INIQUITY: How court systems, attorneys, and legal aid organizations is available on Amazon.
The electronic version is FREE to read with Kindle Unlimited.
There is a free excerpt on Medium.com (please clap after reading on Medium--click the hands symbol beside or below the story.)
Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreclosure. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Thursday, February 28, 2019
WHY I LEFT FACEBOOK: I am Bigger than Mark Zuckerberg (Girl mullet, girl mullet, girl mullet)
WHY I LEFT FACEBOOK
I am Bigger than Mark Zuckerberg
“Girl mullet, girl mullet, girl mullet”
I left Facebook after being a member for about 13 years. I
first joined when a young person at the legal clinic where I worked got me to sign
up to be able to view pictures she posted. At that time, there was a game that
involved planting and maintaining a virtual garden plot. My one friend would
send me a plant or flower and I would reciprocate.
read more at www.KelliDudley.com
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Won't Get Fooled Again?
My husband is a huge fan of Pete Townsend. The Who's song (properly titled without the question mark) is about how things sometimes do not change after a revolution.
It appears this is true in the case of housing. Though we are supposed to be rebuilding after a crash, the fraudsters who brought you the housing bubble are at it again.
Unlike my husband, I am a fan of John Mellencamp. It is my job to keep you in your little pink house. In this case, I agree with The Who, however: the housing market appears to have gone through a radical change, but the fraudsters are still about the business of stripping your equity (wealth).
I have long said that those of us interested in helping consumers stay in their homes need to watch out for the next wave of fraud. My very first blog post here was about unethical practices among those who say they "defend" foreclosure.
Today, MSN has a link talking about "alternative" ways to finance the purchase of real estate. The premise is that many consumers have decimated credit ratings, little savings, and no hope of getting a mortgage. I have conspicuously not posted a link to the horrible article offering "hope" that these dispossessed people can again be installed in a little pink house.
The MSN article, replete with trust-inducing symbols like something that says "investopedia" on it, urges consumers to wipe out further wealth to "invest" in property without involving any risk to banks. No analysis of the long-term risk to the "investor" is presented. As in the past housing bubble, we are to believe that real estate ownership is an end in itself. We are asked to disregard recent developments showing that our legal system, ever so quick to complete a foreclosure, no longer values real property as unique and subject to great scrutiny before ownership is taken away.
Looking back at the bubble that just burst, consumers took out unafforable loans. Lenders and investors put up some money for the housing purchase or to pay off debts or pay the borrower cash in a refinance. In most cases, the loan was quickly sold so the first lender got paid regardless of whether the loan was ever repaid, converting the loan into an investment gamble for the new purchaser of the loan. If the loan did not get repaid as planned, the purchaser of the loan could foreclose on the home, get a judgment against the homeowner, and collect on a mortgage insurance policy that guaranteed loan repayment. This sometimes resulted in a payment that, in the end, exceeded anything contemplated by the terms of the original loan.
A great deal of wealth was stripped from communities through this process. Homeowners who went through foreclosure lost their downpayments, their sweat equity, their expectations of home ownership, and their credit rating. In some cases, they were subject to a deficiency judgment, meaning their home, after foreclosure, was not worth enough to satisfy the mortgage debt and they were liable for the difference. Despite these risks to homeowners, the lenders' attorneys often decry people who are unable to pay their mortgage loan as miscreants who have "no skin in the game" (presumably, meaning the homeowners have nothing to lose--except their home, credit rating, financial security, and dignity).
Although these losses are enormous, the new wave designed to revive the buying/financing frenzy could be even more disastrous to homeowners. The worst case scenario for a homeowner in the situation above would be to declare a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Certain assets would be protected from creditors in this situation, but the house subject to the mortgage would be lost in exchange for the opportunity to wipe the slate clean as to monies owed in the future--the deficiency judgment could be eliminated.
The new options will further rip wealth from the community. The MSN article urges people to take rob their retirement accounts and life insurance policies to buy homes.
