Strictly a thread to promote discussion, if desired. Briefly:
The newspaper story from 10/27 in the San Francisco Chronicle is about a disabled individual who had two loans with Countrywide, a mortgage loan (155K) and a home equity loan (20K). The home is valued at approximately 500K. He had about 61K of the mortgage loan paid and was current on that loan, but had not paid the 20K HEL for about a year. (The individual claims that he stopped making payments in April, when he says that he stopped receiving bills from Countrywide.) Countrywide foreclosed, and the investors who bought the house from the bank in turn re-sold the foreclosed property. The individual found out about the sale when the new owner slipped a note under his door, ordering him to move out within three days.
Countrywide had tried to contact the individual numerous times via phone and mail, with no response from the individual. He only speaks Mandarin and Cantonese, and his family claims that none of the contacts were done in those languages. It's unclear whether Countrywide knew or should have known about the language barrier. The note slipped under his door by the new owner was in Chinese and English.
I can't comment on the legal aspects of this case, although such comments by attorneys are welcome. Did Countrywide do all that it should have done before foreclosing, given the rather unique circumstances of the situation? After all, Countrywide had two loans, and the individual was current on the much larger mortgage loan. For example, should Countrywide have actually sent someone to the individual's house, instead of apparently relying solely on unaswered phone calls and letters? Countrywide has a couple of offices nearby, so a visit wouldn't have been that difficult.
Would it also have been smarter for Countrywide, especially given all the subprime problems happening now, to have taken these extra steps (or any others that you can think of) to prevent the foreclosure? Should a bank with a community presence go beyond its standard practices to serve its customers in that community? This publicity associated with this foreclosure surely can't help Countrywide's image in the community or elsewhere.
It's easy to say and true that the customer didn't meet all of his responsibilities for the loan and is responsible for the problem that resulted in the foreclosure. Despite this, can anyone make a case that Countrywide could and should have done more before foreclosing?
Like I said in the other thread, yes, foreclosure was appropriate. The borrower defaulted on a loan that where the house was the collateral, i.e. you don't pay, we take the house and pay off the loan. The borrower should not have taken out a loan in a situation where he could not communicate with the lender directly, or even read the loan documents.
What happened to do the difference between the sale price and what was owed on the loans? Did Countrywide get to keep that?
No the artcile left out how much the house sold for at the foreclosure sale.
The homeowner had to be paid the excess after loans and fees were paid. So he likely got a coupel hundred thousand dollar check. That part of the story was left out.
Personally I dont think he should get a break for not being able to read English. He knew full well he had a 2nd mortgage for $20k and hadnt been paying it
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 10:45a
therivler1 said: Like I said in the other thread, yes, foreclosure was appropriate. The borrower defaulted on a loan that where the house was the collateral, i.e. you don't pay, we take the house and pay off the loan. The borrower should not have taken out a loan in a situation where he could not communicate with the lender directly, or even read the loan documents.
What happened to do the difference between the sale price and what was owed on the loans? Did Countrywide get to keep that? Thanks for your response. I don't know the answer to the question, and would be interested in knowing. If the bank in fact kept the money, would it make any difference?
To all:
I just wanted to put this thread out here if anyone wanted to discuss the topic. Personally, I'm more interested in the responses than trying to argue it one way or the other, beyond my initial statement. If I do come up with some other ideas though or find out additional information, I'll certainly mention them/it!!
There is no way Countrywide could keep the excess, its unfortunate they didnt mention the foreclosure sales price, and the excess paid to the homeowner. Misleads a lot of readers who do not understand the foreclosure process.
It probably would have been a better business decision (and MUCH better PR decision) for Countrywide to try some "personal outreach" instead of just sending unclaimed certified letters. But with the # of homes in default, its not only impractical, such persons might face the wrong end of a gun if making a personal visit (espec in Oakland)
glxpass said: Countrywide had tried to contact the individual numerous times via phone and mail, with no response from the individual. He only speaks Mandarin and Cantonese, and his family claims that none of the contacts were done in those languages. It's unclear whether Countrywide knew or should have known about the language barrier. When you get your house foreclosed on, if it's worth anything at all, you get over a dozen nasty-looking notices from the bank, and you will get several hundred contact attempts from the pre-foreclosure vultures.
