Business Week On Foreclosure Rescue
BusinessWeek.com has a general article on foreclosure rescue that reports on one homeowner who paid an upfront fee to a foreclosure rescue consultant and ended up losing the home anyway; it gets comments from two foreclosure rescue operators (an upfront fee operator and a New York sale - leaseback operator), and also gets comments from two consumer advocates regarding the foreclosure rescue process.
One foreclosure rescue operator, Albany, N.Y.-based Rivertown Financial engages in sale-leaseback transactions in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and its chief executive, Geoffrey Goldman, said that "There's nothing inherently sinister about sale leaseback transactions. Businesses do it all the time."
For more, see Foreclosure rescue plans pose questions, or see
Frauds compound the pain of foreclosures (Homeowners paying to save their houses and end up losing them anyway) (reported on MSNBC.com).
Based on the information in my recent posts on foreclosure rescue as well as in earlier posts, it appears that there are more cases being brought by financially strapped homeowners seeking to have sale-leaseback, foreclosure rescue deals declared to be equitable mortgages. Successfully asserting an equitable mortgage claim will recharacterize the sale-leaseback as a secured loan between the foreclosure rescue operator and the homewoner, subject to state usury laws, and possibly Federal consumer protection laws (ie. Federal Truth-In-Lending Act and the Homeowner Equity and Protection Act).
The usury point could be a significant issue in a state like Florida. Its civil usury statute (where interest exceeds 18% per year) requires a forfeiture of the right to collect interest on the loan and requires the creditior to pay a penalty of double the amount of interest actualy reserved or collected (Fla. Statute Section 687.04). Its criminal usury statutes (where interest exceeds 25% per annum), call for a forfeiture of the creditor's entire loan, in addition to those penalties commonly associated with misdemeanor and felony crimes (Fla. Stat. Section 687.071).
Further, if the transaction is tainted with elements of fraud, deception, or unfair business practices, the transaction will also be subject to the state's unfair and deceptive trade practices laws, as well as to common law claims of fraud, conspiracy, and constructive trust, among others. Also, as was the situation in one recent case I reported on, a claim for legal malpractice was brought against an attorney who was supplied by the foreclosure rescue operator to the homeowner, and who purportedly "represented" the homeowner in the transaction when the homeowner signed away his home to the operator.
Finally, in a state like New York, stringent regulations (including criminal sanctions) have been imposed in the form of the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act to protect homeowners facing foreclosure when dealing with foreclosure rescue operators, both those who purchase from the homeowner as well as those who provide fee-based "foreclosure consulting" to the homeowner. No doubt that state regulators will be out there vigorously enforcing this statute. (Other states with anti home equity theft statutes can be found in the sidebar on the right side of this page.)
Financially strapped homeowners generally may not have the sophistication in matters of business, finance, and law to appreciate the nuances of the law to be able to know his or her rights, much less find experienced legal counsel to handle cases like these. However, I think we are seeing the beginning of a legal environment where attorneys and investigators, whether from legal services firms, from private firms (both small and large), or from state and local government law enforcement and regulatory agencies, will be out there finding them, prepared to bring the appropriate legal action to vigorously enforce both the statutes regulating the foreclosure rescue industry, as well as to enforce the laws that are a product of case law which has been around for a century or two. equitable mortgage zebra
One foreclosure rescue operator, Albany, N.Y.-based Rivertown Financial engages in sale-leaseback transactions in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and its chief executive, Geoffrey Goldman, said that "There's nothing inherently sinister about sale leaseback transactions. Businesses do it all the time."
For more, see Foreclosure rescue plans pose questions, or see
Frauds compound the pain of foreclosures (Homeowners paying to save their houses and end up losing them anyway) (reported on MSNBC.com).
Editor's Note:
Based on the information in my recent posts on foreclosure rescue as well as in earlier posts, it appears that there are more cases being brought by financially strapped homeowners seeking to have sale-leaseback, foreclosure rescue deals declared to be equitable mortgages. Successfully asserting an equitable mortgage claim will recharacterize the sale-leaseback as a secured loan between the foreclosure rescue operator and the homewoner, subject to state usury laws, and possibly Federal consumer protection laws (ie. Federal Truth-In-Lending Act and the Homeowner Equity and Protection Act).
The usury point could be a significant issue in a state like Florida. Its civil usury statute (where interest exceeds 18% per year) requires a forfeiture of the right to collect interest on the loan and requires the creditior to pay a penalty of double the amount of interest actualy reserved or collected (Fla. Statute Section 687.04). Its criminal usury statutes (where interest exceeds 25% per annum), call for a forfeiture of the creditor's entire loan, in addition to those penalties commonly associated with misdemeanor and felony crimes (Fla. Stat. Section 687.071).
Further, if the transaction is tainted with elements of fraud, deception, or unfair business practices, the transaction will also be subject to the state's unfair and deceptive trade practices laws, as well as to common law claims of fraud, conspiracy, and constructive trust, among others. Also, as was the situation in one recent case I reported on, a claim for legal malpractice was brought against an attorney who was supplied by the foreclosure rescue operator to the homeowner, and who purportedly "represented" the homeowner in the transaction when the homeowner signed away his home to the operator.
Finally, in a state like New York, stringent regulations (including criminal sanctions) have been imposed in the form of the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act to protect homeowners facing foreclosure when dealing with foreclosure rescue operators, both those who purchase from the homeowner as well as those who provide fee-based "foreclosure consulting" to the homeowner. No doubt that state regulators will be out there vigorously enforcing this statute. (Other states with anti home equity theft statutes can be found in the sidebar on the right side of this page.)
Financially strapped homeowners generally may not have the sophistication in matters of business, finance, and law to appreciate the nuances of the law to be able to know his or her rights, much less find experienced legal counsel to handle cases like these. However, I think we are seeing the beginning of a legal environment where attorneys and investigators, whether from legal services firms, from private firms (both small and large), or from state and local government law enforcement and regulatory agencies, will be out there finding them, prepared to bring the appropriate legal action to vigorously enforce both the statutes regulating the foreclosure rescue industry, as well as to enforce the laws that are a product of case law which has been around for a century or two. equitable mortgage zebra
posted by Home Equity Theft Reporter at 9:40 AM
<< Home