These two savings vehicles are often exempt from creditor action and are often not taken during bankruptcy proceedings. I am sure a topic of many closed-door meetings has been: "How do we take those retirement and life insurance assets?" So far, the primary way this money has been stripped from consumers is through bad investments on Wall Street. However, even with bad investments, some people retain significant retirement savings.
If, as the MSN article urges, consumers are induced to voluntarily withdraw their secure savings and "invest" in real estate, it will benefit the banking community tremendously. First, those troubling, unreachable assets will be converted into a reachable asset: real estate. The homeowner can be induced to take a mortgage in the future, and pledge the home as collateral. Alternatively, the home can be taken to satisfy other debts if a lien is attached or if the homeowner declares Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
Another benefit to lenders is that those who use their own funds to purchase homes will reduce the available housing stock, restore value currently drained out of neighborhoods as the banks that foreclosed allow the homes to rot, and increase the appraised value of surrounding homes. This will fuel another surge of mortgage lending and inflate the next bubble--one that will leave consumers with even less when it bursts.
Hang on to your savings! The foreclosure crisis has shown us that it is the intent of the lending industry to turn us into a nation of renters--people who can be dispossessed with almost no due process. "Investing" our retirement funds in a market that has been shown to work against our interests, absolving the banks of the need to put any "skin in the game" is a clear way for us to get fooled again.
It appears this is true in the case of housing. Though we are supposed to be rebuilding after a crash, the fraudsters who brought you the housing bubble are at it again.
Unlike my husband, I am a fan of John Mellencamp. It is my job to keep you in your little pink house. In this case, I agree with The Who, however: the housing market appears to have gone through a radical change, but the fraudsters are still about the business of stripping your equity (wealth).
I have long said that those of us interested in helping consumers stay in their homes need to watch out for the next wave of fraud. My very first blog post here was about unethical practices among those who say they "defend" foreclosure.
Today, MSN has a link talking about "alternative" ways to finance the purchase of real estate. The premise is that many consumers have decimated credit ratings, little savings, and no hope of getting a mortgage. I have conspicuously not posted a link to the horrible article offering "hope" that these dispossessed people can again be installed in a little pink house.
The MSN article, replete with trust-inducing symbols like something that says "investopedia" on it, urges consumers to wipe out further wealth to "invest" in property without involving any risk to banks. No analysis of the long-term risk to the "investor" is presented. As in the past housing bubble, we are to believe that real estate ownership is an end in itself. We are asked to disregard recent developments showing that our legal system, ever so quick to complete a foreclosure, no longer values real property as unique and subject to great scrutiny before ownership is taken away.
Looking back at the bubble that just burst, consumers took out unafforable loans. Lenders and investors put up some money for the housing purchase or to pay off debts or pay the borrower cash in a refinance. In most cases, the loan was quickly sold so the first lender got paid regardless of whether the loan was ever repaid, converting the loan into an investment gamble for the new purchaser of the loan. If the loan did not get repaid as planned, the purchaser of the loan could foreclose on the home, get a judgment against the homeowner, and collect on a mortgage insurance policy that guaranteed loan repayment. This sometimes resulted in a payment that, in the end, exceeded anything contemplated by the terms of the original loan.
A great deal of wealth was stripped from communities through this process. Homeowners who went through foreclosure lost their downpayments, their sweat equity, their expectations of home ownership, and their credit rating. In some cases, they were subject to a deficiency judgment, meaning their home, after foreclosure, was not worth enough to satisfy the mortgage debt and they were liable for the difference. Despite these risks to homeowners, the lenders' attorneys often decry people who are unable to pay their mortgage loan as miscreants who have "no skin in the game" (presumably, meaning the homeowners have nothing to lose--except their home, credit rating, financial security, and dignity).
Although these losses are enormous, the new wave designed to revive the buying/financing frenzy could be even more disastrous to homeowners. The worst case scenario for a homeowner in the situation above would be to declare a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Certain assets would be protected from creditors in this situation, but the house subject to the mortgage would be lost in exchange for the opportunity to wipe the slate clean as to monies owed in the future--the deficiency judgment could be eliminated.
The new options will further rip wealth from the community. The MSN article urges people to take rob their retirement accounts and life insurance policies to buy homes.