I'm certain that this guy got several hundred notices that his home was being foreclosed upon. It didn't occur to the guy, when his mail volume started picking up to dozens of pieces per day, that maybe he should ask someone who can read English what the heck was going on?
ThursdaysChild
Missed.
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 10:58a
This article will give a big boost to those in California government who want all loan documents to be printed (or at least available) in 5 languages. I assume one of the Chinese languages would be among the five.
I'm certain that this guy got several hundred notices that his home was being foreclosed upon. It didn't occur to the guy, when his mail volume started picking up to dozens of pieces per day, that maybe he should ask someone who can read English what the heck was going on?He did. I saw this guy on TV, they showed his stack of junk mail and UNCLAIMED CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICES from the post office.
He said that his relatives told him to ignore junk mail and he thought the USPS notices were for more junk mail.
ThursdaysChild said: This article will give a big boost to those in California government who want all loan documents to be printed (or at least available) in 5 languages. I assume one of the Chinese languages would be among the five. I am a bleeding heart liberal, but even I think that is absurd.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: He said that his relatives told him to ignore junk mail and he thought the USPS notices were for more junk mail.Flicking excuse and we all know it. This thread is a waste of bandwidth.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: He said that his relatives told him to ignore junk mail and he thought the USPS notices were for more junk mail.I've lived in a non-English-speaking country before, and I'm trying to muster up some sympathy for this guy, I really am.
If the guy ended up with a 200k check after 100k debt paid off, then 'fees' were about $150,000 if the house sold for 10% below market value.
I don't know how much of that $150,000 went to CW, but it certainly makes the proposition of foreclosure from the mortgage company's standpoint a much easier, in fact profitable, decision. I don't find much sympathy for the homeowner, but the system should not encourage foreclosure, regulatory demands aside.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 11:56a
From the article:
"Two Alameda companies, Greater Alameda Foreclosure Investments and Golden State Foreclosures Investment, paid $190,300 for the house at the foreclosure auction. That bid paid off the $20,000 home equity debt; they still need to pay off the $94,000 first mortgage to have clear title."
I think that answers the foreclosure price question, correct? I wouldn't think any subsequent re-sale of the house would matter for reimbursement purposes.
I have to admit it's hard to believe the guy would have just ignored all the notices without questioning them. I did get the impression that his Parkinson's may have had some effect on his mental state. It's even harder to believe that he would knowingly have put himself into the situation of losing his house. Remember, he was current on the primary loan. I'm pretty sure more is happening here than the story is relating.
Personally, I don't find it hard to sympathize with him, although that's not the same as saying there should be no penalties involved. I just don't think, however justified it was legally, a penalty like this was the best solution to the problem.
the "system" did not encourage foreclosure. Countrywide mad deozens of attemmpts to contact the borrower for months on end. If someone ignores their lender and their loan (which they KNEW they owed) for months, the remedy is to foreclose.
Countrywide had nothing to do with the low sale price, or the investors desire to gouge the homeowner by offering his own home back to him for $500k
I find it odd that he didn't understand any of the letters from the bank, but he understood the note from the new owner of the home that told him to get out.
The homeowner borrowed the money and then didn't pay it back. If he did not know that this would (and will always) result in foreclosure, well, he knows now.
soundtechie said: I find it odd that he didn't understand any of the letters from the bank, but he understood the note from the new owner of the home that told him to get out.
The homeowner borrowed the money and then didn't pay it back. If he did not know that this would (and will always) result in foreclosure, well, he knows now.
Did you even read the article??
"That note was the first Chinese-language communication Lin's family says he has received about the home's sale. He speaks only Cantonese and Mandarin."
glxpass said: Personally, I don't find it hard to sympathize with him, although that's not the same as saying there should be no penalties involved. I just don't think, however justified it was legally, a penalty like this was the best solution to the problem.Ok, what do you think Countrywide should have done?
SUCKISSTAPLES said: Home visit or Chinese language notice Yep, both would have been better. Had they occurred, especially the visit, I doubt that there would have been a foreclosure.
