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 all. Just want to clarify. I am in the middle of preparing my motion for dismissal on various grounds. One of which, is that I was never notified of my note and mortgage assignment to Wells Fargo from another company. The assignment was done back in June, so it is well past the 30 day window allowed by TILA. Just wondering if I would file suit in my state court (S.C.) or Federal Court, and I would assume I would serve it through or to the attorney representing Wells Fargo currently. Thanks in advance.
Quote 0 0
f

Quote:
Hi all. Just want to clarify. I am in the middle of preparing my motion for dismissal on various grounds. One of which, is that I was never notified of my note and mortgage assignment to Wells Fargo from another company. The assignment was done back in June, so it is well past the 30 day window allowed by TILA. Just wondering if I would file suit in my state court (S.C.) or Federal Court, and I would assume I would serve it through or to the attorney representing Wells Fargo currently. Thanks in advance.

You seem to be disconnected from both an understanding of the Rules and from reality.
 
If you are already in litigation, there is usually a Rule of procedure that requires that you make any cross-claim or counterclaim arising out of the same facts within the same court proceeding.  You usually cannot simply litigate various other claims arising out of the same facts in another forum.
 
This Rule will describe "compulsory counterclaims".  You might also have some optional counterclaims which could be raised separately later in another forum.

But the optional counterclaims are NOT going to be at all useful in frustrating or blocking the claims brought by a plaintiff in a foreclosure suit against you.

It appears as though you have been reading some sort of Internet lore possibly distributed by various swindlers involved in debt elimination scams.  These folks have put out a lot of false information to confuse borrowers and leave them susceptible to swindles.

In short, if you are defending a suit which you are trying to defeat through a motion to dismiss, any claims that you believe would present a valid defense against the claim would ordinarily need to be filed as a defense or affirmative defense in the action already pending.  If you are even thinking about trying to start a second action in another court, you are probably so far off the reservation that you loss seems almost certain.

P.S. -- I am aware of no valid defense that could be interposed in respect of some tardiness in notifying you as to a transfer in the ownership or holdership of the note and mortgage.

YOU NEED TO GET AN ATTORNEY.  YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC LITIGATION.
Quote 0 0
Bill
doh wrote:
Hi all. Just want to clarify. I am in the middle of preparing my motion for dismissal on various grounds. One of which, is that I was never notified of my note and mortgage assignment to Wells Fargo from another company. The assignment was done back in June, so it is well past the 30 day window allowed by TILA. Just wondering if I would file suit in my state court (S.C.) or Federal Court, and I would assume I would serve it through or to the attorney representing Wells Fargo currently. Thanks in advance.

You do seem to be confused.  As f posted, TILA claims are COUNTER-Claims and have nothing to do with a defense to foreclosure.  IF you prevail on a counter-claim and lose to foreclosure, you most likely would just get the amount of the win as some kind of off set from the balance due from the foreclosure.  

Bottom line, you won't get any money or save you home.  

I am familiar with the claim you are making.  It presents quite a dilemma for a homeowner.  You have the CHANCE to win 400-4000 in statutory damages.  In previous cases this has fallen in the middle.  The courts awards between $1000.00-$2000.00.  The problem becomes while you can win 2k that you will NEVER SEE, you are forcing the plaintiff to search through the files to find PROOF that the note was actually transferred YEARS ago BEFORE this regulation came into effect

Quote:

§ 1640. CIVIL LIABILITY

(a) Individual or class action for damages; amount of award; factors determining amount of award
Except as otherwise provided in this section, any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635of this title, subsection (f) or (g) of section 1641 of this title, or part D or E of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—
(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of the failure;
(2)
(A)
(i) in the case of an individual action twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction,
(ii) in the case of an individual action relating to a consumer lease under part E of this subchapter, 25 per centum of the total amount of monthly payments under the lease, except that the liability under this subparagraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000,
(iii) in the case of an individual action relating to an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by real property or a dwelling, twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, with a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $5,000, or such higher amount as may be appropriate in the case of an established pattern or practice of such failures; [1] or
(iv) in the case of an individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property or a dwelling, not less than $400 or greater than $4,000; or 
(B) in the case of a class action, such amount as the court may allow, except that as to each member of the class no minimum recovery shall be applicable, and the total recovery under this subparagraph in any class action or series of class actions arising out of the same failure to comply by the same creditor shall not be more than the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the creditor;


 This can have 2 negative effects.  

