Archive for the ‘Loan Modification’ Category

Restoring Equity a Reality! Underwater Homeowners Have Hope

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

From Urban Legend to Reality: Ocwen Offers Serious Principal Reduction

Meaningful principal reduction used to be an urban legend compounded by scamsters.

And until recently, Florida homeowners were probably more likely to spot Bigfoot than find a lender willing to forgive a significant portion of their residential first mortgage through a loan modification.  But earlier this month, Ocwen Financial Corp. became one of the first private companies to initiate principal reduction without the prodding of a government agency.

Through the program called Shared Appreciation Modification (SAM), Ocwen is writing down qualified loans to 95% of the underlying property’s market value. The amount written down is forgiven in one-third increments over three years as long as the homeowner remains current. When the house is later sold or refinanced, the borrower will be required to share 25% of the appreciated value with the investor.

“Like all modifications, SAMs help homeowners avoid foreclosure. But they also restore equity,” said Ocwen CEO Ronald Faris. “That’s a significant benefit to the customer and, we believe, the economy and housing market. Psychologically, it’s important too. Our analytics tell us that an underwater mortgage is one-and-a-half to two-times more likely to default than one with at least some positive equity.”

Ocwen said 79% of the borrowers have accepted the offer with a re-default rate of 2.6%. Ocwen said it has regulatory clearance to push the program into 33 states.  Since the start of the mortgage crisis, Ocwen has saved over 200,000 homes from foreclosure and produced 25 times as many modifications per loan serviced as the servicing industry overall, the company claims.

“The simplicity and rationale of the SAM is striking: the homeowner maintains the equity that would otherwise be lost in the foreclosure process, and servicers and investors maintain a performing asset,” John Taylor, President and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, said. “Ocwen has found a way to align the interests of borrowers, servicers and investors, making the program a win-win for all involved.”

Oppenheim Law hopes this is the beginning of a trend that was supposed to start three years ago when the government promised that it would assist in modifying more than 4 million loans.

Principal Reduction: Why Banks Don’t Do It More + What’s Wrong With It

Saturday, July 16th, 2011

There are quite a few people who advocate principal reduction as the best way to get out of the housing crisis. Their arguments were succinctly laid out and analyzed in an Atlanta Federal Reserve white paper.

Advocates of such a policy argue that it would be cheaper for banks to reduce the principal of a loan to the current value of a house because people who have positive equity in their homes are much less likely to default on their loans. The policy would also help homeowners because they would get to stay in their homes. It seems like a win-win situation, except it isn’t.

As a recent New York Times article illustrates the difficulty with large scale restructuring programs is that banks don’t know who really needs the help and who is trying to take advantage of the situation.

Ms. Rula Giosmas was not one of the people who needed help, yet she got it anyway. For her lender, the modification amounts to an avoidable loss. The lack of knowledge in who can pay and who can’t is the reason why banks are wary of initiating large scale modification programs: not all underwater borrowers will default on their mortgages.

It still remains economically advantageous to foreclose on the defaulters and continue to collect the full loan amounts from the people who can and will pay. The banks also worry that if they do initiate large scale modification programs, it will encourage people who can pay to miss payments simply to qualify for the principal reduction. Such a problem is called moral hazard, where there are incentives to perform badly. The last thing that banks want is to encourage people to default.

Oppenheim Law warns you: don’t bet on a principal reduction. Banks are very wary of them and the Federal Reserve white paper is going to scare them off even further.

There are, however, other foreclosure defense solutions so don’t become a deer in the headlights. You must be proactive!

Check out a recent post about ‘how to pay off second mortgages at a discounted rate’.

Hooray for Sheila Bair, a Regulator Who Stood Up for the Little Guy

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

Three cheers for Sheila Bair, the former head of the FDIC and a true advocate for the little guy, who resigned this week on July 8th. She fought for what is right for the homeowner, the depositor and the taxpayer.

Shelia was probably the only person in the Obama administration who really “got it.”

As a financial regulator, she understood the crisis as we do at Oppenheim Law, on the ground and in the trenches.

Truly the champion of the little guy, Sheila really understood that there were two sets of rules in this country:one set for big banks and another set for everyone else.

