It is central to the issue of appraisal fraud. Anyone who moved into a new development knows that the developer was raising prices like crazy to create a a sense of urgency on the part of borrowers. Those prices from the developers were used an excuse to inflate the appraisals ona continual basis, so that a house of exactly the same model and features would be appraised one month for $350,000 and then a month later for $375,000 or more.

The developers knew they could do this because they knew the “lender” would approve it. It was a classic dysfunctional dance in which everyone was lying to everyone else. And everyone, except the borrower and the investor-lender knew it. Thus suits against the developer, especially those with mortgage offices on premises, can be expected to rise by both private actions and public actions from regulatory agencies and law enforcement. It was fraud.

FDIC and Sheila Blair sue IndyMac

LA Times

The agency accuses the managers of the defunct bank’s Homebuilder Division of acting negligently by granting loans to developers who were unlikely to repay the debts.
By E. Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times

July 14, 2010

Launching a new offensive against leaders of failed financial institutions, federal regulators are accusing four former executives of Pasadena’s defunct IndyMac Bank of granting loans to developers and home builders who were unlikely to repay the debts.

The lawsuit by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. alleges that the IndyMac executives acted negligently and seeks $300 million in damages.  It is the first suit of its kind brought by the FDIC in connection with the spate of more than 250 bank failures that began in 2008.   Regulators said it wouldn’t be the last.

“Clearly we’ll have more of these cases,” said Rick Osterman, the deputy general counsel who oversees litigation at the agency.

The FDIC has sent letters warning hundreds of top managers and directors at failed banks — and the insurers who provided them with liability coverage — of possible civil lawsuits, Osterman said. The letters go out early in investigations of failed banks, he added, to ensure that the insurers will later provide coverage even if the
policy expires.

The four defendants in the FDIC lending negligence case, who operated the Homebuilder Division at IndyMac, collectively approved 64 loans that are described in the 309-page lawsuit.

They are:

•Scott Van Dellen, the division’s president and chief executive during six years ending in its seizure;

•Richard Koon, its chief lending officer for five years ending in July 2006;

•Kenneth Shellem, its chief credit officer for five years ending in November 2006;

•William Rothman, its chief lending officer during the two years before the seizure.

Through their attorneys, they vigorously denied the allegations.

“The FDIC has unfairly selected four hard-working executives of a small division of the bank … to blame for the failure of IndyMac,” said defense attorney Kirby Behre, who represents Shellem and Koon. “We intend to show that these loans were done at all times with a great deal of care and prudence.”

Defense attorney Michael Fitzgerald, who represents Van Dellen and Rothman, said no one at the company or its regulators foresaw the severity of the housing crash before it struck, and that IndyMac was one of the first construction lenders to pull back when trouble struck the industry in 2007.

Fitzgerald added that the FDIC thought Van Dellen trustworthy enough that it kept him on to run the division after the bank was seized.  The suit naming the IndyMac executives was filed this month in federal court in Los Angeles, two years after the July 2008 failure of the Pasadena savings and loan. The bank is now operated under new ownership as OneWest Bank.

IndyMac, principally a maker of adjustable-rate mortgages, was among a series of high-profile bank failures early in the financial crisis that were blamed on defaults on high-risk home loans and the securities linked to them.  But the majority of failures since then have been at banks hammered by losses on commercial real estate, particularly loans to residential developers and builders — and IndyMac had a sideline in that business
as well through its Homebuilder Division.

The suit alleges that IndyMac’s compensation policies prompted the home-building division to increase lending to developers and builders with little regard for the quality of the loans.   “HBD’s management pushed to grow loan production despite their awareness that a significant downturn in the market was imminent and despite warnings from IndyMac’s upper management about the likelihood of a market decline,” the FDIC said in its complaint. An investigation of IndyMac’s residential mortgage lending practices could lead to another civil suit, potentially naming higher-up executives, attorneys involved in the case said.

Separately, a criminal grand jury investigation into the actions of IndyMac executives continues, according to a knowledgeable federal official who was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. The bank, known mostly for providing home loans without requiring proof of income from borrowers, had operated its builder-loan division since 1994.   The lawsuit said IndyMac had about $900 million in land acquisition, development and construction loans on its books when the bank  collapsed. Losses on the portfolio are expected to total $500 million — minus whatever the FDIC can recover through litigation.

