Maryland Foreclosure Lawyer Blog

The attorney's signatures on the first case that XYZ filed looked "funny" - they were too neat! After I saw several other cases from the same attorney in XYZ I became curious - the signatures appeared to be inconsistent. Finally I reviewed one case where the signatures were so different that I compared all of the signatures side by side. They were different; so different that I hired a handwriting expert who confirmed that there were four different people signing for the attorney and two different people signing for one of the notaries.

I want to put this into prospective. Someone signed an affidavit for attorney Bernie Lawyer. Then a notary swore that Bernie Lawyer appeared in front of him/her and signed the affidavit in person. These affidavits were submitted as a condition of going forward with the foreclosure.

When confronted, XYZ dismissed the foreclosure case and allowed my client the opportunity to attempt to modify the loan. However in the middle of modification XYZ brought a second foreclosure action. The servicer for Two South Lender, Jones Servicer claimed that my client submitted a modification package that was illegible. That was not true. I submitted the package myself and it was pristine.

Upon further inspection of the file I noticed something odd. Joan Smith of Two South Lender swore that the copy of the note that was attached to the first case was a true and correct copy of the original. John Doe of Two South Lender swore that the copy of the note that was attached to the second case was a true and correct copy of the original. The problem was the endorsement pages were different. How can copies of the same signature page differ so much? They can't. One or both were counterfeit.

Two days before "trial" I learned that XYZ received the original note on August 10, 2009. Joan Smith signed her affidavit saying that the copy was a true and correct copy of the original on September 21, 2009. John Doe signed the affidavit on December 14, 2009. How could they say that it was a true and accurate copy of the original when, in both cases, the note was 1000 miles away?

XYZ sold my client's home and we took exception to the sale. The judge overruled the exceptions. We are filing an appeal, but for now Jones Servicer and XYZ are probably celebrating the fact that they were able to submit false affidavits, counterfeit documents and ignore their obligation under the HAMP guidelines to take away my client's property. Did she owe the money? Yes. However, like millions of other homeowners who could be helped by the HAMP program she has, for the moment, lost her house.

My client has two grandchildren living with her while their mother, her daughter, serves with the military in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. Yes, my client's daughter is risking her life to preserve our rights and freedom, and until changed, the rights of XYZ and Jones Servicer to submit fraudulent/counterfeit documents to make her children homeless.

President Obama introduced HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) and MHA (Making Home Affordable) over a year ago in order to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes. Seventy-nine billion dollars was allocated for this project. During the past year few homes have been saved through HAMP modifications, not because homeowners didn't qualify, but because servicers were not adhering to the contracts they signed with Treasury. A "servicer" is a company that is hired by the lender to collect the money each month and pay the expenses associated with the property.

Under that HAMP/MHA program any servicer that wanted to participate in the program had to sign a contract with Treasury stated that it would follow guidelines established by Treasury in order to help the homeowner. However, few servicers have followed the guidelines established by the Treasury.

One of the key provisions of HAMP/MHA was requirement that servicers not initiate any new foreclosures nor proceed to sale in an already filed foreclosure pending a modification review. I want the reader to think about the irony of the situation.

You pay taxes. You purchased a home with an "exotic" mortgage that was touted as the new way to purchase a home because you could buy more home for less money. The banks, brokers, and all sorts of lenders opened their doors wide and invited you to sign on the dotted line for a financial commitment that was doomed to failure. However, the banks, brokers, and lenders didn't explain this to you nor do they care whether you failed or succeeded in paying the mortgage. After all, they all sold their mortgages to Wall Street for significant profit.

Many of these banks, brokers, and lenders have long since vanished. Those that remained had to be bailed out through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Fund) money and later helped by the stimulus package. However, instead of using the stimulus money to rewrite loans and help you stay in your home, the financial institutions use the money for other purposes and proceeded to aggressively foreclose on properties. I started this explanation by saying that you pay taxes. I did this for a reason. You, through your taxes, are giving money to these financial institutions to foreclose on your property.

What can be done to prevent a sale of your home pending the modification process? You can ask the court to stay any schedule sale of your property pending the modification review. Some courts are sympathetic to this while other courts will allow the sale to go through. File exceptions to the sale. If you want a unique approach, sue the servicer for breach of the contract it signed with Treasury.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Those topics are for future articles. For now, just understand that it is improper for the servicer to proceed with a foreclosure while your HAMP application is being considered.