1.  You DON'T prevail on your TILA claim.

2.  You made the Plaintiff get the PROOF they need to prove standing and take your home and need to find a place to rent.

Because of these problems I abandon this claim, it is far cheaper to say in my home for an extended period of time having them PROVE their standing and that they are the holder than find a place to rent.  


Quote 0 0
f

doh

It is helpful to distinguish some different categories of defense or claims.

 

In response to a mortgage foreclosure complaint, you might interpose certain basic defenses.  For example, in some instances, a defendant might deny the existence of a valid debt or promissory note or deny that there had been a default under the alleged note.

 

A general denial, where permissible, tends to traverse all of the plaintiff's accusations.  In the Rules of other jurisdictions, a defendant has to expressly deny particular allegations and even to admit so much of the allegations as are actually true.

 

An answer might also include some special defenses.  For example, Mr. Roper has explained in another thread that failure of conditions precedent is a special defense and the denial of an essential element of a plaintiff's cause of action.

 

Other defenses are termed affirmative defenses.  These defense are characterized by a defendant bearing the burden of proof on these points.  Payment (the borrower paid the debt), accord and satisfaction (the borrower and lender previously agreed to some settlement of the debt), discharge (the lender forgave the debt), limitations (a statute of limitations bars recovery), and res judicata are all affirmative defenses.

 

With an affirmative defense, usually the character of the defense is such that even if the plaintiff proved the allegations of its complaint, a defendant might avoid liability and a judgment by proving the elements of that defense.

 

*

 

Separate from defenses are counterclaims.  A counterclaim is a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff which arises out of the same transaction, occurence or set of facts.

 

Usually, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to counterclaims.  Success on the counterclaims may establish a defendant's entitlement to some requested relief, but may not actually negate or excuse the borrower from responsibility for the plaintiff's claims (when proven) as would be the case with affirmative defenses.

 

Suppose that A steals B's bowling ball and drops it in the harbor.  B learns of the theft and confronts A, beating him with a baseball bat and causing A's hospitalization with severe injuries.

 

A sues B, alleging injury from the assault and seeking damages for his medical treatment, as well as pain and suffering.  B files a counterclaim for the loss of his bowling ball.

 

As can be readily seen from the example, a court is unlikely to excuse the assault based upon the theft and destruction of the bowling ball.  The counterclaim as to the theft of the bowling ball is hardly either a defense or a special defense to the assault complaint.

 

If B prevails on his counterclaim, perhaps he can get the amount of A's assault judgment reduced by the cost of the bowling ball.  But this is really not a valid defense to a cause of action for assault.

 

By contrast, suppose that B attacked A and A defended himself, but that B was injured in the altercation.  It seems far more likely that "self-defense" would be a valid defense to an assualt complaint.  That is, A will answer that he didn't actually assault B at all, that it was B who had initiated an unprovoked assault.  A was merely defending himself and B was injured as a result of B's assault.  A is denying the assault as alleged rather than seeking to justify an assault.

 

These are probably not very good examples and a lawyer could probably provide better.  But the idea is that you need to distinguish between issues that are valid defenses to a cause of action and those that might support counterclaims or cross-claims.

 

Bill's point is also a good one.  In my example above, making a counterclaim for the cost of the bowling ball might simply antagonize the judge or inflame the jury.  That is, the cost of the bowling ball might not warrant getting drawn into the fray or testifying.  If B really wants to press the issue of the bowling ball, he is very likely going to make it seem that he believes the attack was justified rather than asserting that he was remorseful.  Any assertion that A had it coming due to the theft of the bowling ball is unlikely to be persuasive.

 

Bill's point seems to be that you need to have an overall strategy.  What was described in the original post doesn't seem to reflect a strategy, but rather only a grievance which might distract from rather than support a good defense.          

Quote 0 0
Ok, let me clarify. In 60 days or so, I  will be able to pay off the amount due on the mortgage to make it current. Currently, I have about 2/3 the amound and a family member will be able to get me more. The loan is an FHA loan, and of course there is a clause in the loan that allows me, even in foreclosure, to repay and make the loan current.

I have other defenses to raise other than the failure to disclose assignment.

