Entries Tagged as ''

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR HOMEOWNERS IN DANGER OF FORECLOSURE

The following article reports on an increasingly used strategy by individuals representing homeowners whose homes are in danger of foreclosure. In summary, the article addresses situations where a homeowner’s mortgage may have been sold or reassigned between several different companies and, therefore, the original mortgage note and mortgage executed by the homeowner cannot be located. If there is no evidence of a mortgage note or mortgage having been executed by the homeowner, then the bank or lending facility may have a challenge to actually prove indebtedness. The article below does provide useful information and should be considered by any homeowner facing a foreclosure action by their lender.

Dan Penning

——————————————————
From an article which originally appeared on the Consumer Warning Network website:


Homeowners’ Rallying Cry: Produce the Note

by MITCH STACY Associated Press Correspondent

ZEPHYRHILLS, Fla. (AP) — Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

And just like that, the foreclosure proceedings came to a standstill.

Lovelace and other homeowners around the country are managing to stave off foreclosure by employing a strategy that goes to the heart of the whole nationwide mess.

During the real estate frenzy of the past decade, mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors. In many cases, the original note signed by the homeowner was lost, stored away in a distant warehouse or destroyed.

Persuading a judge to compel production of hard-to-find or nonexistent documents can, at the very least, delay foreclosure, buying the homeowner some time and turning up the pressure on the lender to renegotiate the mortgage.

“I’m going to hang on for dear life until they can prove to me it belongs to them,” said Lovelace, a 50-year-old divorced mother who owns a $200,000 home in Zephyrhills, near Tampa. “I’ll try everything I can because it’s all I have left.”

In interviews with The Associated Press, lawyers, homeowners and advocates outlined the produce-the-note strategy. Exactly how many homeowners have employed it is unknown. Nor is it clear how successful it has been; some judges are more sympathetic than others.

More than 2.3 million homeowners faced foreclosure proceedings last year and millions more are in danger of losing their homes. On Wednesday, President Obama will unveil a plan to spend at least $50 billion to help homeowners fend off foreclosure.

Chris Hoyer, a Tampa lawyer whose Consumer Warning Network Web site offers the free court documents Lovelace used to file her request, has played a major role in promoting the produce-the-note strategy.

“We knew early on that the only relief that would ever come to people would be to the people who were in their houses,” Hoyer said. “Nobody was going to fashion any relief for people who have already lost their houses. So your only hope was to hang on any way you could.”

Tom Deutsch, deputy executive director of the American Securitization Forum, a group that represents banks, law firms and investors, dismissed the strategy as merely a stalling tactic, saying homeowners are “making lawyers jump through procedural hoops to delay what’s likely to be inevitable.”

Deutsch said the original note is almost always electronically retained and can eventually be found.

Judges are often willing to accept electronic documentation. And lenders are sometimes allowed to produce other paperwork to establish they are the holder of a loan. Still, assembling such documents to a judge’s satisfaction takes time, which to homeowners is the point.

Lovelace filed her produce-the-note demand last fall after the bank acknowledged that her original mortgage document had been lost or destroyed. Since then, there has been no activity on the foreclosure — no letters from the lender, no court filings.

The law firm handling the foreclosure for the lender refused to comment.

A University of Iowa study last year suggested that companies servicing mortgages are often negligent when it comes to producing the documentation to support foreclosure. In the study of more than 1,700 bankruptcy cases stemming from home foreclosures, the original note was missing more than 40 percent of the time, and other pieces of required documentation also were routinely left out.

The first big success of the produce-the-note movement came in 2007 when a federal judge in Cleveland threw out 14 foreclosures by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. because the bank failed to produce the original notes.

Michael Silver, a lawyer for two of the families in that case, said at least one eventually lost their home. Still, he considers that a success.

“From the perspective of the person who’s in the home, you may have kept them in the house another 10 or 12 months,” he said. “If I can get a result with economic benefits to a client, then I think I won.”

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio endorsed the strategy in a fiery speech on the House floor during debate on the federal bank bailout last month.

“Don’t leave your home,” she said. “Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don’t have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street.”

April Charney, head of foreclosure defense for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida, said the strategy has been so successful for her that she now travels around the country to train other lawyers in how to use it. She said she has gotten cases delayed for years by demanding that lenders produce paperwork they cannot find.

