Posted by Madison Backhouse on June 24, 2011
As Rancho Cucamonga foreclosure defense attorneys, we know class-action lawsuits over the Home Affordable Modification Program have fared less well in courts than individual claims. So we were interested but not surprised to see another such decision, this time from a federal court in Washington, D.C. Doreen Edwards et al. v. Aurora Loan Servicers LLC argued that borrowers should have standing to sue because they were third-party beneficiaries to the HAMP agreement between Fannie Mae and Aurora, a private loan servicer. The judge disagreed, citing decisions from numerous other federal district courts, including all districts in California. In essence, she said, there was no right to sue because they had no rights under the HAMP agreement.
All of the plaintiffs were homeowners eligible for HAMP modifications but who had not received one, and had loans serviced by Aurora. They cited a string of “endless bureaucratic incompetence coupled with a lack of effective recourse for wrongful denials” — the end result being that they were denied loan modifications.
Read full article…
Posted by Zachary Ogilvie on June 24, 2011
POLICYMAKERS must juggle three priorities when offering a public service: coverage, cost and choice. They almost always have to sacrifice at least one of the three. As austerity bites, this equation is going to lead to very tricky decisions.
Health is an area where the trilemma clearly applies. Britain’s National Health Service offers universal coverage but as a result has to limit patient choice in order to control the costs. The American health system historically gave a high priority to patient choice at the price of ballooning costs and the exclusion of the uninsured from the system. Having increased coverage, the Obama reforms will have to restrict choice if they are to control costs.
Over the past 40 years cost has been less of a constraint in all areas of public policy than it might have been. At times of crisis governments without exchange-rate targets have been able to let their currency, rather than the real economy, take the strain. Steady growth has allowed governments to expand the services they offer. O
Read full article…
Posted by Madison Backhouse on June 22, 2011
Our Rancho Cucamonga foreclosure defense attorneys were interested to see a recent decision reminding mortgage companies that they cannot violate the automatic stay on debt collection provided by bankruptcy. In Laboy v. Doral Mortgage Corp., the First Circuit Court of Appeals enforced sanctions against Doral, the mortgage lender, for willful violation of the stay provided to Luis Vazquez Laboy and Carmen Garcia Calderon. The Puerto Rican couple had purchased a home in 1996 and taken out a loan from Doral, then a second loan a few months later, also secured against the home. But when they tried to register the deed, the local registry found it was defective. They therefore withdrew the deed, and Doral never moved to correct the problem. This caused paperwork problems that escalated when Laboy and Calderon filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2000.
The lack of a completed deed was a problem because Doral had never completed the steps it needed to show it had an interest in the debtors’ property.
Read full article…
Posted by Zachary Ogilvie on June 22, 2011
Question: If you declare bankruptcy can anybody check on a public record?
Answer: Yes, bankruptcy is a matter of public record which means that basically anyone can access the information. However, in order to check the registry (available from the Superintendent of Bankruptcy’s office) you must pay a fee. Also, few people know of the existence of the registry. But it is possible for anyone to check whether you have ever had a bankruptcy in your life.