- This topic has 60 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
Djshakes.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM #18435January 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM #658008
bearishgurl
ParticipantThe story is an accurate portrayal of the utter RH/LH incompetence of the banking/mortgage industry. If this “straight out of the gate” atty wants to handle cases like this and thinks they’re worth the $$, then, more power to him.
THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY.
On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications—meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished—successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation…
Reading this story was akin to a flashback of my life between 2008 and 2010. I too, assisted other borrowers in attempting to obtain a loan mod under HAMP or to obtain a “cash for keys” benefit from “deed-in-lieu” programs. Even after SB-94 was signed, I took another case like this but no up-front money. My “up-front” retainer prior to that was only $400, lol.
I WAS able to obtain postponements of sale dates but in the few cases I worked on, the borrowers were foreclosed upon. One, however, did receive a relocation allowance of $3K one week AFTER the trustees’ deed was recorded (back to bene). However, I was/am not an attorney, like Ali here, and was NEVER afraid and knew what I was doing. Since I was NOT an attorney, however, I was unable to send demand letters threatening lawsuits and BK in order to stay the sale. In addition, I always had the borrower on speakerphone with me when I conversed with their lenders directly, AS WELL as a signed faxed authorization faxed to them days/weeks prior. I handled lenders’ contractors with a faxed authorization alone.
No more. Just the psychic “wearing down” is more than I need at this late date. This is w-a-a-a-a-y too much work for the pay you receive.
…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .
A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…
(emphasis added)
I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?
IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.
Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??
January 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM #658071ParticipantThe story is an accurate portrayal of the utter RH/LH incompetence of the banking/mortgage industry. If this “straight out of the gate” atty wants to handle cases like this and thinks they’re worth the $$, then, more power to him.
THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY.
On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications—meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished—successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation…
Reading this story was akin to a flashback of my life between 2008 and 2010. I too, assisted other borrowers in attempting to obtain a loan mod under HAMP or to obtain a “cash for keys” benefit from “deed-in-lieu” programs. Even after SB-94 was signed, I took another case like this but no up-front money. My “up-front” retainer prior to that was only $400, lol.
I WAS able to obtain postponements of sale dates but in the few cases I worked on, the borrowers were foreclosed upon. One, however, did receive a relocation allowance of $3K one week AFTER the trustees’ deed was recorded (back to bene). However, I was/am not an attorney, like Ali here, and was NEVER afraid and knew what I was doing. Since I was NOT an attorney, however, I was unable to send demand letters threatening lawsuits and BK in order to stay the sale. In addition, I always had the borrower on speakerphone with me when I conversed with their lenders directly, AS WELL as a signed faxed authorization faxed to them days/weeks prior. I handled lenders’ contractors with a faxed authorization alone.
No more. Just the psychic “wearing down” is more than I need at this late date. This is w-a-a-a-a-y too much work for the pay you receive.
…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .
A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…
(emphasis added)
I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?
IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.
Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??
January 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM #659139ParticipantThe story is an accurate portrayal of the utter RH/LH incompetence of the banking/mortgage industry. If this “straight out of the gate” atty wants to handle cases like this and thinks they’re worth the $$, then, more power to him.
THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY.
On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications—meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished—successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation…
Reading this story was akin to a flashback of my life between 2008 and 2010. I too, assisted other borrowers in attempting to obtain a loan mod under HAMP or to obtain a “cash for keys” benefit from “deed-in-lieu” programs. Even after SB-94 was signed, I took another case like this but no up-front money. My “up-front” retainer prior to that was only $400, lol.
I WAS able to obtain postponements of sale dates but in the few cases I worked on, the borrowers were foreclosed upon. One, however, did receive a relocation allowance of $3K one week AFTER the trustees’ deed was recorded (back to bene). However, I was/am not an attorney, like Ali here, and was NEVER afraid and knew what I was doing. Since I was NOT an attorney, however, I was unable to send demand letters threatening lawsuits and BK in order to stay the sale. In addition, I always had the borrower on speakerphone with me when I conversed with their lenders directly, AS WELL as a signed faxed authorization faxed to them days/weeks prior. I handled lenders’ contractors with a faxed authorization alone.