The FDIC’s Osterman said the government recovered about $5.1 billion from former bank and thrift executives and their outside professional advisors after the last major financial crisis devastated the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. Most of the money came from insurers that had written policies covering bank directors and officers against negligence or other misdeeds. Because the warnings of possible lawsuits are mailed out during the early stages of investigations, it’s frequently decided later that the cases aren’t strong enough to bring or aren’t likely to be cost-effective and so are dropped, Osterman said. FDIC spokesman David Barr said the agency generally had three years from the date of a failure to file civil cases.

What do I mean?  Simply that finding an error is only valuable if you know what law or statute provides a remedy.  On top of that a lawyer will need to examine the remedy to see if is is specifically applicable.    A good audits is invaluable to proper mortgage or foreclosure defense assistance.  Before paying for something that you have no idea of the value or even what the finished product looks like is very risky.  At a minimum an “auditor” should be able to provide you with:

1. An example of an actual audit.
2. A rock solid BBB record.
3. Proof of filed legal cases leveraging results of an audit.

Absent these three items, go looking for a different auditor.

- The Bank Slayer

Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit Scams: A New Twist on Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

Fraudulent foreclosure “rescue” professionals use half-truths and outright lies to sell services that promise relief to homeowners in distress. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, the latest foreclosure rescue scam to exploit financially strapped homeowners pitches forensic mortgage loan audits.

In exchange for an upfront fee of several hundred dollars, so-called forensic loan auditors, mortgage loan auditors, or foreclosure prevention auditors backed by forensic attorneys offer to review your mortgage loan documents to determine whether your lender complied with state and federal mortgage lending laws. The “auditors” say you can use the audit report to avoid foreclosure, accelerate the loan modification process, reduce your loan principal, or even cancel your loan.

Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the FTC and its law enforcement partners:

• there is no evidence that forensic loan audits will help you get a loan modification or any other foreclosure relief, even if they’re conducted by a licensed, legitimate and trained auditor, mortgage professional or lawyer.
• some federal laws allow you to sue your lender based on errors in your loan documents. But even if you sue and win, your lender is not required to modify your loan simply to make your payments more affordable.
• if you cancel your loan, you will lose your home and you will have to return the money you borrowed to your lender.

If you are in default on your mortgage or facing foreclosure, you may be targeted by a foreclosure rescue scam. The FTC wants you to know how to recognize the telltale signs and report them. If you are faced with foreclosure, the FTC says legitimate options are available to help you save your home.

Spotting a Scam

If you’re looking for foreclosure prevention help, avoid any business that:

• guarantees to stop the foreclosure process – no matter what your circumstances are
• instructs you not to contact your lender, lawyer or credit or housing counselor
• collects a fee before providing any services accepts payment only by cashier’s check or wire transfer
• encourages you to lease your home so you can buy it back over time
• recommends that you make your mortgage payments directly to it, rather than your lender
• urges you to transfer your property deed or title to it
• offers to buy your house for cash at a fixed price that is inappropriate for the housing market
• pressures you to sign papers you haven’t had a chance to read thoroughly or that you don’t understand.

Finding Legitimate Help

Housing experts say that when you’re behind on your mortgage payments, maintaining communication with your lender is the most important thing you can do. Contact your lender or servicer immediately if you’re having trouble paying your mortgage or you have received a foreclosure notice. You may be able to negotiate a new repayment schedule.

Call 1-888-995-HOPE for free personalized advice from housing counseling agencies certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This national hotline – open 24/7 – is operated by the Homeownership Preservation Foundation, a nonprofit member of the HOPE NOW Alliance of mortgage industry members and HUD-certified counseling agencies. For free guidance online, visit www.hopenow.com. For free information on the President’s plan to help homeowners, visit www.makinghomeaffordable.gov.

To learn more about home mortgages and other credit-related issues, visit www.ftc.gov/ MoneyMatters. This site offers short, practical tips, videos, and links to reliable sources on a variety of topics from credit repair, debt collection, job hunting and job scams to vehicle repossession, managing mortgage payments and avoiding foreclosure rescue scams.

Reporting Fraud

If you think you’ve been dealing with a foreclosure fraudster, contact:

• Federal Trade Commission – www.ftc.gov
• Your state Attorney General – www.naag.org
• Your local Better Business Bureau – www.bbb.org

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

MAY 23-24 9:00AM-5:00PM. CHANDLER, AZ. LUNCH INCLUDED.

