Foreclosures The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Join me for an interview with Cathy Kantrowitz, President of the New York Mortgage Bankers Association and Assistant VP Residential Underwriting Manager with Rhinebeck Bank. This Act passed through the Senate and is now before the Governor.
For.the latest issue of the newsletter I publish, The Brick, visit: linktr.ee/huds...
Are you looking for a solid real estate partner to skillfully advise through a transaction? Is your focus to sell with interest in what your home is worth? If you would like to align with a solid realtor that keeps an expert pulse on the market, contact Sandi:
Sandra "Sandi" Park
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Global Luxury Specialist
Senior Transition Partner
spark@hudsonvalleynest.com
IG: hudsonvalleynest
#foreclosure #foreclosures #housing #nyrealestate #nyrealtor #hudsonvalleyrealtor
FYI This bill was signed by Governor Hochul on December 30, 2022. It is now in full effect in NY State.
Thanks for updating.
Thank god😊
I’m 70 years old, and am an intended victim of a mortgage servicer scam. This law, if signed, will end a 12-year battle allowing me to keep my home.
The only cases that this bill will aid for defendants are legacy cases that refuse to die and were filed during the mortgage crisis and shortly thereafter. New cases will not be affected because the banks’, and servicers’, acts have massively cleaned up. This case will hurt the “bad actors” of the prior period. Standing is no longer an issue; the lenders and their attorneys are on notice how to file in such a way that they have, and can prove if challenged, their standing to sue (a- Attach a copy of the Note to the Complaint when filed; b- have available proof of transfer or assignment of said Note, if not endorsed to them).
Two basic principles are unchanged in the “new” bill: 1) if the homeowner makes a payment, the statute of limitations (SOL) resets. 2) If the bank or servicer and the homeowner make a stipulation as part of a proposed modification, the SOL will reset. What the bill stops in its tracks is a lender UNILATERALLY taking an action that allows a reset.
If we have a new wave of foreclosures, it will be far more professional and orderly than the last one. It should NEVER take six years to bring a legitimate foreclosure to the point of sale at auction or one of the mitigation solutions (modification, short sale etc.)
This bill will help multitudes more people than it will hurt.
You should change your point of view and please send my comment to Ms. Kantrowitz who needs to better understand what she thinks she's fighting against. Thanks for listening...
Exactly, from my reading it seems to make the banks behave like any other lender by making them abide to the six year statute of limitations.
It takes away the power for them to
Be able to recommence a foreclosure
Hi. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. New York and New Jersey are the longest process states in the country as far as I am aware with foreclosure processing. There are states that conclude in 90 days versus up to six years in New York. There does appear a flip side where individuals and families have been spared foreclosure by having time to negotiate with their lender and in certain instances having a change in circumstance that allowed them to keep their home and avoid foreclosure that May not have been an option in states with much quicker processing windows. However, there is ultimate accountability which my layman’s understanding of the Statute of Limitations inherently provides to keep from from lingering in a state of suspension. I suggest speaking with a lawyer if you have not already as my layman’s understanding is this Statute enforcement may protect you from foreclosure due to its retroactive nature and the span of processing time you noted well past enforcement per the Statute. I am not an attorney, but I would definitely speak with one that specializes in foreclosure if I were you if you haven’t already.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest a mortgage lender can complete a foreclosure action in under 3 years if they only do it right. And perhaps the legistlator already dealt with all issues many decades ago when they gave lenders a very long limitations period, just in case they hit some unforeseen bumps in the road along the way.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest, Trust me, this case is in 12 years of litigation; not only am I counseled by a great attorney but I am a paralegal who WORKS for that attorney. I wrote the papers, including a trip to the Appellate Division, and I stand by what I say: A PROPERLY FILED FORECLOSURE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS BILL.
A case filed by summons and complaint with a copy of the Note attached will survive a claim of no standing (unless the Defendant can pull a huge rabbit out of a hat, and then the Plaintiff can swiftly re-file and succeed). This was not the case during the 2008-2012 (approx. dates) debacle when the most prolific law firm in the industry, Steven J. Baum P.C., filed tens of thousands of cases carelessly not following the rules; Mr. Baum's firm was dissolved in 2012 and he paid millions of dollars to state and federal authorities. He left a wake of cases, many if not most of which went to successful foreclosure due to the inaction of the defendants.
The remaining cases, such as my own, where the action remains along with the plaintiff's assertion that it had standing, may be affected by this bill. From the bill jacket (notes from the sponsors of the legislation):
"At best, judicial condonation of this conduct allows a litigant to avoid the consequences of its own lack of diligence. At worst, judicial condonation of this conduct permits a litigant to avoid sanction for its affirmative misrepresentation to the court that it had standing to maintain an action".
@@beatricerights they can recommence again if the 6 years didn’t expire yet
Cathrine, the sole purpose of unilateral revocation by the lender is only to manipulate the statute of limitations, it serves no other legitimate reasons. In real life it does not help the homeowner whatsoever in any way shape or form, just the opposite, it deprives the homeowners of their best defense, de-acceleration is a fancy word for manipulation. Current laws on the books make clear that no litigant has the right to extend the limitations period, see CPLR 201, (and CPLR 205a, a discontinuance does not offer the plaintiff the 6 month extension).