My note and mortgage was improperly assigned, my note was sold immediately after closing (they even gave me paperwork stating that it was sold) however they failed to disclose to whom it was sold to, the bank proceeded with foreclosure without satisfying the HUD pre-foreclosure rules of a face to face meeting or attempt to have one, failed to give proper written notice of acceleration to foreclose in 30 days (did not mention how I could rectify the acceleration), they filed the foreclosure 29 days after the date on the accelerated notice I received instead of the required 30 days, they violated my right to prepay, when they sat on a payment for 35 days and then returned it to me after they filed for foreclosure. Most of these

I have seen other people who went through foreclosures in my development, who  had attorneys, raise as a defense the TILA violations.

I will talk to an attorney, but my question is: Should I file a counter-claim now during the procedure, or wait until after I pay the over due balance bring the loan and mortgage current, and then sue for the TILA violations?
Quote 0 0
George Burns
Why are your defenses being filed as a Motion to Dismiss? What did you file in your Answer to the Complaint?

Why are your counter-claims being filed as/in a Motion to Dismiss? Why were they not filed in your Answer? which raises the question of..What did you file in your Answer to the Complaint?

Did you file an Answer to the Complaint? Or is it your strategy to file a Motion to Dismiss first then Answer if needed? Is this allowed in your jurisdiction?

Did you notice when and how these other people in your development included TILA violations in their lawsuits? It certainly was not in the manner that you are proposing, so Why do you think that being different will work better?

If you wait and file after you nring the loan current, you would be the Plaintiff and have to take care of the cost of filing etc. It is most likely that your costs will exceed the fine that would be imposed if you win. So of what benefit would it be to you? You also could be opening your self to a counter-claim for TILA recission. Have you taken that into consideration?
Quote 0 0
f

Quote:
The loan is an FHA loan, and of course there is a clause in the loan that allows me, even in foreclosure, to repay and make the loan current.

 

You are already in WAY OVER YOUR HEAD.  You are MISREADING the provision that you think "allows" you to make the loan current.  NO GENERALLY AVAILABLE MORTGAGE LOAN HAS SUCH A PROVISION.

 

To the contrary, the language says only that you can avoid foreclosure NOT by paying off the past due balances, but rather by paying the FULL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING.

 

Once you are in default, the Lender may ELECT whether or not to declare default, whether or not to accept overdue payments, etc.  Anything that you pay after you are in default can be KEPT BY THE LENDER and applied to the loan WITHOUT releasing you from the default and WITHOUT ANY PAUSE in the foreclosure.

 

This having been said, if you are only a payment or two late, most lenders are now more interested in bringing the loan current than in proceeding with a foreclosure.

 

The key consideration which ought to be guiding your strategy is whether you have any substantial equity in the property or whether there is net negative equity.  If the property is underwater, you need to be asking yourself if you are throwing good money after bad.  If there is equity in the property or a compelling reason to hang onto the house, you need to find a way to bring the loan current as quickly as possible, even while realizing that you probably have no "right" to do so.

 

Most of all, you need to disabuse yourself of the idea that you are likely to prevail in either a foreclosure or a TILA action.  IF you were an attorney and had been the subject of a TILA violation, then maybe you could successfully litigate.  If you want to spend hundreds of hours learning law and want to use this case as a vehicle to learn, then you can pursue it.  But if you want to make a couple of thousand dollars, your prospects are far better accepting a minimum wage job and spending a comparable amount of time shoveling sh--.  You are far more likely to get paid shoveling sh--. 

 

Right now, you seem to be both in denial and delusional about both your circumstances and your prospects.

Quote 0 0
f

Quote:
My note and mortgage was improperly assigned, my note was sold immediately after closing (they even gave me paperwork stating that it was sold) however they failed to disclose to whom it was sold to, the bank proceeded with foreclosure without satisfying the HUD pre-foreclosure rules of a face to face meeting or attempt to have one, failed to give proper written notice of acceleration to foreclose in 30 days (did not mention how I could rectify the acceleration), they filed the foreclosure 29 days after the date on the accelerated notice I received instead of the required 30 days, they violated my right to prepay, when they sat on a payment for 35 days and then returned it to me after they filed for foreclosure. Most of these

I have seen other people who went through foreclosures in my development, who  had attorneys, raise as a defense the TILA violations.

 

The plaintiff already accelerated.  In order to bring the loan current, you must pay the FULL OUTSTANDING BALANCE, plus their attorneys' fees and costs.

 

They have also STOPPED ACCEPTING YOUR PAYMENTS as exhibited by the return of the payment.