A Garfield Continuum Course. Foreclosure Defense and Offense.   CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

INCLUDES EXTENSIVE MANUAL INCLUDING FORMS, NARRATIVES AND CASES.
INCLUDES FOLLOW-UP SUPPORT AND MONTHLY TELECONFERENCES

NEIL GARFIELD PERSONALLY MODERATES A WORKSHOP FOR LAWYERS AND LITIGATION CONSULTANTS DRILLING DOWN ON RESEARCH, STRATEGY, TACTICS AND ORAL ARGUMENT OF MOTIONS, COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND MUCH MORE.
2 FULL DAYS INCLUDES HUGE MANUAL OF FORMS FOR DISCOVERY, MOTIONS, CASES AND MEMORANDA. ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS WILL BE INTRODUCED. SEATING LIMITED TO 18. REGISTER NOW — IT FILLS UP FAST.

IT IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT YOU HAVE READ THE ATTORNEY WORKBOOK AND ATTENDED AT LEAST ONE SURVEY COURSE FROM GARFIELD CONTINUUM. CLE PENDING BUT NOT PROMISED.

QUESTION:  So what is to be done with this evil smoke screen called MERS?

ANSWER: A good ‘ol Texas butt kicking.

What needs to happen in Oregon is the same as in other states.  MERS has to be busted for being what it is…a smoke screen.

I can tell you that we love when homeowners ask for help and they are being pursued by MERS.

We are crushing MERS here in Texas and have yet to lose a battle against the lender scumbags who use MERS to hide.

Call us today if MERS is threatening your home.

- The Bank Slayer

MERS SHOWDOWN LOOMING IN OREGON

From the desk of Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

The appellate courts of Oregon, like many states, have not yet spoken on the numerous issues surrounding MERS, including what MERS really is (legally); what alleged authority MERS has (notwithstanding boilerplate language in Deeds of Trusts or Mortgages); what MERS can or cannot do; and whether MERS assignments are of any legal effect. For those of you following the emerging case law on these issues, you know that the Supreme Courts of Kansas and Arkansas; the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the Districts of Nevada and Idaho; the state courts in Missouri, Vermont, and South Carolina; and other courts which have actually dissected the MERS language in Deeds of Trusts and Mortgages have consistently said “NO” to MERS: that MERS is not the “Beneficiary”; that MERS has no authority to transfer the promissory notes because it was never the owner thereof (as one cannot transfer what it does not own); that MERS is limited in its authority by its choice to designate itself “solely as nominee”; and that MERS thus essentially has no power to do anything. These recent court decisions are consistent in their holdings, and cite the same group of recent cases.

MERS is also limited by the very language of its contract which it has with lenders and servicers, as found by the Supreme Court of Nebraska which was cited in a decision from a state court in South Carolina. This language in MERS’ own contract provides that MERS agrees not to assert any rights to the loans or the properties mortgaged thereby. MERS’ own attorney affirmatively represented this to the Supreme Court of Nebraska when MERS was trying to get out of paying certain taxes. However, MERS then turns around in other states and tries to take the position that it has rights in a mortgage instrument and note sufficient to further a foreclosure, which is in fact the assertion of a right both as to the loan and as to the mortgaged property, which is in direct contradiction to MERS own contract provisions! Talk about speaking with a forked tongue!

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the recent decisions have seen through MERS’ doublespeak and inconsistent positions, and have struck down MERS’ authority to do anything other than to function as an electronic tracking entity for mortgage loans, period. Certain older decisions, where certain courts blindly accepted the MERS language in a mortgage instrument without really examining what MERS is and what MERS limited itself to, continue to be rejected or are in the minority.

While a Default Judgment is unlikely to last forever, U.S. Bank never bothered to answer the lawsuit in the first place.

This isn’t the first time a large bank has been forced to negotiate themselves out of hole.

We continue to see homeowners win the initial battles versus large banks when they are willing to pursue the bank and force them to come forward to defend their position as a rightful foreclosing entity.

Tip for the day…attack early and often.

To boot, when they do answer they are likely to just make it up as they go along…Below is an except from a Florida case regarding U.S. Bank.   The Plaintiff is the bank, Defendant is homeowner.

The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintifff was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation//notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.

Posted on April 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months, between the time the Interrogatories and the Request for Production were served on January 8, 2008 and the date of the hearing on the Motion to Compel took place on March 1,2010. Additionally, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to produce responses to the Request for Production propounded in July 2009.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the tiling of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.

The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing ofthis action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action. (See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISOAIATIMA v. Genelle Jean-Jacques, Serge Jean-Jacques, Jr. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee fo rthe C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CBS (2nd DCA Case No. 2f)~08-3553) Feb. 12,2012.)

The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.

If you or someone you know is facing a battle with a big bank or their mortgage company contact our office today.