This new legislation won’t be the first time in history that the legislators clarify laws that have been on the books for centuries. In no other area of law do neglectful plaintiffs get to play these sort of games in court. To me this is basic ABC
I have reviewed thousands of foreclosure actions, in all the cases where I found mortgage lenders ran into issues with the expiration of the statute of limitations it was always their own fault and clearly avoidable had they not been so negligent.
Lesson: Don’t snooze if you don’t want to lose
“Snooze you lose” does seem a succinct encapsulation of the SOL
The foreclosure bill is merely clarifying old law on the books for many decades, that no one gets to fiddle around and manipulate the statute of limitations, especially not litigants that simply slept at the wheel such as mortgage servicers and their lawyers. The rule of “you snooze you lose” applies to all litigants equally. The reason the bill passed the senate and assembly so fast and so strong is because it’s just common sense and the right thing to do.
Opponents have nothing to say on the actual merits of the bill, all they can do is twist the facts and say “it will hurt homeowners”, not sure how giving mortgage lenders a free pass to drag out a distressed homeowner for decades is hurtful to consumers.
The Statute of Limitations is in place for a reason. Enforcement of this Statute increases accountability across the board, IMHO.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest
Once a limitation period can be manipulated unilaterally by anyone it essentially becomes a mockery. See CPLR 201, no court or plaintiff has the power to extend the statute of limitations for themselves. Mortgage lenders already get one of the longest limitations, all they need to do it file and pursue their foreclosure actions in a timely manner and follow the rules like we expect from everyone else in a court of law. Unilateral de-acceleration is noting more than a stupid trick to reset the clock, there is no basis in law for anyone to play these tricks with homeowners in distress. What the high court ruled in Engel that when a mortgage lender discontinues a foreclosure action for any reason it magically stops the clock from running even if the borrower has no idea what the heck is going on or what the lender is expecting from them was either corrupt or stupid or both, the legislator is doing the right thing by clarifying that no one gets to act this way in a court of law.
Dear mortgage lenders, Follow rules, follow law, act timely, don’t neglect your lawsuits, so you will never run into these issues with the expiration of the statute of limitations in the future.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest, thanks for that. I doubt your friend Cathy Kantrowitz would agree with your statement above (but I certainly do).
An examination of the time frame in my own case might be instructive: Steven J Baum filed against me in July 2010. We answered timely. His firm had to be replaced (new firm was on board until 2019) and the first Motion for Summary Judgment attempt was not until Feb. 2013. They lost (didn't prove standing) in May 2013. In Feb. 2014, they filed a Motion to Renew and Reargue. They lost in June 2014. In Feb. 2015, they filed to discontinue the case and were denied in March 2015.
In June 2017 they filed a new Summary Judgment motion and won, but we appealed, and we won the appeal. The case is still moving forward. It has now gone through two additional law firms, a total of five servicers, the Note has had at least four owners, two of which, MTGLQ Investors Inc. and the current Kondaur Capital Corporation, are in business solely to acquire (and either rehabilitate or, more likely, foreclose on) non-performing mortgage debt. Do YOU have a problem with these people losing some of their investment? They took a chance and on loans where they CAN foreclose (they likely own loans in the forty-nine states that do not have the new law) they will make a fortune.
I won't detail further except to comment that the SOL expired on July 1, 2016. The delay and inaction in this was 100% law firm and/or client inaction. There are years-long gaps prior to the SOL expire date. The court, in Bronx County, NY, acted with utmost speed. WHY should the ultimate debt buyer in this case get a huge windfall? THEY DON'T DESERVE IT.
@@ljaygould There is no doubt this is controversial with varied perspectives. At the end of the day, what is enforced by law is what will be.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest Sorry to keep rolling on this...but here are some practical numbers. The debt buying industry will be hurt by this (it won't put them out of business). BUT my $630,000 mortgage with a $619,000 unpaid balance was likely bought by Kondaur for 10 cents on the dollar ($62,000), based on estimate from an experienced banking consultant I spoke with (they were the SECOND debt buyer, after MTGLQ Investors, to buy the note downstream). Their recent offer was to cut my actual contractual debt ($1.2 million) in half to $570,000. If I wanted to exercise that offer, I could sell the 3-family Bronx house, now worth around $900,000, and walk away with a significant amount of cash. BUT LOOK WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE MADE: a killing of $570,000 - $62,000, and they even stopped paying my insurance and taxes starting last October. And I LIKE living in my house. My income is the rental from the upstairs apartments. I want, one day (hopefully not too soon) to DIE in this house.
There are plenty of cases, even in NY State, which don't fall under the FAPA rules and on which they can easily foreclose. I want this law to go through and the people who benefitted from the crisis of 2008 and after - INCLUDING the debt buyers - to pay the price.
