Loan Modification Firms Drawing Attention From NY Feds, State AG

In New York City, Crain's New York Business reports:

• [W]ith citywide foreclosures up 50% over a year ago, some of the same bankers and brokers who sold unaffordable, subprime loans are now joining the rapidly growing ranks of mortgage modification consultants.

• While some members of what an online ad called one of the “fastest-growing job markets in the country” run legitimate businesses, housing advocates say many are taking people's money and doing little or nothing in return. The burgeoning industry has caught the attention of the FBI's New York office and the state attorney general.(1)

***

• Frequently, they ask homeowners for thousands of dollars up front, which is illegal in 12 states, including New York, unless the fee is made to a lawyer or nonprofit. As part of the sales pitch, homeowners are often advised to stop making mortgage payments,(2) putting their homes in further jeopardy of foreclosure.

For more, see Mortgage holders are marks (Loan modification specialists take money, do little in return).

(1) Other law enforcement agencies are zeroing in. The Illinois attorney general last month filed seven lawsuits against modification firms that failed to negotiate workouts for clients. The Colorado attorney general has filed 15 cease-and-desist orders against such companies. State AGs in Tennessee and Florida have also targeted loan modification firms in lawsuits alleging, among other things, that their activities constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Go here and go here for other posts on issues relating to attorneys, loan modifications, and the unlicensed/unauthorized practice of law.

(2) For whatever its worth, advising homeowners to violate the terms of their loan (by advising them to stiff their mortgage lenders) may give rise to a claim of tortious interference with a contract (or a tortious interference with a business relationship) by the mortgage lender and/or mortgage servicer being stiffed, and subjecting the loan modification firm to potential liability for dispensing the "sage" advice. See generally, White Plains Coat & Apron Co., Inc. v. Cintas Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 3591; 8 N.Y.3d 422; 867 N.E.2d 381; 835 N.Y.S.2d 530; 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 847 (2007):

• It is a familiar proposition that one "who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766.