Maryland’s System For Home Foreclosures Tramples Due Process, Argues Appeal

From Public Citizen Litigation Group, the litigating arm of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen:

• Maryland resident Joyce Griffin lost her house in a foreclosure sale because she never received notice until it was too late for her to save her home. Her case is a stunning example of how predatory subprime lenders, high-volume foreclosure mills, and a hands-off legal system can combine to wreak havoc on people's lives.

• Griffin's mortgage company, the now-defunct Ameriquest, tricked her into refinancing the home she owned, when, after her fiancé died, she'd simply wanted to have his name taken off the mortgage. When the single mother could no longer make the increased mortgage payments, a "foreclosure mill" law firm representing Ameriquest quickly began foreclosure proceedings. After they made a bare-bones and unsuccessful effort to notify her of any pending action, Griffin lost her home when it was literally auctioned off on the courthouse steps. She never learned that her home had been sold until the new owner tacked a note on her door.

• Griffin immediately hired a lawyer to block the sale, arguing that the notice procedures violated her constitutional right to due process, but the court upheld the lender's actions. Public Citizen and Baltimore-based Civil Justice Inc. are appealing that decision. We argue that the 2006 decision in Jones v. Flowers — a case that Public Citizen argued in the U.S. Supreme Court — means that additional reasonable steps must be taken to notify a property owner if a foreclosure notice is returned as unclaimed by the post office. But the lawyers who conducted the foreclosure of Ms. Griffin's house say they can ignore undelivered letters and do not have to make any effort to follow-up before selling someone's house.

• If Griffin had been a defendant in a small-claims case, a property tax foreclosure, a federal tax foreclosure, or even a tenant in an eviction proceeding, the law would have required that the documents be served in person, sent via restricted certified mail (complete only upon delivery) or be posted by mail-and-nail notification in which the mailed documents are also posted directly on a dwelling's door. Even in a routine debt collection action, Ameriquest's mishandling of Griffin's case would have violated her constitutional rights. The Constitution demands more when someone's home is at stake.

Source: Description Of Pending Case in Griffin v. Bierman, et al. in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

In a separate press release, Public Citizen attorney Deepak Gupta noted:

• People are waking up to the reality of predatory subprime mortgages, but what they may not yet realize is the one-two punch of shifty loans and shiftier foreclosure firms that can knock them right out of their homes.”

For the entire press release, see Homeowners Facing Mortgage Foreclosures Denied Constitutional Right to Proper Notification.

To view the appellate brief in this case filed last week on behalf of the homeowner, see Brief - Griffin v. Bierman, et al.

Representing the homeowner in this case are: Deepak Gupta, Micahel T. Kirkpatrick, and Brian Wolfman, with Public Citizen Litigation Group (Washington, DC); Phillip Robinson, with Civil Justice Inc. (Baltimore, MD); and Scott Borison, with Legg Law Firm, LLC (Frederick, MD).

For background information on this story from The Washington Post (12-21-07), see The Pain of Foreclosure (For Joyce Griffin and Thousands of Others Who Face Losing Their Homes, Sadness and Uncertainty Overshadow a Season of Cheer).

Go here and go here for other posts on foreclosures involving faulty notifications to property owners. foreclosure faulty notice

Maryland Homeowner Loses Home To Foreclosure Without Prior Notice Of Sale; Now Fights To Get Back Title

The Washington Post recently ran a column on Anne Arundel County, Maryland homeowner Joyce Griffin, who is currently involved in a court battle to keep her home after it was sold in a foreclosure sale in which she asserts she received no prior notice of. One of the points highlighted in the column is that in the State of Maryland, proof that a homeowner behind in mortgage payments received a notice of foreclosure is not necessary to proceed with a public sale. In this case, Ms. Griffin asserts that she had no notice of the sale and only found out about the foreclosure after the public auction had already taken place. An excerpt from the column:

• Maryland law requires only that banks send notice of foreclosure. There is no requirement of proof that the notice has been received. Griffin maintains she never received a foreclosure notice. "For every other kind of lawsuit, there is a requirement that notice is received, except for foreclosures," said Phillip Robinson, an attorney with the nonprofit legal aid group Civil Justice, who is helping Griffin fight her foreclosure in court. "How many other people in Maryland are being foreclosed on this Christmas that don't even know about it?"

Reportedly, she has been able to stay in her home by reason of a $13,000 appeal bond that was put up in court on her behalf, and which keeps her from being evicted, pending the result of her appeal.

For the column, see The Pain of Foreclosure (For Joyce Griffin and Thousands of Others Who Face Losing Their Homes, Sadness and Uncertainty Overshadow a Season of Cheer).

For more on this story:

1. Go here for a description of the pending case in Griffin v. Bierman, et al. in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, as described by one of Griffin's attorneys, Public Citizen Litigation Group,
2. Go here to view the appellate brief filed on the homeowner's behalf, Griffin v. Bierman, et al.,
3. For earlier post, see Maryland’s System for Home Foreclosures Tramples Due Process, Argues Appeal.

Maryland High Court To Address Constitutionality Of State Foreclosure Notification Requirements

In Maryland, The Baltimore Sun reports:

• Judges on Maryland's highest court yesterday suggested they could intervene to change the notification procedure for foreclosures, which have ballooned as more people took out loans they couldn't afford and lenders made deals they couldn't keep. "The argument that this court change its rules in light of changing circumstances in the mortgage industry" could be persuasive," Judge Dale R. Cathell told an attorney arguing a foreclosure case before him yesterday in the Maryland Court of Appeals.

***

• Yesterday's case looked at whether the foreclosure notification process in Maryland met the due process requirements of the Constitution. [...] The case involves [Maryland] homeowner Joyce Griffin, the Pasadena resident who says she first found out her home had been foreclosed in May 2006, when the new owner tacked a handwritten note to her front door.

For more, see High court takes up foreclosure notification (Judge hints procedure may be too quick).

Go here for earlier posts on this case.