This story smells a little fishy to me. The guy was able to buy a house and get a first mortgage, he was able to sign up for a HELOC. He must have used friends or relatives to fill out all the paperwork. Also he claimed that starting April he did not receive any Countrywide bills anymore so he must have read and gotten those before. All the Chinese I know are pretty business savy and all of them have somebody that can read or translate for them either in their family or friends. Also obviously he must have a legal US visa, being a permanent resident or US citizen. I don't think that any communication has to be in Mandarin, English is sufficient.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 3:19p
Earlier articles which overlap San Francisco Chronicle's 10/27 article, but which contain some additional information.
"State law does say, if a loan was negotiated in one of five foreign languages -- Chinese being one -- all loan documents must be sent to the homeowner in that language. Unfortunately, it's not clear if that law applies when a family member negotiates that loan for you in English, as was the case here."
Added links to Quick Summary.
WalStMonky
Happy Member
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 3:20p
So the person doing the home visit would have to be able to speak Mandarin or Cantonese.
GermanExpat said: This story smells a little fishy to me. The guy was able to buy a house and get a first mortgage, he was able to sign up for a HELOC. He must have used friends or relatives to fill out all the paperwork.
The article says the guys wife left him in 2005. Perhaps she was fluent in english.
WalStMonky said: So the person doing the home visit would have to be able to speak Mandarin or Cantonese.
No, he'd just have to recognize that whatever the guy was speaking wasn't English. It can probably all be figured out from there.
CycloneFW
Senior Member
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 5:08p
LordKronos said: GermanExpat said: This story smells a little fishy to me. The guy was able to buy a house and get a first mortgage, he was able to sign up for a HELOC. He must have used friends or relatives to fill out all the paperwork.
The article says the guys wife left him in 2005. Perhaps she was fluent in english.
There are two good points. If his wife was doing the reading for him before, I can understand how he did not realize what the notices were telling him. I can also go out far enough to believe his condition could have affected his mental ability to keep track of the mortgage payments. However, it seems a far stretch to me that since she left him in 2005 that he has no one helping him out and reading stuff for him. How does he handle his other bills like power, water, gas, property taxes, income taxes, bank statements? This is where I think we are definitely missing something here. How can someone keep up with all these other things, but not this one mortgage.
On the other hand, Countrywide (if they looked) could see the guy was current on his biggie mortgage and either a) they were sending him the bill each month, or b) he kept track of that mortgage. It is not a far stretch for them to take an additional step of maybe accelerating his first mortgage or tack on some old payments to his escrow acct. One would hope he would notice the first mortgage's pmts suddenly change (or a full bill).
CycloneFW said: It is not a far stretch for them to take an additional step of maybe accelerating his first mortgage or tack on some old payments to his escrow acct. One would hope he would notice the first mortgage's pmts suddenly change (or a full bill).
I suspect doing something like that would probably be in violation of some regulation.
I have only sighlty more than zero sympathy for this guy, and that's based only on my humanity, not the facts. I've spent a lot of time in Asia, including some in China. By the way, I don't speak more than a few words of Chinese. I wouldn't think of entering into such complex financial transactions as buying a house, taking out a HELOC, etc. in another country without making sure to my satisfaction that I had all of the documents translated properly and I understood them fully. Even then, I would be very careful. You can't come to another country, not learn the language in which all financial transactions take place, then complain that you got burned by the process. Foreclosure isn't a trivial process, and you can bet that the lender followed the procedures to the letter of the law. This is about the only country that I know where people will actually feel sorry for this guy. Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but he should have a) learned English b) found someone trustworthy to translate his mail and handle his affairs or c) moved back to a country where they speak his language.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: the "system" did not encourage foreclosure. Countrywide mad deozens of attemmpts to contact the borrower for months on end. If someone ignores their lender and their loan (which they KNEW they owed) for months, the remedy is to foreclose.Good faith gestures as required by law is different than CW figuring out why payments have stopped, and trying to get the customer paying again.
As I said in my earlier post, if CW is grabbing nice fees during foreclosure they will stay within the letter of the law, but not more than required. That would be a system problem, due to ability to profit from fees. Again, I'm not trying to defend the fellow here, only pointing out that pursuing foreclosure may add to CW's bottom line more than a loan paid according to termss, even though on the face of things they are limited to recovering debt owed.
We don't have to look farther than how CW reaches out to its customers with devalued property, compared to how this fellow was handled who had lots of home equity.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: I saw this guy on TV, they showed his stack of junk mail and UNCLAIMED CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICES from the post office.