These two savings vehicles are often exempt from creditor action and are often not taken during bankruptcy proceedings. I am sure a topic of many closed-door meetings has been: "How do we take those retirement and life insurance assets?" So far, the primary way this money has been stripped from consumers is through bad investments on Wall Street. However, even with bad investments, some people retain significant retirement savings.
If, as the MSN article urges, consumers are induced to voluntarily withdraw their secure savings and "invest" in real estate, it will benefit the banking community tremendously. First, those troubling, unreachable assets will be converted into a reachable asset: real estate. The homeowner can be induced to take a mortgage in the future, and pledge the home as collateral. Alternatively, the home can be taken to satisfy other debts if a lien is attached or if the homeowner declares Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
Another benefit to lenders is that those who use their own funds to purchase homes will reduce the available housing stock, restore value currently drained out of neighborhoods as the banks that foreclosed allow the homes to rot, and increase the appraised value of surrounding homes. This will fuel another surge of mortgage lending and inflate the next bubble--one that will leave consumers with even less when it bursts.
Hang on to your savings! The foreclosure crisis has shown us that it is the intent of the lending industry to turn us into a nation of renters--people who can be dispossessed with almost no due process. "Investing" our retirement funds in a market that has been shown to work against our interests, absolving the banks of the need to put any "skin in the game" is a clear way for us to get fooled again.
Listen to WHPK Weds., 3/23, 3 - 4 pm
I will be discussing foreclosure issues and the reasons the proposed settlement to let lenders who robosigned mortgage foreclosure documents off the hook is insufficient with Alan Thomas on WHPK in Chicago.
Chicago listeners can tune in at 88.5
Others can steam the show live http://www.whpk.org/stream/ from 3 until 4 pm Central Time on Wednesday, March 23.
Chicago listeners can tune in at 88.5
Others can steam the show live http://www.whpk.org/stream/ from 3 until 4 pm Central Time on Wednesday, March 23.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Contact Your AG: Oppose the Robosigning Settlement
For a few minutes there, it seemed like we had the big banks cornered. Being the rats they are, they fought. Of course, it was not an honest fight. The banks, as usual, turned to back-door deals rather than any sincere change in policy or procedure.
The robosigning scandal came to light in the fall of 2010. Attorneys who represent homeowners had deposed bank representatives. For the most part, these were staff who signed affidavits swearing the bank truly owned the right to foreclose on a home, that the homeowner had failed to make payments, and facts required by law (even if judges don't enforce the requirement) to support a judgment of foreclosure.
In the depositions, employees testified under oath that they did not read or examine the affidavits they were signing. An affidavit is a substitute for in-court testimony, and signing an affidavit is the same as raising one's hand in court and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and something like the truth. A failure to testify honestly in court is perjury, a jailable offense. Signing a false affidavit is committing perjury. In addition to the person signing the affidavit, an attorney can also be sanctioned if he or she knowingly offers perjured testimony (by putting a liar on the stand or turning in a falsified affidavit).
So, if you or I turned in a false affidavit: jail. If a banker turns in a false affidavit: ??? Well, thar's still gold in them thar hills, and we can't stop 'em from gettin' at it. (Of course, by "hills" I mean our pockets and by "gold" I mean a roof over our heads. But who can quibble when the bankers have been delayed in doing the good work of turning the broke into the broke and homeless?)
The glimmer of hope has already turned in to the gleam of more profits in a bankster's eye. In the short term, there was a lot of Internet buzz and it seemed change was on the way as banks halted foreclosures, attorneys general and Federal law enforcement agencies issued subpoenas for files, and affidavits offered by banks were subject to more scrutiny. However, less than six months later, the attorneys general and law enforcement agencies are ready to flip the switch and restart the machine that takes away home with no thought, no due process, and no justice.
The attorneys general have offered a settlement agreement to the banks. Much has been made of the length of the settlement agreement. However, 27 pages leaves a lot of room to use flowery language and hide the truth.
A thorough critique of the proposal would be longer than the proposal itself. Here, I am setting forth three simple points that, in themselves, are enough to send homeowners into the street to protest this latest giveaway.
