs might also be reasonably applied to discovery questions.

In the very rare cases I have seen discovery propounded by defendants at all, I have seen both pro se litigants and even some experienced attorneys ask a lengthy laundry list of interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions.

It seems to me that in asking the longer list of questions within a single discovery request, one telegraphs strategy and allows the plaintiff to more readily coordinate various evasive answers, when they answer at all.

Moreover, in taking a longer list of questions to the court on a motion to compel, one is playing into the plaintiff's objections that discovery requests propounded are "unduly burdensome, oppressive and not reasonably designed to lead to relevant evidence", etc.

In seeking a motion to compel, I would want to present the court with a very short discovery request where the defendant is probably entitled to answers as a matter of law.

So the principle of keeping each set of discovery requests shorter and more focused would seem to me to parallel the cousel given above as to QWRs.

Of course, one also doesn't want to serve ten different discovery requests of two questions each.

Moose, would you comment upon this approach and share with us your thoughts on written discovery strategy?
Quote 0 0
You are right, I will somehow going  that approach, (of course this is not legal advice),
and whta do you think if I include in the QWR something like:

"Under the Truth in Lending Act, I have a right to know who the true party
of interest in this transaction is. Please stipulate whether you are the
holder in due course for my promissory note.

Please also stipulate for the record whether or not my loan has been
securitized, and if so, what the name of the REMIC/Trust my loan is
bundled with."     or I better send another letter/discovery around that concept,
and dedicate the QWR to other inquiries.

If you have any sampes, I could teak it, under my own risk, no problem


Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Jose,

I haven't looked at the link Sandy provided, but...  A 15 day extension for substantively responding to a QWR seems to be rather easy for a servicer to obtain.

Quote 0 0
I have a relatively dumb question:

Before filing a QWR, you must  file an"answer" to the suit?

**I just learned that when you got sued, and pass the time to answer you may file a "late answer", or you may file a "motion to dismiss"

In the event that a borrower has not filed yet an answer, it is pointless that you submitt
a QWR, or any other discovery (maybe because will not be allowed)?

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Jose:

If you have been sued and failed to file an answer, you need to find an attorney RIGHT AWAY!

Folks here at the Forum have responded to the queries you have posed, but it seems as though you have missed some of the most basic concepts.

When you fail to timely answer, the plaintiff can usually obtain a default judgment against you.  While there are circumstances where a default judgment can be set aside, these are usually very limited and in most places this can only be done when it can be shown that you were never properly served.  Even when service is defective, in many places the defendant has to show not only a defect in service, but also a meritorious defense.

And the defendant will bear the burden of proof as to both of these elements.

Courts are usually somewhat more permissive in allowing a tardy answer where a default hasn't been entered, but you need to get this application right.  This often involves making an application for an enlargement under an excusable neglect standard relying upon a state's equivalent to Federal Rule 6(b)(2).

Serving a QWR is a means of obtaining some evidence IN ADVANCE OF SUIT and even while a borrower is actually fully current on the mortgage.

By contrast, once a law suit is underway, the most effective means of gathering evidence is usually discovery under a jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure.


FIND A GOOD LAWYER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Jose:

See also these prior discussion threads:

On the Importance of Timely ANSWERING of a Complaint or Petition in Foreclosure (12/18/07 at 04:07 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2368565

 

I got the summons and complaint and still don't have a lawyer (06/29/10 at 08:34 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4781203

 

In Loan Mod but got Default Judgement (04/21/10 at 06:11 PM)

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4684477

Quote 0 0
I accept my lapse in reasoning, I am on the move seeking solution N- O-W

And I and unlimited grateful for all your assistance. I already contacted a very good lawyer.  Time to mend mistakes NOW.                Thank You.

Quote 0 0
Moose
William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
Another helpful and informative post by Moose!

I would like to broaden the issue to discovery more generally and suggest the the principle enunciated by Moose as to QWRs might also be reasonably applied to discovery questions.
...

Moose, would you comment upon this approach and share with us your thoughts on written discovery strategy?


Discovery vs. QWR needs to be addressed, thank you William.

The QWR process was designed to head off litigation and provide a way for a borrower to force mortgage servicers to respond in writing without the need to resort to litigation.

It contemplated a 'good-faith' business model where responsible servicers who just happened to make a mistake along the way could be pushed into providing answers in a documented form and thus correcting their mistakes before a suit had to be filed.

Unfortunately, predatory and opportunistic servicers discovered they could ignore or respond in any way they sought fit with little risk of actual penalty. They were not responding to a court ordered discovery and blowing off a QWR rarely resulted in litigation.

But when it comes to an actual civil case, discovery is a legal form of art and servicers have no choice but to retain local counsel.

With all that in mind, consider that with almost every question you propound you reveal what you think you already know.

Not a battlefield for the inexperienced.

Moose






Quote 0 0
Write a reply...