Little Known Foreclosure Abuses

In early 2012, the nation’s five big banks settled with state and federal regulators over widespread foreclosure abuses, including the seizure of homes without due process. Many of the abuses keep coming to light, but one little-known and rarely-discussed violation is becoming more widespread as banks foreclose on more homes.

After a homeowner is delinquent in their mortgage, the lender is allowed to hire a property management company to determine whether the homeowner had abandoned his or her home. If so, the management company is allowed to secure the vacant property, within reason. It does not always happen that way, and the nation’s largest property management company, Safe Guard, has been accused of breaking Illinois law, with allegations that it broke into homes despite evidence of occupancy, even damaging and removing personal property in the process. There are also charges that Safe Guard changed locks, cut off utilities and bullied occupants into leaving their homes when they actually had a legal right to stay there.

In mid-September, 2013, the Illinois attorney general filed a lawsuit against Safe Guard to hold it accountable for these violations. Under the 2012 Foreclosure Settlement, lenders became responsible for supervising and auditing the contractors, including ones like Safe Guard. There is certainly profit motive for the bank to take control of these vacant homes, since the sooner the house can be sold and the more the home is worth, the better. The banks are not able to make any money on occupied homes that haven’t yet forged their way through the foreclosure litigation process.

The bottom line is that eviction is only permissible after the legal process has concluded. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, this means after a Final Judgment of Foreclosure has been entered and the property has been sold at a lawful Sheriff’s Sale.

For its part, Safe Guard claims that its work meets the highest standards in the industry. As these abuses keep coming to light, it remains to be seen how it will all affect the nearly 3 million homeowners who are in or near foreclosure.

Contact Shaffer & Gaier

To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or call our office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Philadelphia Judge Denies Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment

My clients own a home in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood in Philadelphia. Their lender is Suntrust Mortgage Company, an Atlanta based lender with offices in the Southern and Eastern U.S. and in the Cayman Islands.

Suntrust sued my clients in a foreclosure lawsuit in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In January, Suntrust filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing to the court that a trial was not necessary because the loan documents themselves prove that the homeowners are in default. The banks frequently file these motions in which they argue that the bank should have the absolute right to foreclose. A closer inspection of the loan documents, however, established that the bank may not have properly applied the mortgage payments to the principal and interest when the payments were made. This created a question of fact because my clients’ mortgage payments conflicted with the bank’s payment ledgers.

The trial court agreed, on February 27, 2013 the judge denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The clients continue to reside in the home and I am awaiting notification of a trial date.

Contact Shaffer & Gaier

To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or call our office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Federal Court Foreclosure Practice

I have a case pending in Federal District Court in Philadelphia against Bank of America (the servicing bank) and HSBC (HSBC controls the trust that holds my client’s mortgage). The basis of the lawsuit is that the banks lied to my client when they told him that he should let his loan go into default if he wanted a loan modification. As crazy as this may sound, this is a technique used by the banks over that last couple of years. Of course, this sets up a homeowner for a foreclosure lawsuit. This all happened before he retained me, and as luck would have it, my client did exactly what the bank told him to do—he went into default and the bank filed a foreclosure action against him in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

I filed a lawsuit for fraud and promissory estoppel (i.e., my client relied on the bank’s statement that he should go into default). The bank filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit, claiming that it was not reasonable for my client to rely on such a promise.

At oral argument on February 14, 2013, it was clear that this was the first time that the Federal Court judge became aware that the bank engaged in tactics like this. Since most foreclosure-based lawsuits are filed in the state courts, this is not surprising. For a good part of the hearing, which lasted about an hour, I felt as if I was educating the Court about 1) the bank practices which led to the housing crisis and 2) the ridiculousness of the loan modification process. Instead of issuing an opinion, the judge ordered Bank of America to look into settling the entire matter, which would include withdrawing the foreclosure complaint and providing a loan modification.

Contact Shaffer & Gaier

To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or call our office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

US Department of Justice Continues to Pursue Wells Fargo Bank

Wells Fargo Bank may be the largest mortgage loan originator in the country, but the Department of Justice says that Wells Fargo continues to violate the terms of a settlement reached in July, 2012. On October 9, 2012, prosecutors in New York filed a new mortgage-based civil action against Wells Fargo, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for alleged mortgage fraud violations under the False Claims Act. The action asserts that Wells Fargo engaged in a long-standing and reckless trifecta of deficient training, deficient underwriting and deficient disclosure, all while relying on the convenient back stop of government insurance. Essentially, it is claimed that Wells Fargo originated bad loans, and then relied on government insurance through the Federal Housing Administration to pay the claims when those mortgages fell into default.

Wells Fargo, however, claims that the recent action is barred because the alleged conduct was already part of the July, 2012, settlement, and Wells Fargo claims that the slate was wiped clean. In court filings on November 1, Wells Fargo asked a trial judge to declare that the government’s second lawsuit is a breach of the July, 2012, settlement terms.

Contact Shaffer & Gaier

To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or call our office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Our Services

img

Our Latest News Posts

Firm Newsletter: April 2019

Click here to download a printable pdf of this newsletter. Supreme Court Victory Leads to Arbitration Award It certainly seemed like a long-time coming, but our firm was successful in taking our client’s case all the way to the Pennsylvania … [Read More...]

Diagnosing Traumatic Brain Injuries

Nearly 50,000 patients die annually from traumatic brain injuries. Now a new study led by the University of Pennsylvania reveals that tiny blood vessels in the brain can offer clues to better treatment, according to an article from UPI’s Health … [Read More...]