Could he argue that he was not properly served?
My POS ex-landlord never claimed the certified mail notice that I sent her regarding her unlawful withholding of part of my security deposit. She lives in the Bay area, and the property I rented is in the Chicago area, so it's going to be a pain to serve her and her husband.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 7:50p
It's certainly understandable for one to say that this guy showed poor judgment, that steps should have been taken so the foreclosure situation would never have arisen, that one would never have done what this person did. Possibly true, but to me the interesting point is that with a little extra effort on the part of Countrywide, I think the foreclosure would never have happened. Just a guess, but I think Countrywide would rather have continued to make money off the loans than to go the foreclosure route and get relatively little from the auction compared with the value of the house.
The comment "This is about the only country that I know where people will actually feel sorry for this guy." actually strikes me as a good thing, regardless of "the only country" part. It's ironic to me that if Countrywide had turned whatever sympathy it may have had (or at least its sense of enlightened self-interest) into a more proactive form of action that might have prevented the foreclosure, Countrywide may have done better for itself that it has. Yes, I recognize that there are limits to one's generosity, but I think there's a certain leeway that could have happened here that would have been to everyone's financial benefit.
I'll finish with the thought that trying to look beyond the surface facts of a problem and trying to come up with a solution that takes as much of those other factors as (legally) possible into consideration, might yield (pun unintended!) a better financial result than taking what seems to be the most expedient course. End of ramblings, end of speech.
I think we all agree that a bit more personal outreach than the phone calls and letters might have prevented the foreclosure in this situation, but what about the 1000 other homes Countrywide has in default in Oakland? Are they going to hire teams of "home visitors" to see whats wrong with all these people too? Like I said in my earlier quote below, its generally not practical.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: It probably would have been a better business decision (and MUCH better PR decision) for Countrywide to try some "personal outreach" instead of just sending unclaimed certified letters. But with the # of homes in default, its not only impractical, such persons might face the wrong end of a gun if making a personal visit (espec in Oakland)
BTW I dont think Countrywide intentionally "chose to do the minimum" and concentrate only on foreclosure in order to pocket foreclosure fees.
Interestingly enough, I just got an email from HSBC offering a car loan. One of the terms and condidtions is "At this time, we are not able to approve and finalize loans for customers unable to conduct business in English."
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 8:30p
SUCKISSTAPLES said: I think we all agree that a bit more personal outreach than the phone calls and letters might have prevented the foreclosure in this situation, but what about the 1000 other homes Countrywide has in default in Oakland? Are they going to hire teams of "home visitors" to see whats wrong with all these people too? Like I said in my earlier quote below, its generally not practical.
SUCKISSTAPLES said: It probably would have been a better business decision (and MUCH better PR decision) for Countrywide to try some "personal outreach" instead of just sending unclaimed certified letters. But with the # of homes in default, its not only impractical, such persons might face the wrong end of a gun if making a personal visit (espec in Oakland)
BTW I dont think Countrywide intentionally "chose to do the minimum" and concentrate only on foreclosure in order to pocket foreclosure fees. Not arguing about their intent; I agree with your opinion on that. "Generally not practical" depends on the situation, doesn't it? In this person's case, as was pointed out in one of the articles and by a poster here, a credit report would have revealed that the person was current on the larger mortgage loan. If in fact he appears not to be a deadbeat, but something else is going on, don't you think this is precisely the type of loan where a relatively small amount of additional effort would have been more than repaid? Much more preferable to the bank than the typical subprime situation, I'd think. And they could have publicized the extra effort they took as well! They wouldn't have even had to pay for advertising.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about borrowers having the mistaken impression that as long as they continue to pay their 1st mortgage, the 2nd mortgage holder cannot foreclose on them. This is an urban myth that has been around for generations and I have heard this from plenty of people out there, including some loan officers. As such, the lenders are almost never surprised to discover that their second mortgage is in default while the first mortgage is current and such a discovery does not and should not give them any pause over initiating enforcement action against the defaulting borrower.
The same is also true for "sudden death" scenarios, where borrowers with otherwise stellar payment history suddenly default on all or some of their obligations. A certain percentage of borrowers have been doing this for years and, after several months of telephone calls and letters to the borrower, the lenders have no choice but to take enforcement actions.