It is not at all uncommon for servicers and foreclosure mills to go through motions as if they intend to allow you to make payments and bring things current.  These gambits are often intended to discourage you from going to see a lawyer.  IF YOU WRITE THEM A LARGE CHECK, THEN YOU WILL HAVE NO MONEY FOR A LAWYER.  IF YOU THINK THAT THEY WILL STOP THE FORECLOSURE, YOU WILL NOT WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON A LAWYER.

 

This is their strategy.  You need to stop deluding yourself either that they are your friends or that you have a strong basis to resist or stop the foreclosure.  To the contrary, they are going to CRUSH a naive person such as yourself.

 

GO TALK TO A CAPABLE LAWYER SPECIALIZING IN CONSUMER DEBT/FORECLOSURE IMMEDIATELY.

Quote 0 0
doh
The mortgage states:

This right applies even after foreclosure proceedings are instituted. To reinstate the Security Instrument, Borrower shall tender in a lump sum all amounts required to bring Borrower's account current, including, to the extent they are obligations of Borrower under the security instrument....

So as I read it. Even if I am in foreclosure as long as I pay back the past amount due in order to make the mortgage "current" including the legal fees the mortgage shall still be in effect as if

"the Lender had not required immediate payment in full."


I will have the ability to do that in about 30-60 days.

If however I am successful in dismissing the mortgage now. I can still pay back the balance due and not owe the legal fees at all.



Quote 0 0
Charlie

Quote:
This right applies even after foreclosure proceedings are instituted. To
reinstate the Security Instrument, Borrower shall tender in a lump sum all
amounts required to bring Borrower's account current, including, to the
extent they are obligations of Borrower under the security instrument....

 

Re-read what f posted.  He is correct.  You are in denial and even delusional.

 

The notice of acceleration means that the full balance has been accelerated.  Period.  End of subject.

 

YOU NOW OWE THE FULL BALANCE!  You can "bring the amount current" by paying the FULL AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE.

 

GET A GRIP.  GO SEE AN ATTORNEY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.  YOU ARE LIKE A CHILD PAYING WITH MATCHES WHILE TAKING A BATH IN GASOLINE, BUT HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE PERIL YOU FACE.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
doh

Make sure you are reading the relevant section, then make sure that you are not taking a phrase or two out of context.

Better yet, get someone else to read it independently.

Since most mortgages use standard contracts and there are only a few templates used in the majority, you could cite the form number (usually at the bottom left) and the section number. That way we might be able to see what you see.

If anyone knows what the relevant section number might be, please post it.
Quote 0 0
Charlie

George, doh just doesn't get it.  An acceleration is an acceleration.

 

doh is making a very naive reading that is absolutely unsupported by the case law in any state.  ALL notes and mortgages in common use in the U.S. provide for optional acceleration upon default.

 

They also usually contain the sort of language to which doh is referring.  I have often seen pro se litigants make this same mistake, thinking that the language gives them some right to reinstate by simply paying "past due" amounts.

 

NO ATTORNEY ANYWHERE WOULD TELL DOH THAT HIS READING IS CORRECT.  IT IS NOT.  AFTER ACCELERATION, THE AMOUNT OWING IS THE FULL BALANCE.

 

THIS PROVISION IS TELLING DOH THAT HE CAN AVOID FORECLOSURE BY PAYING THE FULL BALANCE (TO INCLUDE ANY ATTORNEYS FEES AND CHARGES).  DOH HAS BOUGHT INTO THIS NONSENSICAL READING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CASE LAW SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.

 

DOH CAN GO AND EXPLAIN HIS READING TO THE JUDGE.  HE WILL LOSE HIS HOUSE ABOUT TEN SECONDS LATER.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
doh

To get him/her to better understand, I thought it would be good if he/she actually pointed out exactly what he/she was looking at so that we can either refute or agree while looking at the same thing. If not, I am not sure what is being looked at, so I do not know what is being taken out of context or being misread or misunderstood. I hate assuming.
Quote 0 0
Charlie

George :

 

This is the language that will appear in a promissory note in the State of Florida within Paragraph 6 of the instrument:

(B) Default
If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due, I will be in default.


(C) Notice of Default
If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me that if I do not pay the overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount.  That date must be at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed to me or delivered by other means.


(D) No Waiver By Note Holder
Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so if I am in default at a later time.


