Tag:loan modification

1
COVID-19: Echoes Don’t Fade: Lessons Learned From the Home Affordable Modification Program for the Next Wave of Mortgage Class Action Litigation
2
Mortgage Servicers: Don’t Forget ECOA’s Valuation Rule
3
Is It Illegal Under Federal Law to Opt Out Of Jurisdictions Exercising Eminent Domain?
4
National Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Tackles “Dual Tracking” of Foreclosure and Loan Modification

COVID-19: Echoes Don’t Fade: Lessons Learned From the Home Affordable Modification Program for the Next Wave of Mortgage Class Action Litigation

By Brian M. Forbes and Robert W. Sparkes, III

As the country grapples with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, financial service providers should hold fast to the adage that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. The last financial crisis centered in large part on the mortgage industry, both in its inception and its slow climb to stabilization. Like the last crisis, a growing percentage of homeowners are not able to make their mortgage payments, requiring loan servicers to employ various loss mitigation tools to reduce individual’s financial hardships. While the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting nearly all sectors of the economy, the mortgage industry can look back to past experiences to help mitigate present and future risks. If past is prologue, one risk likely to increase in the coming months is class action litigation.

Read More

Mortgage Servicers: Don’t Forget ECOA’s Valuation Rule

By: Nanci L. Weissgold, Kerri M. Smith

Mortgage loan servicers are toiling away at executing all the new servicing requirements in the CFPB’s Regulation Z and Regulation X amendments by the January 10, 2014 deadline. Given this overwhelming task, it is understandable that some servicers may not be as familiar with the CFPB’s ECOA Valuation Rule amending Regulation B. The Rule, which imposes an obligation to furnish a copy of valuations to borrowers of first-lien loans and to provide notice to borrowers of this right, may apply to a servicer’s loss mitigation efforts.

Read More

Is It Illegal Under Federal Law to Opt Out Of Jurisdictions Exercising Eminent Domain?

By: Laurence E. Platt

Is a refusal to make or buy residential mortgage loans from jurisdictions that seize loans through eminent domain a federal crime or a reasoned response to excessive government intervention? That’s the question that people are asking today in light of the comments of Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom. Yesterday, he asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute those in the industry who advocate staying away from jurisdictions exercising eminent domain. Did he expect the industry instead to send thank you notes? Read More

National Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Tackles “Dual Tracking” of Foreclosure and Loan Modification

By: Stephanie C. Robinson,  Kerri M. Smith

At what point is it appropriate after a borrower defaults to initiate foreclosure proceedings? As soon as the borrower defaults? Few, if any, servicers follow this rule. During a review of loss mitigation options? During a trial modification? Servicers long have felt that the extraordinary delays in completing foreclosures based on some state laws weigh in favor of starting the foreclosure process as soon as possible. Of course, the servicer always can call off the foreclosure if the loss mitigation option succeeds, but a decision to delay the initiation of foreclosures can result in investor claims. On the other hand, borrowers who think they are in the running for a loan modification often are angry and dismayed when the foreclosure notice arrives. The national foreclosure settlement between the country’s five largest residential mortgage loan servicers and the federal government and 49 state attorneys general places a number of restrictions on the controversial but common practice of “dual tracking” foreclosures and loan modifications. Read More

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.