Articles Posted in loan modification

California residential borrowers, in trouble on their mortgage, know the lengthy frustrating process for seeking a loan modification. Some have told me that they believe it is a con game, where they get the borrower to make more payments under a trial program, with no intent to modify the loan -get some more cash, then foreclose. I recently wrote about the West v Wells Fargo decision where a California Court found that, due to promissory estoppel, Wells Fargo could not tell the homeowner that they would get a modification if they followed the rules, but then not offering the modification after the borrow did everything required. Recently, in Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, governing all federal courts in California, addressed the issue. Where the loan modification was conditional on Wells Fargo returning a signed copy of the agreement, and the borrower did everything required, the Ninth Circuit held that the lender was obligated to offer the modification – otherwise, injustice would result.

In Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, the court framed the issue: whether the bank was contractually required to offer the plaintiff a permanent loan modification after they complied with the requirements of a trial period plan (“TPP”). The answer was yes. The court first reviewed the federal programs resulting from TARP to assist homeowners. It noted that Wells Fargo, and others, signed “Servicer Participation Agreements” with the U.S. Treasury. It entitled the lenders to incentive payments for loan modifications, and requires them to follow Treasury guidelines.

The Treasury Regulations require the following steps;

Loan modifications for California homeowners has become less a rarity in recent times. A loan modification is an enforceable contract between the borrower and lender, and as long as the borrower performs, they will be able to keep the property. However, now as before, lenders lose track of the status of their relationships with their borrowers, and may not realize that a mortgage has been modified. Recently, the federal Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, found that a lender who forgot they modified a loan, and began foreclosure proceedings, could be in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act requirements for adverse actions by lenders.

In Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, the borrowers took out a $157,000 loan in 2009 secured by their home. The loan and deed of trust were assigned to Wells Fargo. There was trouble, they went into default, and filed bankruptcy. Wells Fargo proposed a loan modification which extended the maturity date for the loan, and retained the same interest rate. The bankruptcy court approved the modification, and a bankruptcy discharge was granted. Wells Fargo quickly sent the borrowers a default notice, saying that the loan was in default for failure to make payments – the letter did not take into account the loan modification. The borrowers contacted Wells Fargo, who told them not to worry. The borrowers continued to make payments as per the loan modification. Of course, Wells Fargo continued to claim they were in default and accelerated the loan, and then claimed that there was no modification. The borrowers filed this lawsuit.

One of the claims in the suit was a violation of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The ECOA which makes it illegal “for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction…” Applicable in this case, each applicant against whom adverse action is taken is entitled to a statement of reasons for such action from the creditor.”Each applicant against whom adverse action is taken shall be entitled to a statement of reasons for such action from the creditor.” § 15 USC 1691(d)(2). ECOA defines an “adverse action” as a:

I commonly hear from clients that they were told by their loan servicer that they would not be considered for a loan modification because they were current on payments. They were either told, or it was implied, that they needed to miss a payment in order to be considered for a loan modification. I never advise a client to skip a payment, as that is their own decision- once it happens, the foreclosure freight train starts downhill and does not stop. Anyone thinking of skipping should consult with an experienced Sacramento and Yolo real estate lawyer to be advised as the full range of options & risks. A recent decision out of Southern California involved a borrower who said she was told to skip a payment, which created a triable issue as to whether the lender induced her to miss a payment, wrongfully placing her loan in default. But that’s not all- there was evidence that her loan documents had forged signatures.

In Ragland v. U.S. Bank, the homeowner refinanced through Downey Savings in 2002. (Downey was later taken over by the FDIC, who turned over the loans to US Bank.) She got an adjustable, but claims she thought she was getting a fixed rate. One month later she told the lender that her signature had been forged on the estimated closing statement, escrow instructions, and statement of assets and liabilities. The forgery was confirmed by a handwriting expert.

By 2008 the rate had adjusted up to 7%. She spoke with a lender rep who said they would work with her to modify the loan, and told her not to make the April payment because the worse that would happen is that she would have a late fee. On the last day to make the April payment, she called the lender again, and was told that if there was anything forged, she would not owe anything. They put the loan in “legal” and told her they could not collect while the investigation continued. Later she was told they could not do a modification during the investigation.

My last post was about a California loan modification, where the borrower signed the modification documents and returned them to the lender, but the lender foreclosed anyway. The court decided that the there was a binding contract once the borrower signed and returned the modification agreement, even though the lender said it did not happen until after the lender returned a copy signed by them. This is a good result, as otherwise the borrower would be in limbo, making payments, while wondering why they lender did not send back the documents. Finding that a contract was created helped the borrower another way- in her claim for wrongful foreclosure.

It is a general rule in California law that a lawsuit to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security. This is known as the tender rule. I think that the tender may be made on filing the lawsuit, but some courts may differ.

However, in our case, there is no claim of irregularities in sale notice or procedure. The claim is that the lender offered a modification, the borrower accepted, and they had a deal. The court noted that the power of sale, which gives the trustee the right to foreclose, is a creature of contract, not statute. If, after a default, the borrower and lender enter into an agreement to cure the default and reinstate the loan, no contractual basis remains for exercising the power of sale. Thus, under the terms of the modification agreement, there was no default, but they foreclosed anyway. The borrower had made a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and there was no need to allege tender of the balance of the loan.