A home modification of one’s original loan through either trial modification or permanent reduction are options many homeowners, who are struggling financially, can request. Like other processes involving complicated contracts, there is a lot of confusion about modifying a mortgage contract.

Many mortgage companies are reluctant to modify contracts without clear evidence their client is in financial trouble. The first conversation with a mortgage customer service department is not always the best gauge about what a bank may eventually do for you.

Banks are also encouraged to participate in the federal loan modification programs designed to help both banks and clients through the housing crisis. Some banks do not wish to participate, while others do. This can create confusion.

Additionally some homeowners feel these financial institutions are not properly implementing modification plans. While financial institutions feel homeowners may be to blame. Some banks have stated homeowners either do not properly file their paperwork, submit a letter of hardship, or simply do not qualify. Some homeowners who have applied may have a mortgage payment that is 31% of their total monthly income, and at this level a modification would drop their mortgage obligation. When this is the case, a homeowner simply does not qualify for federal modification assistance.

There are many relationship issues between banks and homeowners which need to be solved. One of the most difficult problems arising from the loan modification attempts is what many banks refer to as “dual tracking.” Dual tracking can take place when a homeowner enters into a trial modification plan with the mortgage bank.

Trial or temporary modifications are made by banks in an attempt to help get the bank’s clients back on their feet financially. The bank may reduce the client’s payments for any time up to five years, and the temporary modification can be structured to correspond perfectly with the client’s hardship. When the client recovers from the hardship, they can afford the original payment, making up the arrears which have been accumulated.

Trial and temporary modifications are confusing because the agreements, which are temporary, are sometimes offered verbally or without legal documentation. As a result, the practice lends itself to the concept of dual tracking.

When a homeowner, who is suffering from financial problems, enters into a trial modification with his mortgage company, he makes payments based on the new modified plans for a certain time. The problems with this temporary modification have arisen when the bank accepts the payments but eventually forecloses on the home anyway. There are many reasons for the bank’s response, both negative and positive, but many look at the bank’s actions as a betrayal of trust.

Homeowners have found there are problems when either dealing with their mortgage provider, finding a payment within a modification program that is affordable enough for their particular situation, or they feel they have simply been denied an assistance plan through the federal modification program for little or no reason. Many homeowners are falling through the cracks and being foreclosed on.

Foreclosure is one of the leading causes for filing for bankruptcy. When you have tried everything to keep your home, filing for bankruptcy protection is normally your last choice. Bankruptcy laws can be complicated. If you need of relief from the stress of debt and you live in or around the metropolitan counties of Monmouth or Ocean, New Jersey, contact us at www.betterbankruptcy.com .We will help you find a bankruptcy attorney in your area who will answer your bankruptcy questions.

In 1978, the Supreme Court made a ruling that would change how banks dealt with credit card interest. The Marquette Bank opinion permitted national banks to export interest rates on consumer loans from the state where credit decisions were made to borrowers nationwide. Federal rules already existing which would not allow banks to set up operations outside their home state without a formal invitation from the legislature of the state they wanted to enter.

It wasn’t long before states like South Dakota and Delaware took full advantage of the new jobs the banks offered. South Dakota’s legislature first passed laws in 1980, effectively eliminating their existing usury laws, so Citibank could move their credit card operating headquarters to the state. Citibank eventually delivered 3,000 high paying jobs to the state that rewarded them with an operations base where they could ignore all the other state’s maximum usury rates and still do business.

In 1980, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) pegged the rate of interest at a certain number of points above the Federal Reserve discount rate. Specially chartered organizations like small loan companies and installment plan sellers would have their own rules. That means that the laws in most states do not have enough teeth to regulate credit card debt. Now, in many cases, the only way a person can relieve exorbitant debt from various banking institutions is by filing bankruptcy.

Credit card debt is one of the leading reasons people file for bankruptcy protection, but if you are “collection proof” and you do not have enough assets for creditors to collect to satisfy your debt, you may not need to file for bankruptcy protection at all. All states have a statute of limitations on debt collection.

