Homeowner Forecloses on Bank of America
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
http://moneyland.time.com/2011/06/06/ho ... tion-yahoo
In a modern-day evocation of David’s slingshot triumph over Goliath, a couple of foreclosed homeowners in Naples, Fla., reportedly foreclosed on a Bank of America branch last week, their attorney actually having moving trucks pull up in front of a Naples branch to execute a foreclosure judgment against the bank.
What must have seemed to observers like a scene out of a parallel universe — you can see some video here — was actually the fair and logical conclusion to a situation which, the court had ruled, had an unfair and illogical start. In 2009, retired police officer Warren Nyerges and his wife, Maureen Collier, paid $165,000 cash for their 2,700 square foot home in the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, and never took a mortgage out on it. So imagine their surprise when, in February of 2010, Bank of America initiated foreclosure proceedings against them. The Nyerges hired an attorney, Todd Allen, to defend them against the wrongful foreclosure, and the bank eventually abandoned the matter.
But not before the Nyerges incurred $2,534 in attorney’s fees, which they requested informally from Bank of America multiple times before resorting to the courts, which ordered the bank to make the couple whole. When B of A still had not paid the judgment after five months of phone calls and letter writing by Allen and the Nyerges to the bank insisting that the court order be obeyed, Allen took the next step in the legal collection process, obtaining an order of foreclosure against the bank.
(Read about how Bank of America recently introduced fees for checking accounts)
“They’ve ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated,” Allen stated during an interview with CBS News.
Allen then reported to a local branch of the bank with sheriff’s deputies, who he instructed to remove cash from the tellers’ drawers, furniture, computers and other property. Approximately one hour later, the Naples News reports, the bank manager produced a check for $5,772.88 to satisfy Allen’s fees and additional costs.
“We apologize to Mr. Nyerges that there was a delay in receiving the funds,”read the bank’s written statement to the Naples News. “The original request went to an outside attorney who is no longer in business.”
Some might say all’s well that ends well in this scenario, seeing as the Nyerges got their home, Allen got his fees and the bank got it’s comeuppance. But there are deeper implications to every one of these foreclosure foul-up horror stories we read about, and even those we don’t. The finger-pointing to outside attorneys seems reminiscent of the banks’ excuse for the robo-signing scandal that broke last fall, and just as flimsy: the fact that a bank has lots of foreclosures to process and hires an overworked, underqualified or otherwise not-up-to-the-job professional to do it does not justify the nonchalance with which documents and properties of such gravitas were treated. The similarity didn’t escape Allen, who told CBS News, “this is a symptom of a larger problem.”
Further, these excuses also doesn’t stand up to snuff: I’ve pointed out before that in transactions with far less monetary significance than foreclosure (and far greater frequency), banks get it right, almost every single time. Just think: when was the last time you got an extra $20 bill at the ATM? I’ve never met someone who could remember such a time. Similarly, while one or even several of the Nyerges’ efforts to get B of A to pay the court judgment might have gone to the defunct lawyer’s office, the Nyerges say they actually submitted their pleas directly to the bank, multiple times, to no avail: “I talked to branch managers, I called anyone who would listen to me,” the couple told the Naples News. “And I wrote a certified letter to the president (of the bank). No response, nothing.”
(Read about B of A buying up abusive web domains)
And all these instances — from the robo-signing news to the refusal to pay this judgment — may contribute to the depression of home values, with just a few degrees of separation. A survey last year found that the robo-signing scandal caused U.S. adults to trust the banks less. Not surprising, but perhaps this is: a study by professors at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago recently found that the vast majority of homeowners, even those with negative equity, would rather keep their homes than strategically default on them. However, “people who are angrier about the current economic situation are more willing to express their willingness to default, as are people who trust banks less.”
To be fair, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s sweeping investigation into the robo-signing scandal concluded that only a small number of foreclosures actually took place wrongfully, and that even those were only wrongful because of an intervening law or event (like a bankruptcy filing by the homeowners), not because the mortgage payments weren’t actually delinquent.