No more. Just the psychic “wearing down” is more than I need at this late date. This is w-a-a-a-a-y too much work for the pay you receive.
…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .
A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…
(emphasis added)
I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?
IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.
Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??
January 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM #658811ParticipantThe story is an accurate portrayal of the utter RH/LH incompetence of the banking/mortgage industry. If this “straight out of the gate” atty wants to handle cases like this and thinks they’re worth the $$, then, more power to him.
THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY.
On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications—meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished—successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation…
Reading this story was akin to a flashback of my life between 2008 and 2010. I too, assisted other borrowers in attempting to obtain a loan mod under HAMP or to obtain a “cash for keys” benefit from “deed-in-lieu” programs. Even after SB-94 was signed, I took another case like this but no up-front money. My “up-front” retainer prior to that was only $400, lol.
I WAS able to obtain postponements of sale dates but in the few cases I worked on, the borrowers were foreclosed upon. One, however, did receive a relocation allowance of $3K one week AFTER the trustees’ deed was recorded (back to bene). However, I was/am not an attorney, like Ali here, and was NEVER afraid and knew what I was doing. Since I was NOT an attorney, however, I was unable to send demand letters threatening lawsuits and BK in order to stay the sale. In addition, I always had the borrower on speakerphone with me when I conversed with their lenders directly, AS WELL as a signed faxed authorization faxed to them days/weeks prior. I handled lenders’ contractors with a faxed authorization alone.
No more. Just the psychic “wearing down” is more than I need at this late date. This is w-a-a-a-a-y too much work for the pay you receive.
…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .
A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…
(emphasis added)
I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?
IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.
Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??
January 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM #658672ParticipantThe story is an accurate portrayal of the utter RH/LH incompetence of the banking/mortgage industry. If this “straight out of the gate” atty wants to handle cases like this and thinks they’re worth the $$, then, more power to him.
THE LIPKIN FAMILY’S STORY WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WELLS FARGO FORECLOSED TODAY.
On October 13, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 94, coauthored by the chairman of the California Senate banking committee, Senator Ron Calderon, and Senator Lou Correa of Anaheim. The bill prohibits anyone from accepting advance fees for working on loan modifications—meaning the Lipkins could not have legally hired Ali unless he was willing to work months without pay. The legislation is intended to prevent predatory loan modification scams from taking advantage of homeowners. But the language lumps lawyers with brokers, meaning lawyers will be unable to charge retainers. The bill is likely to reduce the supply of lawyers working on loan modifications, and thus decrease the actual number of modified loans, because lawyers can now ask for money only after their job is finished—successfully or not. This could mean months of work in the hope that at the end, a client who is by definition a credit risk will find the money to pay. SB 94 will, though, impede certain types of fraud. The law would have prevented the Lipkins’ trouble with Rodis Law Group, the lawyers the family retained before they found Wajahat. Ron Rodis was disbarred October 15, and Rodis Law Group is under Federal Trade Commission investigation…
Reading this story was akin to a flashback of my life between 2008 and 2010. I too, assisted other borrowers in attempting to obtain a loan mod under HAMP or to obtain a “cash for keys” benefit from “deed-in-lieu” programs. Even after SB-94 was signed, I took another case like this but no up-front money. My “up-front” retainer prior to that was only $400, lol.
I WAS able to obtain postponements of sale dates but in the few cases I worked on, the borrowers were foreclosed upon. One, however, did receive a relocation allowance of $3K one week AFTER the trustees’ deed was recorded (back to bene). However, I was/am not an attorney, like Ali here, and was NEVER afraid and knew what I was doing. Since I was NOT an attorney, however, I was unable to send demand letters threatening lawsuits and BK in order to stay the sale. In addition, I always had the borrower on speakerphone with me when I conversed with their lenders directly, AS WELL as a signed faxed authorization faxed to them days/weeks prior. I handled lenders’ contractors with a faxed authorization alone.