“This is an army of lawyers getting out there to stop foreclosures so we can get to the serious business of creating solutions,” Charney said. “Nothing good is going to happen as long as we continue to bleed homeowners.”
—————————————————-
Visit Consumer Warning Network for balance of article and reader comments and additional information about foreclosures and this issue.

Dan Penning
—————————————————–

Governors sip Michigan ice wine at White House – Black Star Farms Wine Makes Appearance at White House

As recently reported in the February 25 issue of the Oakland County
Legal News

Black
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN

LANSING, Mich. The sauvignon blanc was from California, the pinot noir from Oregon.

But the wine served Sunday night with dessert as the nation’s governors dined at the White House with President Barack Obama and his wife was the most unusual – a Michigan ice wine from Black Star Farms in Suttons Bay.

The frozen grapes were picked in December 2007 and crushed outside so they wouldn’t thaw. The wine was released last July and sells for $80 or more for a half bottle.

The White House paired the sweet A Capella Riesling ice wine with huckleberry cobbler with caramel ice cream.

Black Star Farms managing partner Don Coe said Monday that former President George W. Bush and his wife served the winery’s 2000 A Capella ice wine to a governors’ dinner seven years ago.

The Bushes also served the winery’s Sirius Maple dessert wine during a May 2005 Rose Garden event celebrating Cinco de Mayo. A pinot gris was served once.

“It’s always exciting,” Coe said of his wine’s White House appearances. “We’re delighted.”

Michigan Property Taxes Go Up While Property Values Go Down

February and March are important months for Michigan property owners. Michigan property owners will soon receive a Notice of Assessment in the mail from the local assessor’s office. The large letters in the top right corner will read: THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL, and thus, many property owners take a cursory glance, pleased to see that the number in the Assessed Value and State Equalized Value columns have decreased, and toss it away. When the summer property tax bill arrives several months later, the property owners realize that the property tax due has increased from the amount they paid last year. The Notice of Assessment is one of the most important documents property owners receive. It provides the various valuations used in the formula that determines the property taxes on that particular parcel of property.

Proposal A, passed in 1994, placed limits on the Taxable Value of Michigan property. Prior to Proposal A, property taxes were based on the State Equalized Value. The Michigan Constitution limits the annual increases of Taxable Value to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, and the Taxable Value cannot be greater than the State Equalized Value, which is 50% of the True Cash Value of the property. This means that the Taxable Value of your property can increase while the market value of your property decreases. The increase for 2009 property tax purposes is 4.4 percent.

The Michigan Department of Treasury website explains: “For the first decade or more after the passage of Proposal A, most property owners experienced significant and sometimes double-digit “property value” increases while their actual property taxes would increase by between 1 percent and 3 percent (rate of inflation as calculated). In fact, a Department of Treasury analysis shows that since Proposal A went into effect in 1995, home values in Michigan have increased 98.4 percent, while property taxes have only increased 42.9 percent. Unfortunately, due to various economic factors, the opposite has occurred over the last several years and will occur again in 2009. Property values may be declining (or remaining flat) while property taxes for many taxpayers will increase by 4.4 % (as long as a property’s taxable value does not exceed its state equalized value) as mandated by Proposal A.”

However, due to the fact that the Taxable Value cannot be greater than the State Equalized Value, a property owner may want to contest the Assessed Value, which multiplied by the equalization factor equals the State Equalized Value, as provided on the Notice of Assessment. The taxpayer must appeal to the March Board of Review that meets on the second Monday in March to hear and determine taxpayer complaints relating to their property valuations. The Notice of Assessment may provide a different date if the locality has set a special date for the Board of Review meeting than that provided under the state statute. A taxpayer’s appeal to the local board of review at this time is mandatory before any appeal to the Tax Tribunal.

If you have any questions or concerns related to your Notice of Assessment, or simply want an explanation of your Notice of Assessment, please contact our office.

This link provides Michigan property owners with a helpful 4 1/2 minute video and slide explanation regarding Michigan property taxes:
http://mediasite.mihealth.org/Mediasite/Viewer/Viewers/Viewer320TL.aspx?mode=Default&peid=61ddea17-2294-45e7-8bf5-d341f0b48db8&pid=da8f930d-e4fd-4327-b1a5-8168592e7caa&playerType=WM7#

1]The Notice of Assessment Form may be found at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/1019_fillable_77355_7.pdf.

Heather Brenneman Miles, Attorney
——————————————————–