By the way, I don't mean to attack posters here who are clamoring for a "more humane" approach by lenders. I can tell you, however, that people are always quick to admonition the "big, bad lenders" over their "draconian enforcement policies." Those same people later complain when the cost of credit goes up as a result of lenders adopting some of their suggestions and passing on the costs thereof to the borrowers. As I and many others before me have already explained above, there was absolutely nothing atypical or unusual about the borrower's behavior in this case, so there was absolutely no reason for the lender to suspect that it was dealing with a situation different from a standard "sudden death" default situation. Defaults are INCREDIBLY costly for the lenders and the costs thereof are always passed on to the otherwise solvent borrowers. If the lenders out there were to start investigating these "sudden death" types of defaults, not only would their efforts be absolutely futile in almost every single situation, but the lenders' shareholders and the borrowers alike would be complaining about "wasteful enforcement actions" that are costing them money in the form of increased credit costs.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 10:34p
geo123 said: There is absolutely nothing unusual about borrowers having the mistaken impression that as long as they continue to pay their 1st mortgage, the 2nd mortgage holder cannot foreclose on them. This is an urban myth that has been around for generations and I have heard this from plenty of people out there, including some loan officers. As such, the lenders are almost never surprised to discover that their second mortgage is in default while the first mortgage is current and such a discovery does not and should not give them any pause over initiating enforcement action against the defaulting borrower.
The same is also true for "sudden death" scenarios, where borrowers with otherwise stellar payment history suddenly default on all or some of their obligations. A certain percentage of borrowers have been doing this for years and, after several months of telephone calls and letters to the borrower, the lenders have no choice but to take enforcement actions.
By the way, I don't mean to attack posters here who are clamoring for a "more humane" approach by lenders. I can tell you, however, that people are always quick to admonition the "big, bad lenders" over their "draconian enforcement policies." Those same people later complain when the cost of credit goes up as a result of lenders adopting some of their suggestions and passing on the costs thereof to the borrowers. As I and many others before me have already explained above, there was absolutely nothing atypical or unusual about the borrower's behavior in this case, so there was absolutely no reason for the lender to suspect that it was dealing with a situation different from a standard "sudden death" default situation. Defaults are INCREDIBLY costly for the lenders and the costs thereof are always passed on to the otherwise solvent borrowers. If the lenders out there were to start investigating these "sudden death" types of defaults, not only would there efforts be absolutely futile in almost every single situation, but the lenders' shareholders and the borrowers alike would be complaining about "wasteful enforcement actions" that are costing them money in the form of increased credit costs. Could you please tell me what you mean by the term "enforcement action", specifcally "initiating enforcement action" in the first paragraph, "take enforcement actions" in the second paragraph, and "wasteful enforcement actions" in the third paragraph? Thanks!
aeiouy
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Oct. 29, 2007 @ 10:46p
It is dumb that the law does not require all legal contracts in the US to be in English.
i bet every foreclosure has a sob story behind it--divorce, illness, layoff, tricked by teaser loan, and the list goes on. he's just another statistic. plus the article is supposed to evoke sympathy and doesn't contain all the details.
on a side topic, my dad actually knows the investor who bought the property pretty well. he runs an REIT with millions of investment dollars. i tried to get my dad to get a statement from him, but he didn't say anything about it. i don't think he'll sell the house back at a discount. it's all business to him.
glxpass said: geo123 said: There is absolutely nothing unusual about borrowers having the mistaken impression that as long as they continue to pay their 1st mortgage, the 2nd mortgage holder cannot foreclose on them. This is an urban myth that has been around for generations and I have heard this from plenty of people out there, including some loan officers. As such, the lenders are almost never surprised to discover that their second mortgage is in default while the first mortgage is current and such a discovery does not and should not give them any pause over initiating enforcement action against the defaulting borrower.
The same is also true for "sudden death" scenarios, where borrowers with otherwise stellar payment history suddenly default on all or some of their obligations. A certain percentage of borrowers have been doing this for years and, after several months of telephone calls and letters to the borrower, the lenders have no choice but to take enforcement actions.