No more. Just the psychic “wearing down” is more than I need at this late date. This is w-a-a-a-a-y too much work for the pay you receive.
…Their home, meanwhile, which was originally valued at $585,000, had depreciated severely in three scant years. It was now essentially worthless at $270,000. . .
A family that only had three days until eviction last July, now has a new, 40 year contract. Although the bank didn’t agree to a principal reduction—very few banks agree to a principal reduction nowadays—they extended the terms of the contract by 15 years and lowered the interest thus making the monthly payments affordable and reasonable. My clients were paying nearly $4,100 a month on a ludicrous 8.095% interest rate. Their current payment is now $2340/month with a 2% interest rate. The interest rate will cap at 4.35% on the 8th year and remain for the remainder of the contract…
(emphasis added)
I am just failing to see how these borrowers have actually been “helped.” Is “HAMP” really the be-all and end-all for borrowers like this (bought with NINA mtgs in 2007)? Sacramento is a fairly cheap county to rent/buy in. Wouldn’t these borrowers have been better off letting their property go back to the 1st TD holder and then either renting it back from them or renting another house?
IMHO, HAMP is a “ripoff” and only benefits the lender(s). Why throw so much taxpayer money at it? Just foreclose and get it over with so all affected persons can start their respective “clocks” ticking sooner.
Piggs, you gotta ask yourself – how are these borrowers “better off” now??
January 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM #658018matt-waiting
ParticipantI went to law school with the author. The wrestling a s**t covered bear reference was actually our property professor’s analogy of how we would feel after taking his final exam.
“You may get out alive, but you won’t feel good about it.”
January 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM #658081ParticipantI went to law school with the author. The wrestling a s**t covered bear reference was actually our property professor’s analogy of how we would feel after taking his final exam.
“You may get out alive, but you won’t feel good about it.”
January 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM #659149ParticipantI went to law school with the author. The wrestling a s**t covered bear reference was actually our property professor’s analogy of how we would feel after taking his final exam.
“You may get out alive, but you won’t feel good about it.”
January 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM #658821ParticipantI went to law school with the author. The wrestling a s**t covered bear reference was actually our property professor’s analogy of how we would feel after taking his final exam.
“You may get out alive, but you won’t feel good about it.”
January 25, 2011 at 2:57 PM #658682ParticipantI went to law school with the author. The wrestling a s**t covered bear reference was actually our property professor’s analogy of how we would feel after taking his final exam.
“You may get out alive, but you won’t feel good about it.”
January 25, 2011 at 10:18 PM #658916scaredyclassic
Participanti subscribe to mcsweeneys on my iphone and often laugh out fucking loud reading it. there was an article on there about a pseudo letter from the front to the family on a guy playing call of duty that even made my kids howl with laughter.
mcsweeneys is excellent… i recommend th eiphone app
January 25, 2011 at 10:18 PM #659244Participanti subscribe to mcsweeneys on my iphone and often laugh out fucking loud reading it. there was an article on there about a pseudo letter from the front to the family on a guy playing call of duty that even made my kids howl with laughter.
mcsweeneys is excellent… i recommend th eiphone app
January 25, 2011 at 10:18 PM #658777Participanti subscribe to mcsweeneys on my iphone and often laugh out fucking loud reading it. there was an article on there about a pseudo letter from the front to the family on a guy playing call of duty that even made my kids howl with laughter.
mcsweeneys is excellent… i recommend th eiphone app
January 25, 2011 at 10:18 PM #658113Participanti subscribe to mcsweeneys on my iphone and often laugh out fucking loud reading it. there was an article on there about a pseudo letter from the front to the family on a guy playing call of duty that even made my kids howl with laughter.
mcsweeneys is excellent… i recommend th eiphone app
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.