EverBank failed to comply with HUD Face-to-Face Requirements

Livinglies's Weblog

EverBank failed to comply with a condition precedent to foreclosure, imposed by HUD regulations, requiring that in the event of payment default, the mortgagee have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to do so. 
This was a Massachussets Appeal Court case entitled Everbank v. Chacon, that was originally filed in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy court.

The regulation reads, “[t]he mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting,” before commencing foreclosure proceedings or acquiring title to the property. 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b) (2016). See 24 C.F.R.§ 203.500 (2016).

The purpose of a face-to-face interview is to discuss  the possibility of a repayment plan, modification of the mortgage, or other measures that may avoid the need for foreclosure and allow the mortgagor to remain in his or her residence and repay…

View original post 22 more words


NJ Supreme Court: If Borrower Abides By Terms Of Settlement Agreement, Lender Must Modify Mortgage

As with any of these cases where a defunct originator is noted, it brings to mind Kuehlman v. Bank of America, NA, 177 So. 3d 1282 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2015 where the court in its decision plainly stated: “Lender’s “investor” (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac), which was not a party to the contracts, instructed Lender to “pull the plug on” (or “not accept”) the modification.”

More than likely, as Fannie is now (since the bailout) the “financial agent for the United States of America,” and it appears the GSEs are feeding the Treasury with the foreclosure (and insurance?) funds used to prop up Obamacare, Fannie may well be the concealed real party in interest in most cases – and pulling the strings in all aspects of modification and foreclosure.

Attorneys have been asserting and ascertaining Fannie’s real role through motions and discovery which has made for a sticky wicket in Plaintiff’s ballpark.

Livinglies's Weblog

BlogPete’s Take
USA August 1 2017

Lawsuits arising out of foreclosures and mortgage modifications are common. (Even more common than lawsuits about gyms or health clubs if you can believe that.) Nearly every day there is a decision from the Appellate Division arising out of a residential foreclosure. Most of these fall into the same category — borrower defaults and loses home through foreclosure then challenges lender’s standing to foreclose after the fact — but some are more interesting. That was the case with GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Willoughby, a decision released yesterday by the New Jersey Supreme Court involving a mortgage modification agreement entered into to settle a foreclosure lawsuit.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a post about Arias v. Elite Mortgage, a lawsuit over the alleged breach of a mortgage modification agreements. In that case, borrowers entered into…

View original post 944 more words