By the way, I don't mean to attack posters here who are clamoring for a "more humane" approach by lenders. I can tell you, however, that people are always quick to admonition the "big, bad lenders" over their "draconian enforcement policies." Those same people later complain when the cost of credit goes up as a result of lenders adopting some of their suggestions and passing on the costs thereof to the borrowers. As I and many others before me have already explained above, there was absolutely nothing atypical or unusual about the borrower's behavior in this case, so there was absolutely no reason for the lender to suspect that it was dealing with a situation different from a standard "sudden death" default situation. Defaults are INCREDIBLY costly for the lenders and the costs thereof are always passed on to the otherwise solvent borrowers. If the lenders out there were to start investigating these "sudden death" types of defaults, not only would there efforts be absolutely futile in almost every single situation, but the lenders' shareholders and the borrowers alike would be complaining about "wasteful enforcement actions" that are costing them money in the form of increased credit costs. Could you please tell me what you mean by the term "enforcement action", specifcally "initiating enforcement action" in the first paragraph, "take enforcement actions" in the second paragraph, and "wasteful enforcement actions" in the third paragraph? Thanks!In this context an enforcement action is any affirmative, proactive action taken by a lender, such as accelerating the debt, foreclosing on the collateral, obtaining a judgment, etc... In other words, it is going beyond just letting the computer system tack on a late fee to the statement and sending it out.
As for "wasteful enforcement action," people often call it that when the enforcement costs are destined to not only exceed the potential recovery but are also highly unlikely to even create a difference in the vast majority of defaults out there. For instance, the scenario that you described in the OP is obviously rather unique and is highly unlikely to repeat itself with any frequency. If lenders, however, substantially increase their staff to allow them to conduct extensive investigations in these "sudden death" types of defaults, their enforcement costs would increase rather dramatically without producing virtually any benefits. The increase in enforcement costs would then be passed on to the borrowers in the form of higher interests rates and increased costs and fees, giving rise to complaints over "wasteful enforcement actions" driving up the costs of credit.
glxpass
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Oct. 30, 2007 @ 9:10a
geo123, thanks very much for your follow-up. It made things in your initial post and some of the other posts clearer to me. This probably goes beyond the scope of this thread, and I certainly don't have any expertise in this matter as you seem to, but I wonder if lenders have any different sort of template for handling the situations you mention where it appears that the person might be able to repay their loan, as opposed to situations where it appears that the person has little chance of doing so. Of course, I'm sure there are legal requirements for consistent procedures, but is there any way that a low cost consistent set of procedures could be developed that would identify situations where the lender would have a greater chance of getting borrowers to repay their loans? For example, if it's not already being done, would getting a credit report and trying to verify income drive up costs a lot? If the information doesn't reveal any clear reason why the person isn't repaying their loan, could and should the lender try to investigate the situation more deeply?
If, as you stated earlier, there are misconceptions about not paying the seond loan and not losing one's house as long as one doesn't default on the main loan, and that this misonception is fairly common, would it be possible to come up with different methods in order to try to avoid the misconception in the first place, or do you think most of the people with the misconception and not paying their second loan simply can't afford to do so?
I suppose at least some of the above falls under the sudden death situations regarding people with "stellar credit." Again, for others with excellent credit who aren't paying their loan, is it worthwhile to further investigate those situations and try to come up with something better and less costly than foreclosure?
As I indicated before, it's a very tricky area, at least to me, but I think the real question is: Is the way enforcement actions are currently done the best way? Like I said, I wish I knew! Thanks again for your replies. And thanks to everyone who has contributed to this topic. I'm always looking to learn more about these kind of situations; as geo123 says, ultimately the costs get passed on to us.
civ2k1 said: I'm actually disappointed that the transaction was unraveled. I suppose in this one circumstance it's a nice, human thing to do...but: I just hope that people don't start getting the idea that any sob story will result in unraveling their own foreclosure.
As others pointed out, I find it hard to believe that all the phone calls and certified mail weren't enough. On top of that, once the NOD is filed, all sorts of sharks will circle and start visiting the house, leave personal notes, etc in an effort to get their hands on the house before it goes for public auction. I REALLY doubt the homeowner had NO clue.
in one instance like this it's easy to do. if there are a lot of foreclosures the media won't make a big deal about every single one and no one else will care so the bank will enforce the loan
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