1. The settlement will not require the original note to be produced. This gives official sanction to one of the most nefarious banking practices. Because loans have been transferred from bank to bank so many times, the original paperwork is "lost." Banks seek to foreclose without proving they own the debt and, therefore, have a right to foreclose. When a homeowner objects, the bank states that it has possession of the original note and, under legal technicalities (many of them fictional), has carte blanche to take the home. When the bank cannot produce this original note, it produces a robosigned affidavit saying, "Look, we really have it. We just can't find it. Maybe the dog ate it."
As long as the requirement of having the original note remains in place, a requirement that mirrors long-established commercial law, attorneys can argue that the affidavits are insufficient. Giving the green light to spurious affidavits will enable banks to continue foreclosing on debts they do not own.
A true danger is present for homeowners. If I falsely claim to own the right to foreclose on your home, present persuasive (if false) affidavits, and walk away with your home, the true owner of the debt still remains unsatisfied and could appear at any time and assert its legitimate right to collect. The collateral for the loan would be gone, so the rightful creditor would resort to garnishing wages and attaching other assets. This will further drain wealth from working communities.
As a simple matter, I can freely claim to own the right to foreclose on any home I wish. If your home is better than mine, look out! I may be sunning myself by your pool next year.
2. The settlement does not provide enough money to compensate injured homeowners. The banksters have walked away with bailouts, stipped wealth from working communities, received windfall tax breaks, and continue to escape financial responsibility. From a financial point of view, this settlement is like creating a clean-up fund for the Gulf oil spill using a couple of dollars from between somebody's couch cushions. A really poor somebody who has more pennies than quarters. There is no private right of action for a homeowner whose home is taken by a bank that is not complying with the settlement agreement.
3. The settlement puts new procedures in place for foreclosure proceedings, or, more accurately, reiterates steps that are already required (but ignored in many jurisdictions). If these are ignored now, it is hard to fathom why the settlement, entirely lacking in teeth as it is, would cause a change. Even worse, the new procedures only protect those whose homes have not yet been taken. For the millions of people whose home is presently rotting into the ground after a wrongful foreclosure, there is no relief.
Consumers should call their state attorneys general and object to the settlement agreement. A list is on the web here: http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateconsumeragencieslist.php
And, of course, we need to take to the streets. Protests are being planned to let the powers that be know that this kind of compromise with the corporations that destroyed our economy is entirely unacceptable.
The robosigning scandal came to light in the fall of 2010. Attorneys who represent homeowners had deposed bank representatives. For the most part, these were staff who signed affidavits swearing the bank truly owned the right to foreclose on a home, that the homeowner had failed to make payments, and facts required by law (even if judges don't enforce the requirement) to support a judgment of foreclosure.
In the depositions, employees testified under oath that they did not read or examine the affidavits they were signing. An affidavit is a substitute for in-court testimony, and signing an affidavit is the same as raising one's hand in court and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and something like the truth. A failure to testify honestly in court is perjury, a jailable offense. Signing a false affidavit is committing perjury. In addition to the person signing the affidavit, an attorney can also be sanctioned if he or she knowingly offers perjured testimony (by putting a liar on the stand or turning in a falsified affidavit).
So, if you or I turned in a false affidavit: jail. If a banker turns in a false affidavit: ??? Well, thar's still gold in them thar hills, and we can't stop 'em from gettin' at it. (Of course, by "hills" I mean our pockets and by "gold" I mean a roof over our heads. But who can quibble when the bankers have been delayed in doing the good work of turning the broke into the broke and homeless?)
The glimmer of hope has already turned in to the gleam of more profits in a bankster's eye. In the short term, there was a lot of Internet buzz and it seemed change was on the way as banks halted foreclosures, attorneys general and Federal law enforcement agencies issued subpoenas for files, and affidavits offered by banks were subject to more scrutiny. However, less than six months later, the attorneys general and law enforcement agencies are ready to flip the switch and restart the machine that takes away home with no thought, no due process, and no justice.