Statute of limitations are basically divided into four debt categories by law. These categories include oral contracts, written contracts, promissory notes, and open-ended accounts. The latter category deals with credit card debt. The statute of limitations on all four categories in New York is six years. Going to court and winning a judgment against a debtor is another matter. A judgment in New York carries a statute of limitations of 20 years. The creditor must renew the judgment before the time frame ends if they want to keep an attachment or lien active.

Not all collection agencies play by the rules. Some collection agencies will call you after the statute of limitation has expired and try to get you to acknowledge you owe the debt. If they can get you to acknowledge or pay your debt, and it is a qualifying debt like a credit card debt, the statute of limitations begins again from that date. 

What if collection agents call you to collect debt? Ask them to send you paperwork to verify your debts and the dates of the debt. If the statute of limitations has past for the verified debts, you can send them a cease and desist letter.  Explain why you do not owe the amount, and ff they cannot verify the claim, you can send the collection agency a cease and desist letter anyway.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) protects consumers by providing a fair playing field for debtors and creditors. The FDCPA states all collection agencies must verify any debts they claim you owe. If a debt is out of the statute of limitations or is unverifiable, the collection firm is prevented from pursuing the loan in a harassing manner. Continued violations could result in fines for the violators, including payment for court and attorney fees.

If you have assets to protect from creditors seeking a judgment and your debt has not reached the statute of limitations, you may need to consider filng for bankruptcy protection. Bankruptcy laws can be complicated. If you need relief from the stress of debt and you live in or around the metropolitan areas of Buffalo or Niagara Falls, New York, contact us at www.betterbankruptcy.com .We will help you find a bankruptcy attorney in your area who will answer your bankruptcy questions.

In 1978, the Supreme Court made a ruling that would change the face of how banks dealt with credit card interest. The Marquette Bank opinion permitted national banks to export interest rates on consumer loans from the state where credit decisions were made to borrowers nationwide. Existing federal rules required banks to get a formal invitation, issued by the legislature of the state they wanted to enter, prior to establishing operations outside their home state.

It wasn’t long before states like South Dakota and Delaware took full advantage of the new jobs the banks offered for coming to their states. South Dakota’s legislature first passed laws in 1980 effectively eliminating their existing usury laws so Citibank could move their credit card operating headquarters to the state.

Citibank eventually delivered 3,000 high paying jobs to the state that rewarded them with an operations base where they could ignore all the other state’s maximum usury rates and still do business. The state of Delaware followed suit the following year and garnered the lion’s share of credit card companies. Delaware remains the largest home to credit card companies today.

The Federal Government responded by passing weak usury laws allowing a maximum of 24 percent interest to be charged, but it sill allows national banks to ignore state usury limits and peg the rate of interest at a certain number of points above the Federal Reserve discount rate. In addition, specially chartered organizations like small loan companies and installment plan sellers have their own rules. What does this mean for the consumer? The laws in most states do not have enough teeth to regulate credit card debt.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is the Federal Government agency responsible for regulating the credit card industry and has been fighting with the states for years over who has the authority to regulate usury. The OCC has fought aggressively in courts and Congress to nullify state consumer protection laws and curb enforcement actions, sparking a nationwide battle between the states and Federal Government.

The OCC’s actions have severely limited the state and local governments from investigating credit card banks and issuers. As a result, in many instances the only way a person can relieve exorbitant debt from various banking institutions is through filing bankruptcy.

This lack of regulastion has led to complete lender arrogance. Credit card companies prefer customers who will raise their spending limits, pay minimum payments, and not pay on time. If they can charge their customers exorbitant interest, it is even better. One news source claims the industry refers to those who pay their credit cards on time every month as “deadbeats” because the credit banks don’t make any money off them.

There is an enormous profit in high interest rates, penalty charges, and annual user fees for the credit card companies. Since the companies have been able to operate from a few select states, they have evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry.