(E) Payment of Note Holder’s Costs and Expenses
If the Note Holder has required me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will have the right to be paid back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law.  Those expenses include, for example, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Because doh has no idea what he is talking about and has picked up erroneous information being propagated by the swindlers, he thinks that the provisions of the mortgage allowing him to stop a foreclosure also allows him to reverse an acceleration.  This is simply NEVER THE CASE.

Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:

NO ATTORNEY ANYWHERE WOULD TELL DOH THAT HIS READING IS CORRECT.  IT IS NOT.  AFTER ACCELERATION, THE AMOUNT OWING IS THE FULL BALANCE.

 

THIS PROVISION IS TELLING DOH THAT HE CAN AVOID FORECLOSURE BY PAYING THE FULL BALANCE (TO INCLUDE ANY ATTORNEYS FEES AND CHARGES).  DOH HAS BOUGHT INTO THIS NONSENSICAL READING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CASE LAW SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.


+1
Quote 0 0
George Burns
doh

I think that I see what you are not understanding.

You got a Notice of Default. This said that you can bring the account current if done within a certain muber of days. You did not and that time passed.

Then you got a Notice of Accelaration which makes "the full amount of Principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe ". It is no longer the amount to bring the account current as stated in the Notice of Default, it is the PRINCIPAL + INTEREST+ ATTORNEY'S FEES+ OTHER FEES.

This is not what you are being sued for, read the Complaint.

Exactly where are you seeing something else? We are not trying to beat up on you, we are simply trying to show you what you might have missed so that you can take the proper action and not get blindsided.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
Correction of typo.

This is what you are being sued for. Read the Complaint.
Quote 0 0
f

While I think that Charlie is generally on the right track here, I would also point out that the standard FNMA/FHLMC Florida Uniform Instrument (Form 3010) contains this standard language:

19. Borrower’s Right to Reinstate After Acceleration.  If Borrower meets certain conditions, Borrower shall have the right to have enforcement of this Security Instrument discontinued at any time prior to the earliest of: (a) five days before sale of the Property pursuant to any power of sale contained in this Security Instrument; (b) such other period as Applicable Law might specify for the termination of Borrower’s right to reinstate; or (c) entry of a judgment enforcing this Security Instrument.  Those conditions are that Borrower: (a) pays Lender all sums which then would be due under this Security Instrument and the Note as if no acceleration had occurred; (b) cures any default of any other covenants or agreements; (c) pays all expenses incurred in enforcing this Security Instrument, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, property inspection and valuation fees, and other fees incurred for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument; and (d) takes such action as Lender may reasonably require to assure  that Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument, and Borrower’s obligation to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument, shall continue unchanged.  Lender may require that Borrower pay such reinstatement sums and expenses in one or more of the following forms, as selected by Lender: (a) cash; (b) money order; (c) certified check, bank check, treasurer’s check or cashier’s check, provided any such check is drawn upon an institution whose deposits are insured by a federal agency, instrumentality or entity; or (d) Electronic Funds Transfer.  Upon reinstatement by Borrower, this Security Instrument and obligations secured hereby shall remain fully effective as if no acceleration had occurred.  However, this right to reinstate shall not apply in the case of acceleration under Section 18.

So doh can still possibly reinstate by paying ALL past due amount (exclusive of acceleration), curing any other breaches (such as non-payment of taxes and insurance or the default of any 2nd mortgage, etc.), PAYMENT OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES (which will be the amount that the LENDER says is "reasonable"), costs, etc., and such other "action as Lender may reasonably require to assure that Lender’s interest in the Property and rights under this Security Instrument".

 

The Lender does NOT have to simply accept a check, but may insist upon cash, a certified check, cashier's check. etc.

 

*

 

Now as previously observed, IF the borrower's mortgage balance well exceeds the value of the property, leaving the borrower with net negative equity, then the Lender is likely to agree to reinstatement and, after punishing the borrower with a hefty set of fees, will discontinue the foreclosure.  On the other hand, if the borrower has equity in the property, then the Lender will very often proceed to foreclosure, since they can steal the equity this way.

 

What doh doesn't seem to get is that the cited language is designed NOT for the protection of the borrower, but rather to create the illusion of protection, while actually protecting the Lender only.

 

There is similar, but somewhat different language in a standard FHA mortgage.

 

The point that doh is in denial and delusional about what is going on IS correct.  He seems to have no appreciation whatsoever as to what is coming and is living in a fantasy-land if he believes the asserted TILA issues will preclude the loss of his property.  He needs to divorce himself from wingnut land and do a thorough study of the other Forum posts, especially Mr. Roper's instructive guidance.

