Portable Relationships: Is HAMP no Longer Significant?

So the donkeys switch with the elephants and the Democrats with the Republicans as politicians play the back and forth game in Washington, DC.  For millions of Americans, including current clients of ours, and a seemingly endless stream of new clients who come in to our law firm to talk turkey on mortgage arrears, foreclosure notices and process servers bringing mortgage foreclosure papers, few, if any, willingly participate in such matches. Real life struggles to keep their homes are more than sufficient "gamesmanship" for our clients. 

Last week during a Congressional panel hearing, Phyllis Caldwell, Chief of the Homeownership Preservation Office, presented a current analysis of the situation and issued a policy statement. Apparently, her administration is chasing our neighbors, friends and families who are in mortgage arrears and foreclosure struggles into the cozy wide-spread net of the lenders and servicers who are anxious to foreclose on them and cause the loss of their homes. Saturday's New York Times editorial, November 6, 2010, entitled "Learning to Love Foreclosures?,” quoted her testimony. Caldwell said, “an important part of assuring long-term stability in the market is to enable properties to be resold to families who can afford to purchase them".

So there you have it: there is the quote and there is the statement. Expect a quick and portable transition, without any apparent look back to the enabling landmark Treasury Department program, HAMP, designed only 18 months ago, which our Federal Government, at these very highest levels, apparently no longer deigns significant. 

Winds of change? 

Anchored at the very core of our American government, and once again so grateful and thankful, is our judicial branch.  Our judges, court personnel and court clerks, now faced with an unimaginable caseload of mortgage foreclosure cases, both litigated and unopposed, must decide each case as it reaches their desk.  Our justices do not take their robes or the laws and statutes on a portable platform.  Unlike our Homeownership Preservation Office, a well known a jurist, the Honorable Arthur Schack, in a published decision (Onewest Bank FSB v Drayton), took to task the so-called "robo signers" who placed expedient closings above following legally mandated procedures. He dismissed an unopposed mortgage foreclosure action. 

Justice Schack found that this "robo-signer for Onewest Bank," who signed hundreds or thousands of foreclosure documents in a month ....without notary public present, who did not spend more than 30 seconds signing each document; who did not read the documents before signing them, had less than the requisite standard of credibility to allow the case to proceed to foreclosure.  The Court also directed that the attorney for Onewest submit an affirmation, in compliance with the New York mandates, that the bank’s documents and records have been reviewed and are factually accurate. 

Some have proclaimed this action by the judge the finding of a new local hero. I must tell you that he does not stand alone.  The Chief Judge of the Courts in New York stated, and it is quoted by Justice Schack, "We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs--such as a family home--during this period of economic crisis.  This new filing requirement will play a vital role in ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the drastic step of foreclosure."