8934 items (5904 unread) in 34 feeds
LEGAL DISCLAIMER:
Content contained on or made available through the Web site is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created. The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the Content is not warranted or guaranteed. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney and do not reflect those of the ABI. Your use of information on the Web site or materials linked from the Web site is at your own risk.
Here’s a good starting place for the Making Home Affordable programs, the so-called HAMP and HARP mortgage modifications or refinancing, respectivly. Go to the Making Home Affordable web site, and look up your lender to see whether they’ve signed on to participate, or look up your loan to see if it’s a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan. You can also view eligibility requirements and general information about the programs.
For the second time in a couple of weeks, the South Carolina Supreme Court has acted to support the rights of consumers. This time, the court unanimously decided in favor of the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affiairs, ruling that a Utah law firm operating as a credit counseling service in South Carolina cannot continue to offer those services without being licensed by the SCDCA.
South Carolina has one of the most stringent licensing procedures for credit counselors in the country, enacted in 2005. The Lexington Law Firm, of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued that the law’s exception for lawyers applied, and no licensing was required. The Court found, however, that the exception for lawyers was meant to apply to lawyers licensed in the state of South Carolina, and who provided credit counseling services incedental to their law practice (like a bankruptcy lawyer), not to out-of-state credit counseling services who happen to be run by lawyers.
Late Monday afternoon, the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court took the unusual step of issuing a temporary restraining order stopping foreclosure sales where the underlying mortgage is owned by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or where the lender has signed on to the Home Affordable Modification Program [HAMP], a federal mortgage modification program. The order restrains sales and, where a foreclosure sale took place on May 4, 2009, can retroactively invalidate the sale. Plaintiffs (i.e., lenders) in the affected cases must send a notice to the homeowners by May 15, 2009, indicating whether the lender believes the loan is subject to modification. If so, the foreclosure sale is stayed indefinitely until an application can be processed. If the lender’s notice indicates that the loan is not subject to modification, the homeowner or another party can file an affidavit alleging that the loan is a candidate for modification, and the foreclosure sale will be stayed until a judge can determine the matter.
If you get one of these notices, it is important to act quickly. If you’re not sure what to do next, or if you think your mortgage is subject to modification and you don’t receive a notice, contact a lawyer in your area. Don’t wait–the effective timing of this restraining order is very short. If your home is in foreclosure, it may be tempting to ignore correspondence from your lender, but this time there could actually be a bit of good news in the mail.
If you are interested, the entire order is here. sc-supreme-court-tro-may-4-20092
The mortgage modification bill, which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to force lenders to re-write mortgages in certain circumstances has been defeated by a wide margin in the Senate. The vote was 45 in favor, 51 against, making me wonder who really controls the Senate.