The attorneys general have offered a settlement agreement to the banks. Much has been made of the length of the settlement agreement. However, 27 pages leaves a lot of room to use flowery language and hide the truth.
A thorough critique of the proposal would be longer than the proposal itself. Here, I am setting forth three simple points that, in themselves, are enough to send homeowners into the street to protest this latest giveaway.
1. The settlement will not require the original note to be produced. This gives official sanction to one of the most nefarious banking practices. Because loans have been transferred from bank to bank so many times, the original paperwork is "lost." Banks seek to foreclose without proving they own the debt and, therefore, have a right to foreclose. When a homeowner objects, the bank states that it has possession of the original note and, under legal technicalities (many of them fictional), has carte blanche to take the home. When the bank cannot produce this original note, it produces a robosigned affidavit saying, "Look, we really have it. We just can't find it. Maybe the dog ate it."
As long as the requirement of having the original note remains in place, a requirement that mirrors long-established commercial law, attorneys can argue that the affidavits are insufficient. Giving the green light to spurious affidavits will enable banks to continue foreclosing on debts they do not own.
A true danger is present for homeowners. If I falsely claim to own the right to foreclose on your home, present persuasive (if false) affidavits, and walk away with your home, the true owner of the debt still remains unsatisfied and could appear at any time and assert its legitimate right to collect. The collateral for the loan would be gone, so the rightful creditor would resort to garnishing wages and attaching other assets. This will further drain wealth from working communities.
As a simple matter, I can freely claim to own the right to foreclose on any home I wish. If your home is better than mine, look out! I may be sunning myself by your pool next year.
2. The settlement does not provide enough money to compensate injured homeowners. The banksters have walked away with bailouts, stipped wealth from working communities, received windfall tax breaks, and continue to escape financial responsibility. From a financial point of view, this settlement is like creating a clean-up fund for the Gulf oil spill using a couple of dollars from between somebody's couch cushions. A really poor somebody who has more pennies than quarters. There is no private right of action for a homeowner whose home is taken by a bank that is not complying with the settlement agreement.
3. The settlement puts new procedures in place for foreclosure proceedings, or, more accurately, reiterates steps that are already required (but ignored in many jurisdictions). If these are ignored now, it is hard to fathom why the settlement, entirely lacking in teeth as it is, would cause a change. Even worse, the new procedures only protect those whose homes have not yet been taken. For the millions of people whose home is presently rotting into the ground after a wrongful foreclosure, there is no relief.
Consumers should call their state attorneys general and object to the settlement agreement. A list is on the web here: http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateconsumeragencieslist.php
And, of course, we need to take to the streets. Protests are being planned to let the powers that be know that this kind of compromise with the corporations that destroyed our economy is entirely unacceptable.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The Good, the Bad, and the Unethical: Hints for finding a good lawyer
There is a lot of fraud directed toward homeowners in foreclosure. Rescue scammers, including attorneys, realize that a homeowner faced with the loss of his or her home is vulnerable. Homeowners will pay a lot of money for nothing from a lawyer with a fancy office and slick story while viewing me with distrust because I tell the truth: I cannot guarantee a result.
Many attorneys are taking unethical actions. These include soliciting clients at the courthouse. This is illegal.
Other attorneys promise to "delay" the foreclosure. This is unethical. The rules governing attorneys do not allow anything to be done just to cause a delay. There are many steps an attorney can do, if justified after reviwing an individual case, that happen to also slow down the foreclosure. But, an attorney who promises "a delay" without carefully considering every aspect of your case is breaking the rules--the same rules that guard against the attorney stealing your money or selling your confidential information.
Another unethical practice is taking money on a monthly basis, often equivalent to half one's mortgage payment. This is not permitted because attorneys are required to charge a fee that is reasonable related to services performed. During a lawsuit, there are many months when the attorney does not do anything. For example, the judge may have given the bank's attorney a month to file a paper, and the homeowner's attorney is simply waiting.