When a lender accelerates a loan and has a foreclosure action pending for more than 2-3-4 years and the lender decides after a few years to discontinue and to revoke the acceleration, the average homeowner can no longer make monthly payments anyway because it’s simply not affordable any longer. The lenders are not truly giving the homeowner a real opportunity to start making monthly payments without first paying up all interest and arrears, which is virtually impossible for any struggling homeowner. I have seen many revocation notices that say we are reinstating the mortgage into a monthly installment loan…. but in the next paragraph it says you are still in default, how in the world is the borrower still in default if the loan is reinstated back into a monthly installment loan???. I also don’t believe the mortgage documents have any provision that says the lender has the unilateral right to revoke an acceleration after they accelerated, this is actually the main question the court has not ruled on yet. From the thousands of foreclosure actions and discontinuance I have reviewed, the lender made clear they were discontinuing the action due to a specific defect that had nothing to do with revocation.
So it seems for homeowners desiring to get back on track they were basically trapped by lender processes.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest correct, once the lender accelerates a mortgage and leaves the mortgage in accelerated-mode for more than 2 or 3 years while they drag their feet in court it does not help the homeowner if the lender decides to de-accelerate, because at the point de-acceleration is virtually meaningless and impossible to the homeowner, since the lender will only take the borrower out of default-status if they first pay up the 2-3 years of arrears and fees, which most people cannot come up with at that point.
The exercise of a one sided de-acceleration by the lender only benefits the lenders because they get to reset the clock. The lenders keep on saying “de-acceleration somehow is helpful to the homeowners because it gives the homeowners a fresh opportunity to start making monthly payments once again, however, that is one big lie and sham”, it does nothing of the sort.
Mortgage lenders surely have the right to accelerate and foreclose when there is a default, but they should not have the right to manipulate the process and play dirty games.
@@song9119 I can’t get my hands around what benefit it is to the lender to drag the process out tho..? If it puts homeowners in almost surely a position of default, what’s the banks motivation for that? Then banks have to move a house in foreclosure. Wouldn’t it be more advantageous to a bank to help get a homeowner back on track or expedite foreclosure if that’s not in the cards? Time does not seem the banks friend in the scheme of things by delaying the process..? There are homeowners that I’m sure want to get back on track and keep their homes. I have to believe there are also a subset of homeowners that play into the system and leverage the drag in time to maintain housing without paying the mortgage, no? Trying to understand the totality of this from different perspectives.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest the lenders are their lawyers simply don’t care. The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. By allowing them to extend the statute of limitations for themselves only causes more dysfunction and more careless conduct
From the many thousands of foreclosure cases as well as other lawsuits I have reviewed I strongly believe that when one misses the statute of limitations it is always the plaintiffs own doing due to their negligence. Mortgage servicers are not out of luck in such cases, they can easily sue their lawyers for malpractice.
These people are simply in the dark about what’s really happening in the foreclosure industry, or simply not being honest about this topic
Hi. The banks are indeed not happy about it, but there are homeowners that have not been happy with the process extending well past the statute of limitations in certain instances, either. There are arguments on both sides of the fence, but at the end of the day, the statute of limitations was put in place for a reason.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest I haven’t see any legitimate argument as to why mortgage lenders should get rewarded by giving them permission to extend the SOL, especially when they brought all these problems upon themselves by being negligent. I have seen some egregious cases that are hair raising. I saw a case where the mortgage lender filed a total of 5 separate foreclosure actions on the same house just to keep on discontinuing them for no valid reason, in the last action they moved the default date forward by a few years that no one should pick up that the action was time barred.
In cases where a valid permanent loan modification or reinstatement took place is not an issue to this legislation
@@song9119 Agreed. The law leaves in place two ways in which the SOL can be reset: 1) If the defendant makes a payment into the loan, thus validating its legitimacy and existence, or 2) by stipulation of both parties. It should never be possible for one side of a litigation to be able to manipulate the statute (as happens when they discontinue the action without input from the defendant).
Therefore most debt buyers try (sometimes under questionable means but Defendant beware!) to offer what look like generous modification terms. Canceled check from defendant = Statute problem solved for Plaintiff. Caveat to Defendant: The lowball terms may look more attractive than they are, may be temporary rather than permanent, and may not include escrow i.e. your property taxes and insurance that were part of your old terms. This statute DOES NOT HELP YOU if you fall into that trap (I've had the offers on my own house!! "Run, Forest, Run!!")
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNestyes, the bill did become law.
Outside of the foreclosure area there was never such a thing as any litigant being able to reset the statute of limitations unilaterally. Finally this nonsense has come to an end
@@song9119 Thank you for the update.
This is completely inaccurate. Please call me if you want a better understanding of this bill!
In what way is it inaccurate? I realize there have been changes since this recording. Are you an attorney or working closely with this bill? Please do share any inaccuracies if you are credentialed to do so. I would be interested to hear your insight.
@@SandiPark_HudsonValleyNest I am a foreclosure defense attorney. This new law was designed to prevent lenders from having an unfair advantage by stopping and starting foreclosure actions.
@@andreagross2007 Hi. Yes, I’m aware and we did discuss more in comments. I know the process was excessive and had a “restart” capability that seemed to drag the process into eternity. I think there are many that are pleased with the new bill.
@@andreagross2007 Please call me when you have a moment: 914-522-6282. Thanks!