Quote 0 0
f

The FHA language previously read (See FHA 4165.1 REV-2):

10. Reinstatement.  Borrower has a right to be reinstated if Lender has required immediate payment in full because of Borrower's failure to pay an amount due under the Note or this Security Instrument.  This right applies even after foreclosure proceedings are instituted.  To reinstate the Security Instrument, Borrower shall tender in a lump sum all amounts required to bring Borrowed account current including, to the extent they are obligations of Borrower under this Security Instrument, foreclosure costs and reasonable and customary attorney's fees and expenses properly associated with the foreclosure proceeding.  Upon reinstatement by Borrower, this Security Instrument and the obligations that it secures shall remain in effect as if Lender had not required immediate payment in full.  However, Lender is not required to permit reinstatement if: (i) Lender has accepted reinstatement after the commencement of foreclosure proceedings within two years immediately preceding the commencement of a current foreclosure proceeding, (ii) reinstatement will preclude foreclosure on different grounds in the future, or (iii) restatement will adversely affect the priority of the lien created by this Security Instrument.

As can be seen, this is slightly more favorable to the borrower as to reinstatement than the standard FNMA/FHLMC language.

 

But doh is deceiving himself if he thinks that reinstatement happens quickly, easily or seamlessly.

Quote 0 0
doh
I don't know how many times to say it.

I know the TILA violations will not stop the foreclosure. And I am prepared to pay for reinstatement, surprisingly I am NOT underwater with the house.

Ironic as it is, the lawyer sent me a reinstatement notice today, that lists what I would have to pay in order for the foreclosure to stop, and the note to be reinstated, and yes it would have to be by cashiers check made out to the mortgagor.

My two considerations now are....

Try and get the foreclosure dismissed for not following FHA guidelines of having a face to face meeting and other issues. (I wouldn't even bring up a TILA violation or anything to do with the note and assignment) THEN while the foreclosure has been dismissed and before anyone can refile I would pay the past due balance to bring the note current. If I can do that, I can save a couple of thousand dollars in legal fees to their attorney. We have cases where I live, of judges dismissing foreclosure suits under the FHA guidelines.

OR I can just delay the foreclosure for a month or two then pay everyone off including their attorneys and get the note reinstated.

AFTER the note is reinstated,  spend $150 to file against the mortgagor for the two TILA violations, and try and recup something back. There is absolutely no question that I was notified. My mortgagor didn't even know I had an FHA loan, they sent me a letter asking me to verify  to them that my loan was FHA. When I called the mortgagor to try and work something out, he didn't know I had an FHA loan.  I can definitely prove that since my mortgagor did not even know I had an FHA loan, there is no way they can claim they followed FHA guidelines to foreclose.

Quote 0 0
f

Generally speaking, the FHA notes are on a "FHA Model Note Form" and the mortgage on a "FHA Model Mortgage Form".  See Chapter 4 of the FHA Manual, as well as Appendix II (mortgages) and Appendix III (notes).

Quote 0 0
doh
To F:

That is why I got an FHA loan. I knew beforehand that I can always be reinstated if I can afford it. Your correct about it not being without some hassles.

I would definitely have to go to the law offices in order to pay the note back and request some type of document signed by their attorney that states that I provided them a cashiers check for the amount requested that would satisfy all amounts due and that the note be reinstated and the foreclosure dismissed without prejudice.

As a side note : for the life of me I can not understand why more people during this entire debacle did not get FHA loans, they seem to have a little more security to them.

Quote 0 0
f

doh

 

If you have equity in the property, then you need to take the necessary steps to accomplish reinstatement.

 

You are NOT going to succeed in getting reinstated without paying attorneys' fees and costs.

 

If you think that somehow things are going to be better by trying the case in court, you are absolutely out of your mind.  In fact, your several posts shows me that you are so disconnected from reality that I have no further interest in your case or in helping you.

 

You are NOT going to "recup" or recuperate anything.  You are simply delusional.

 

Get yourself out of harm's way!  Get the loan reinstated and stop deluding yourself about some imagined recourse! 

Quote 0 0
doh
I would agree with you F, reinstatement seems like the best way to go since I do have equity in the house.

Another option I have to for reinstatement is to pay at an FHA field office, who then can distribute the funds to the mortgagor on behalf of me. Somewhere in the FHA guidelines I read that this acceptable, and the mortgagor must accept the payment.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...