How do you stop credit card companies in their tracks? Fiing for bankruptcy protection may be one way. If you need relief from the stress of debt and you live in or around the metropolitan areas of Raleigh, Durham, or Chapel Hill, North Carolina, contact us at www.betterbankruptcy.com .We will help you find a bankruptcy attorney in your area who will answer your bankruptcy questions.

With our nation still facing over 2.9 million foreclosures, many of which have been put on hold because of document irregularities like the robo-signing controversy, the likelihood of more bankruptcies is increasing. Home foreclosure is one of the leading causes for bankruptcy filings.

The term Robo-signer was recently coined by attorney Matthew Weidner of Florida. According to the Wall Street Journal Article titled, Niche Lawyers Spawned Housing Fracas, published on October 21, 2010, the potentially fraudulent practice of robo-signing was first identified and reported in a 1999 white paper by Nye Lavalle titled 21st Century Loan Sharks.

According to a Wikipedia, “Robo-signing is a term used by consumer advocates to describe the robotic process of the mass production of false and forged execution of mortgage assignments, satisfactions, affidavits and other legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures and legal matters being created by persons without knowledge of the facts being attested to. It also includes accusations of notary fraud wherein the notaries pre and/or post notarize the affidavits and signatures of so-called robo-signers.”

America is just beginning to learn of the depths of robo-signing and what consequences the practice is having on our current housing crisis. Cases challenging the practice of robo-signing are now being challenged all over the nation in both bankruptcy and civil courts.

Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund recently found in one of her bankruptcy cases a reason to render a decision based on robo-signing. In re Taylor, the judge determined a proof of claim had been robo-signed by a Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) employee. LPS was acting as an intermediary between the mortgage company and the company’s law firm. As a result, erroneous documents were provided to the bankruptcy court and improperly signed. These facts caused the judge to eventually sanction the mortgage company, its law firms, and LPS for improprieties, and the group lost the petition to remove the automatic stay.

The mild scolding sanction given by the judge to the plaintiffs to do better in the future did not match what could have been done by the judge under violations of Rule 9011 of the Bankruptcy Code. The judge, despite what appeared to be fraudulent activity, could not find the plaintiffs acted with “objective unreasonableness conduct.”

In one recent civil case that came under the jurisdiction of the Kings County, New York, Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack, robo-signing was at the center of of the case. In HSBC Bank USA vs Ellen N. Taher, plaintiff HSBC was found to lack standing to commence with a foreclosure action, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Schack chastised the plaintiff’s lead counsel in the case for presenting robo-signed documents to the court while affirming “under the penalties of perjury,” to the best of the lawyer’s “knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons and Complaint, and other papers filed or submitted to the Court in this matter contain no false statements of fact of law.” When examined closer by the judge, the lawyer admitted the documents had been affirmed by a known robo-signer working for an independent company.

All of these cases which have been revealed to the public are beginning to raise questions in the public’s mind. One of these questions is whether or not robo-signers should be prosecuted for committing fraud.

Why shouldn’t we demand from the lenders what they demand from the borrowers? Borrowers must cross every tittle and dot every “i” when going through the closing process to purchase a home. The mortgage companies leave little legal room for errors. The cost mostly falls on the homeowner or seller, and the mortgage company’s extract exorbitant fees. All the while, many home buyers can barely afford the closing costs, let alone a lawyer to read every line of the documents.

Another question raised is who really owns your loan contract? Banks, through robo-signing techniques, are selling the loan contract to other companies with whom you have no contractual relationship.

Robo-signing is fraud, pure and simple. If you were to commit bankruptcy fraud or fraud against a creditor, don’t think for a minute you would not be prosecuted. Why do creditors get off with a slap on the wrist when they perpetrate fraud on debtors?

Maybe you are victim of robo-signing and you are facing foreclosure. If the foreclosure has forced you into bankruptcy, you may need a bankruptcy lawyer who can answer your bankruptcy questions.  If live in or around the metropolitan areas of Austin or San Marcus, Texas, contact us at www.betterbankruptcy.com .We will help you find a bankruptcy attorney in your area.

What will happen if the United States Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline? According to President Obama, there are no guarantees that government checks or Social Security payments will be made to seniors.