- The Bank Slayer

Supreme Court Says Creditors Should Read Their Mail

by Wendell Sherk, Missouri Attorney on March 24, 2010 · Posted in Bankruptcy Cases & Legislation,Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure, Discharge of Debt, Featured, Student Loans

This week a unanimous Supreme Court concluded that bankruptcy creditors ought to read their mail once in awhile.  Perhaps even pay attention and act upon what they read there.  Otherwise, they have only themselves to blame.

This not-so-remarkable — yet important — decision involved a complicated — yet simple — case.  A man filed a Chapter 13 plan in 1993.  He included a provision in this plan that would discharge the interest on his student loans — something that normally would require he prove undue hardship through an adversary proceeding.  He mailed a copy of this plan to the lender.  The lender filed a claim asking to be included in the case but did not object to the plan.  So the court approved the plan.  The consumer completed his plan, received his discharge and that should have been the end of it.

But the student loan lender did not agree and sought a ruling from the courts that it should not be bound by the plan.  It admitted it received notice of the case and a copy of the plan.  It just apparently didn’t read the plan.  So several years after the fact, it wanted to go back and “fix” the problem.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  It said, in effect, the federal rules allowing a party to a case to set aside “void” judgments or decisions should not be used in this way.  And this is true, even where the debtor has included a provision in the plan which would normally not be allowed.  If the creditors, the trustee and the court do not object, it will be binding on the creditors who receive actual notice and sleep on their rights.

Of course, for most people it doesn’t take the Supreme Court to tell you to pay attention to legal mail.  Many children and most adults could grasp this simple logic.  But the irony is that multi-billion dollar companies would prefer the courts change the rules so that carefully reading the fine print of documents sent by consumers is not required.  Of course there’s little appetite among large creditors to have the fine print disregarded — if they wrote it.

The predictable next step is already presaged.  If you thought that means large creditors will devote more resources to paying attention to Chapter 13 plans, then you are probably wrong.  They will lobby Chapter 13 trustees to protect them from the nefarious plots of consumer debtors to “put one over” on them.  After all, the trustee has to read the plan, so why not get her to absorb the extra costs of objecting to “inappropriate” plans.  No muss, no fuss.

After all, Citibank and Chase and Wells Fargo really are no match for a single bankrupt consumer and her lawyer.  Even if the Supreme Court thinks otherwise

If you are facing a lawsuit in regards to your home or want to file a lawsuit against your mortgage company, please seek out a credible and experienced attorney that has experience in real estate and/or mortgage law.  A good tip is to go to the District Court Clerk in your county (or go online) and look for suits in which mortgage companies are being sued.  See which attorneys (or law firms) are representing homeowners in your area.  You don’t want to be the practice case for a lawyer unversed in the subject matter.

Thanks to Jeff Barnes for writing the piece below.

–  The Bank Slayer

DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME III: MORE HORROR STORIES OF PRO SE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE DISASTERS

Some years ago, there was a tv commercial where a couple had a leaky kitchen sink. The husband, obviously not a plumber, told his wife “Don’t worry honey, I can handle this; it’s simple”. Needless to say, after many hours and a flooded kitchen floor with the pipes shooting water like a fountain, they called a plumber who remedied the problem in minutes, but only after having to spend quite a bit of time remediating the damage done by the husband.

In the last 2 days, we have received more than 8 horror stories from pro se borrowers who have tried to defend their own foreclosure cases, both in judicial and non-judicial states. Despite all of their efforts using concepts either gained from internet surfing or talking to other non-lawyers, the bottom line was the same:

“Help! My case is screwed up!”

“The Judge dismissed my lawsuit!”

“The Judge will not compel the original note!”

“The other side is trying to get attorneys fees against me!”

“My home has been sold even through I sued!”

We have repeatedly cautioned non-lawyers from trying to engage in the practice of law especially in this ever-evolving field of law where many states do not even have case law on the problems with MERS assignments, the necessity for proof of chain of title in order to foreclose, the elements of legal standing, etc., and where many of the Judges, through no fault of their own, have just not been presented with these issues yet. Although many of the legal concepts in proper foreclosure defense have been around for decades, they have not been applied to the complicated securitization sceanarios attendant to the generation of millions of mortgage loans from 2001 through 2007.

Two other problems which invariably result from “do-it-yourselfers” are, first, that once they get backed into a corner by the Judge or the opposing attorney and then try to retain an attorney, the attorney’s job has been rendered more difficult because the attorney has to first attempt to undo the damage caused by the pro se’s mistakes before even getting a chance to try to advance legitimate issues and defenses. As such, the attorney has to spend more time on the case than he or she would have if they had been given the case from the getgo, which means higher retainers and more fees. The second problem is that the pro se has probably angered the Judge and the opposing attorney to the point where the new attorney is facing a lion’s den going in. We have had to cope with this situation many, many times over the last couple of years.