Her opinion was always dismissed and considered inferior to that of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. She knew that the Obama Administration, while maybe understanding the plight of the little guy, always capitulated to the interests of big business, Wall Street and the banks.

Sheila understood that from Day One her responsibility was to protect the consumer, the depositor, the homeowner, and most importantly, the taxpayer.  In a major piece written in the New York Times magazine this past weekend, she questioned why investment banks that were “counterparties” to AIG, like Goldman Sachs, received 100 cents on the dollar from the AIG bailout. Goldman, in fact, received over $12 billion from the bailout. As is well known, many people in the administration were in fact in some way connected to Goldman.

Before the crisis had truly descended upon our nation in 2007, Sheila understood that if banks were required to modify mortgages there was a possibility that the foreclosure crisis which led to the meltdown of the real estate market and subsequent destruction of the economy could possibly be contained.

No one listened to Sheila!

Shelia constantly tried to convince both the Bush and Obama Administrations that something needed to be done, however, her warnings were not heeded until it was too late.

Had the government listened to Shelia on early mortgage modification, it is possible “that the government could have prevented lots of pain and might have helped stabilize the economy a lot sooner,” according to the NYT.

However, Shelia states that maybe one of the reasons that mortgage modifications never really took off was that “maybe people thought that [she] was overstating the problem.” She added that in many cases regulators didn’t believe that borrowers were worth helping.  The sense was that borrowers had probably overstated their income and assets and thus deserved to be thrown out of their homes.

Shelia also felt that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve did not lay the blame with overzealousness and greed on Wall Street but rather with a “system come undone.” We of course know that it was precisely greed on Wall Street that caused the crisis.

Needless to say, we here at Oppenheim Law will miss Sheila Bair and we hope, whatever she does, that she will not give up the good fight for what is right for the homeowner, the depositor and the taxpayer.

Three cheers for Sheila Bair!

From The Trenches,

Roy Oppenheim

Oppenheim in the News: State Mediation Program Helps Few Florida Homeowners

Wednesday, July 6th, 2011

It’s a case of: The Three Stooges and Mediation.

Roy Oppenheim and his client shared their recent story in this week’s Daily Business Review with an inside look at the trials and tribulations of a system where one asks: Who is on first? 

Under a state Supreme Court order issued 18 months ago, banks have been paying third-party mediators to perform outreach and mediation in an effort to keep Floridians in their homes. But in spite of spending at least $750 per case, the lenders rarely get homeowners into mediation.

According to defense attorneys, lenders appear unprepared to mediation, only prolonging a foreclosure case. It took homeowner Juan Picasso, who went into default after his son was diagnosed with a rare cancer, 26 months to get a modification on his mortgage. Deciding to do the application for modification himself, Picasso’s application for modification was denied three times and it wasn’t until he sought foreclosure defense attorney Roy Oppenheim’s help, that the case was settled with the bank.

Picasso described a mediation session that could have been in a Three Stooges short film.
Oppenheim, a foreclosure defense attorney in Weston, produced the letters as proof and noted the bank kept losing its copies of Picasso’s financial information and the bank’s responses.

“They kept saying all kinds of different things. They force-placed insurance on the property. They said Mr. Picasso’s insurance ran out so they put a ridiculous insurance policy on the property, which quadrupled the cost of insurance. He was in default because they were not keeping track of the insurance they put on his home.”

Roy Oppenheim explained to the Daily Business Review that the mediation program was designed to be a more flexible forum for homeowners to get a loan modification or sale to avoid foreclosure.

“If you think there’s going to be a principle reduction, forget it,” Oppenheim said. “That’s never on the table. Those are just urban legends and the stuff of Internet scams.”

In many cases, mediation settlements resulted in a short sale to avoid affecting the Florida homeowner’s credit history. The program requires homeowners eligible for mediation, some 63,019 individuals, to pro-actively take advantage of it. However, by the end of 2010, only 8,669 mediations were conducted, of which only 2,309 resulted in an agreement.

A major bottleneck in the process is that banks continue to be overwhelmed. The lawyer for the bank may attend the mediation in person, but he has no authority. The bank’s modification officer appears by phone and the bank representative online has limited authority, never makes a decision during the meeting and routinely discusses the case as if he is looking at the file for the first time.

Click here for the full article


Bad Behavior has blocked 1532 access attempts in the last 7 days.