I had a recent email inquiry from someone outside my state who wanted to know how to find a good attorney, and may answer is below. For those in foreclosure, one of the most important things is to start out talking to a HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agency. These services are FREE. A lawyer may be needed, but the counselor can help homeowners get a good start. A listing is available at www.hud.gov
Here are some tips for seeking an attorney that is not out to take advantage of you. There is no substitute for your good judgment after you speak with theGood attorneys:
--Don't advertise with huge ads on the back of phone books or on late-night TV or on billboards
--Don't tell you you have only one option, such as bankruptcy
--Don't sell products like a "forensic loan analysis" or say they are "experts" in areas like being a "short-sale" expert or "modification" expert
--Won't take your money for something another service will do for free. Free services include HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agencies. There are exceptions--some people choose to hire me once I tell them there are other options. In cases where they have the money, that is fine
--Have a written retainer that tells you your rights and responsibilities
--Have a clear billing plan based on an hourly rate (NOT a monthly payment regardless of whether work is done that month) OR based on recovery from a third-party as a contingency of winning where the main goal is to sue someone and win money (rarely the case with mortgages; almost always the case with things like car accidents)
--Provide you with monthly statements or bills or some other way to know what is being done for you and why you are being asked to pay
Try going to your bar association to see if they have a referral service. It is best if these attorneys are screened. Check the state disciplinary records (official records maintained by the state disciplinary board, usually available online--NOT just a site that lets comsumers post comments) before hiring anyone. The latter often contain falsified information that attorneys post for each other as "satisfied clients."
Bear in mind that every case has a deadline called a statute of limitations. Once this passes, the legal claim is lost. Never delay in seeking an attorney, and always be clear with attorneys about dates as you describe your case.
.
Many attorneys are taking unethical actions. These include soliciting clients at the courthouse. This is illegal.
Other attorneys promise to "delay" the foreclosure. This is unethical. The rules governing attorneys do not allow anything to be done just to cause a delay. There are many steps an attorney can do, if justified after reviwing an individual case, that happen to also slow down the foreclosure. But, an attorney who promises "a delay" without carefully considering every aspect of your case is breaking the rules--the same rules that guard against the attorney stealing your money or selling your confidential information.
Another unethical practice is taking money on a monthly basis, often equivalent to half one's mortgage payment. This is not permitted because attorneys are required to charge a fee that is reasonable related to services performed. During a lawsuit, there are many months when the attorney does not do anything. For example, the judge may have given the bank's attorney a month to file a paper, and the homeowner's attorney is simply waiting.
I had a recent email inquiry from someone outside my state who wanted to know how to find a good attorney, and may answer is below. For those in foreclosure, one of the most important things is to start out talking to a HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agency. These services are FREE. A lawyer may be needed, but the counselor can help homeowners get a good start. A listing is available at www.hud.gov
Here are some tips for seeking an attorney that is not out to take advantage of you. There is no substitute for your good judgment after you speak with theGood attorneys:
--Don't advertise with huge ads on the back of phone books or on late-night TV or on billboards
--Don't tell you you have only one option, such as bankruptcy
--Don't sell products like a "forensic loan analysis" or say they are "experts" in areas like being a "short-sale" expert or "modification" expert
--Won't take your money for something another service will do for free. Free services include HUD-Certified Housing Counseling Agencies. There are exceptions--some people choose to hire me once I tell them there are other options. In cases where they have the money, that is fine
--Have a written retainer that tells you your rights and responsibilities
--Have a clear billing plan based on an hourly rate (NOT a monthly payment regardless of whether work is done that month) OR based on recovery from a third-party as a contingency of winning where the main goal is to sue someone and win money (rarely the case with mortgages; almost always the case with things like car accidents)
--Provide you with monthly statements or bills or some other way to know what is being done for you and why you are being asked to pay
Try going to your bar association to see if they have a referral service. It is best if these attorneys are screened. Check the state disciplinary records (official records maintained by the state disciplinary board, usually available online--NOT just a site that lets comsumers post comments) before hiring anyone. The latter often contain falsified information that attorneys post for each other as "satisfied clients."
Bear in mind that every case has a deadline called a statute of limitations. Once this passes, the legal claim is lost. Never delay in seeking an attorney, and always be clear with attorneys about dates as you describe your case.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)