For those who insist on proceeding by themselves, there are several “theories” which have been uniformly rejected although they continue to be bandied around the internet, to wit:

(a)  “Claims in Admiralty”. Admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive Federal jurisdiction for claims which occur on “navigable waters”, which is a legal term essentially meaning that the waterway is one on which a boat can be piloted using maritime navigational maps. Thus, unless you live on a houseboat on a active waterway which has been mapped and platted, “Admiralty” does not apply.

(b)  “Presentment bonds”. These have been universally rejected. A bond is collateralized by either full cash or other tangible property (e.g. gems, real estate, etc.) so that if a claim is made on the bond, the collateral satisfies the payment. “Presentment bonds” do not quality.

(c)  “The bank did not lend me money”. This is practically frivilous. Whatever the “bank” did, it permitted the borrower to either pay off the existing mortgage (on a refi), allowed the borrower to obtain cash out (on a HELOC or cash-out refi); or obtain a home (on a purchase-money first mortgage). Attempting to advance this theory to defend a foreclosure is like walking through a dynamite factory smoking a cigarette: you are going to cause everyone to explode, including the Judge and opposing counsel.

Yes, litigation is expensive. Yes, attorneys are not cheap. However, someone who tried to play attorney and then gets hammered is going to either (a) lose their house, or (b) wind up paying an attorney double or triple to TRY to fix the damage caused by the do-it-yourselfer, assuming it can even be fixed and assuming the Judge is not already thinking negatively about the case because of the nonsense advanced by the pro se who has, in the Judge’s opinion (and rightfully so), wasted the court’s time.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

NEW YORK, March 4 (Reuters) – Moody’s Investors Service on Thursday said it may downgrade portions of 125 residential mortgage bonds based on unusual “cash management arrangements” of GMAC Mortgage LLC, which services loans in the securities.

The rating company said GMAC commingled cash flows from multiple bonds in a single custodial account, Moody’s said in a statement. This allowed GMAC to use cash from loans in one bond for principal and interest payments on another, it said.

By allowing the commingling, it “increases the likelihood that some RMBS deals may not be able to recover the amounts ‘borrowed’ by the servicer to fund advances or another RMBS deal if a servicer bankruptcy were to occur,” Moody’s said.

This could give rise to competing claims in a bankruptcy proceeding, the rater said.

Downgrades based on mortgage servicing, rather than credit, may add to concerns of bond investors who have been long accustomed to harsh rating cuts as delinquencies and foreclosures increase losses.

GMAC Mortgage is a unit of Residential Capital LLC. Residential Capital is owned by GMAC Inc.

Although bankruptcy may be an option or even the answer,  property owners should explore all options

Chapter 13 can save an investment property – Lien stripping in action

by David Leibowitz, Illinois and Wisconsin Bankruptcy Attorney

Today, a Wisconsin client asked what we could do to help save his investment property. It’s worth only about $70,000. It has a first mortgage for $80,000 and a second mortgage for $30,000. Our client bought the property at the top of the market. He can afford the first mortgage, but not the second. And he certainly doesn’t want a short sale or a deficiency judgment. He makes enough money that he could afford to pay it. What can be done?

Our client has little other unsecured debt.

But the entire second mortgage really is unsecured – there’s no equity in the building to support it. So in chapter 13, we can treat that debt as unsecured and strip away the second mortgage.  Instead of paying 11% interest on the second mortgage, our client can pay it off in full over a period of five years – and he could afford to do that.  Not only that, but $10,000 of the first mortgage can also be treated as unsecured and paid off in full over 5 years – without interest. That’s because it is perfectly OK to modify a non-residential mortgage loan in chapter 13 even though you can’t modify a mortgage loan secured by your personal residence. Wasn’t that a smart idea of Congress to reject mortgage modification? Gee, we really could have made some progress with our mortgage crisis.

Anyway, our client will be able to keep his building, reduce the mortgage considerably, pay off his debts over a reasonable period of time without interest and get the second mortgage lien released, thanks to the creative use of chapter 13.

Recently we helped homeowners with legitimate hardships due to medical conditions negotiate a settlement with Midland Mortgage that resulted in the following:

• Avoided foreclosure
• 11 months without having to make a payment
• Re-amortize the loan to roll in past due taxes
• Reduction in rate from 8.75% to 5.5 fixed