There is hardly a person reading this column that does not know, at least indirectly, a friend or relative that is either in foreclosure or facing foreclosure. Despite the many promises from the Obama administration, as well as promises made by local and state officials that “help is on the way”, if the ever increasing amount of foreclosure conference cases that are scheduled on a daily basis in the courts of the State of New York is any indication, then help needs a helping hand. Unfortunately, judging from my frequent foreclosure conferences at various New York courts, it is all too evident as that the vast majority of borrowers do not understand what foreclosure is (other than that they may lose their home) or how to fight it. And, yes, foreclosure can and must be fought head on.
In this weekly column on Yeshiva World News, we will examine the myths, facts and realities of foreclosure. We will begin with a general overview the mortgage documents that the now in-foreclosure borrower signed and their relevance in the banks un-mitigating ruthless foreclosure process. We will then examine the legality, meaning and significance of the documents signed, along with waivers and disclosures.
After getting a grasp on what it is that the borrower quickly and hurriedly signed at the closing (usually, and unfortunately, without sufficient explanation from their closing attorney), we will discuss how we can use those jumbled, incoherent and confusing documents to our advantage to battle the money hungry and ruthless banks, as well as the attorneys that they employ, most notably: Steven J. Baum and Rosicki & Rosicki. Aside from the documents signed by the borrower, we will examine the “robo signing” accusations as well as accusations (most of which are likely true) of unethical practices by the banks and their attorneys in the course of the foreclosure process.
After familiarizing ourselves with the information above, we will examine and evaluate the different defenses, including affirmative defenses, that any foreclosure defendant should consider when served with a Summons and Complaint in a foreclosure matter. Following this familiarization, we will examine solutions and options available to homeowners who want to remain in their home and get their loan reinstated on fair(er) terms, such as with what is commonly known as a “loan modification” as well thru the process of settling in full one or more loans. We will also focus and examine the options for those homeowners who have decide that they have had enough with the “pleasantries of home ownership” and who now wish to secure a “short sale” on terms that they can swallow and walk away with a sense of calm.
Additionally, we will evaluate cases brought before the courts of the State of New York, at the Supreme Court and Appellate Level, dealing with foreclosures to better understand the workings and minds of the judges and referrers who have been entrusted to oversee the foreclosure cases in the State of New York. As will be seen, there have been milestone victories for the “little guys” and we must examine and learn from those winners how we, too, can be winners.
Lastly, I will take one or two questions from readers of The Yeshiva World News in connection with foreclosure as well as real estate and post the answers every Monday. The readers’ questions and comments will be greatly appreciated and will help me better guide my columns to meet the interest of this great readership.
Alexander Gofer is the managing partner of the Gofer Law Group and can be reached at 212-480-3400 ext 101 or via e-mail: [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
3 Responses
banks dont want to settle. period.
Banks lose a fortune on a foreclosure. If the person has the income to pay they are in a strong position to negotiate, especially (as is typical in the US) they can walk away. Banks love to settle with people who have sufficient income to pay for the houses they live in. They can be sympathetic with temporary unemployment as long as the person has a hope of payment, and some equity in the house. Traditionally, you made a downpayment of 10-20%, and the loan was never more than three times income. The problem arose with people who could afford an apartment in Brooklyn wanting a mansion in Rockland County.
Many people stupidly believed that housing prices would rise foreever, and bought houses they couldn’t afford assuming they could use “creative” refinancing to avoid having to pay for them. It is hard to be sympathetic with someone who borrows money and loses it on a bad investment. That is, however, what the Bankruptcy Code addresses. But if someone’s income is never likely to be high enough to support the house they live in, why shouldn’t the bank be ruthless. Had the person been playing the stock market, the lender simply forces the sale of the stock when the speculator can’t make a margin call.
The banks were equally corrupt (they passed off the “NINJA” loans are “AAA” rated bonds), but its hard to be someone who was “playing the market” and lost his bet.
I am not a fan of the underhanded tactics or the unfriendly attitude used by banks when dealing with people under financial stress. But this article seems a bit biased to the extreme opposite, depicting banks as evil robbers.
I am sure there are numerous cases of illegal or unethical behavior by banks. But there are just as many cases of people who lied or misrepresented their financial situation to get a loan from the bank.
From a balanced point of view, you could say that there are sometimes honest people who cannot afford to keep up with their mortgage payments, but are trying their best. They just need some more time from the banks, or a little relief/help courtesy of the ObamaNation. Foreclosure is very harsh and is more than they deserve… Here are some suggestions/ideas/methods that could help them.
Unfortunately, this article hints to some potentially unethical methods used by people to cheat banks, thereby turning the coin to the other side. What they do is not any better than what it calls “the money hungry and ruthless banks”. I specifically mean the vague statement:
“the options for those homeowners who have decide that they have had enough with the “pleasantries of home ownership” and who now wish to secure a “short sale” on terms that they can swallow and walk away with a sense of calm.”
Roughly translated into English this means – People who decided they don’t want to pay the banks back what they ageed to, and decide to trick the bank into losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, while still ending up as the owners of the same home.