But if ever there was a business argument for the banks to get their procedures and processes together when it comes to foreclosure and cleaning up the messes created by the few, truly wrongful foreclosures which, like the Nyerges’ case, will get widespread notoriety and further tear down consumer trust in the banks, it might be contained in these three simple statements. Less trust, more walkaways. More walkaways, more foreclosures. More foreclosures, lower home values. Enough said? We’ll see.
In a modern-day evocation of David’s slingshot triumph over Goliath, a couple of foreclosed homeowners in Naples, Fla., reportedly foreclosed on a Bank of America branch last week, their attorney actually having moving trucks pull up in front of a Naples branch to execute a foreclosure judgment against the bank.
What must have seemed to observers like a scene out of a parallel universe — you can see some video here — was actually the fair and logical conclusion to a situation which, the court had ruled, had an unfair and illogical start. In 2009, retired police officer Warren Nyerges and his wife, Maureen Collier, paid $165,000 cash for their 2,700 square foot home in the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, and never took a mortgage out on it. So imagine their surprise when, in February of 2010, Bank of America initiated foreclosure proceedings against them. The Nyerges hired an attorney, Todd Allen, to defend them against the wrongful foreclosure, and the bank eventually abandoned the matter.
But not before the Nyerges incurred $2,534 in attorney’s fees, which they requested informally from Bank of America multiple times before resorting to the courts, which ordered the bank to make the couple whole. When B of A still had not paid the judgment after five months of phone calls and letter writing by Allen and the Nyerges to the bank insisting that the court order be obeyed, Allen took the next step in the legal collection process, obtaining an order of foreclosure against the bank.
(Read about how Bank of America recently introduced fees for checking accounts)
“They’ve ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated,” Allen stated during an interview with CBS News.
Allen then reported to a local branch of the bank with sheriff’s deputies, who he instructed to remove cash from the tellers’ drawers, furniture, computers and other property. Approximately one hour later, the Naples News reports, the bank manager produced a check for $5,772.88 to satisfy Allen’s fees and additional costs.
“We apologize to Mr. Nyerges that there was a delay in receiving the funds,”read the bank’s written statement to the Naples News. “The original request went to an outside attorney who is no longer in business.”
Some might say all’s well that ends well in this scenario, seeing as the Nyerges got their home, Allen got his fees and the bank got it’s comeuppance. But there are deeper implications to every one of these foreclosure foul-up horror stories we read about, and even those we don’t. The finger-pointing to outside attorneys seems reminiscent of the banks’ excuse for the robo-signing scandal that broke last fall, and just as flimsy: the fact that a bank has lots of foreclosures to process and hires an overworked, underqualified or otherwise not-up-to-the-job professional to do it does not justify the nonchalance with which documents and properties of such gravitas were treated. The similarity didn’t escape Allen, who told CBS News, “this is a symptom of a larger problem.”
Further, these excuses also doesn’t stand up to snuff: I’ve pointed out before that in transactions with far less monetary significance than foreclosure (and far greater frequency), banks get it right, almost every single time. Just think: when was the last time you got an extra $20 bill at the ATM? I’ve never met someone who could remember such a time. Similarly, while one or even several of the Nyerges’ efforts to get B of A to pay the court judgment might have gone to the defunct lawyer’s office, the Nyerges say they actually submitted their pleas directly to the bank, multiple times, to no avail: “I talked to branch managers, I called anyone who would listen to me,” the couple told the Naples News. “And I wrote a certified letter to the president (of the bank). No response, nothing.”
(Read about B of A buying up abusive web domains)
And all these instances — from the robo-signing news to the refusal to pay this judgment — may contribute to the depression of home values, with just a few degrees of separation. A survey last year found that the robo-signing scandal caused U.S. adults to trust the banks less. Not surprising, but perhaps this is: a study by professors at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago recently found that the vast majority of homeowners, even those with negative equity, would rather keep their homes than strategically default on them. However, “people who are angrier about the current economic situation are more willing to express their willingness to default, as are people who trust banks less.”
To be fair, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s sweeping investigation into the robo-signing scandal concluded that only a small number of foreclosures actually took place wrongfully, and that even those were only wrongful because of an intervening law or event (like a bankruptcy filing by the homeowners), not because the mortgage payments weren’t actually delinquent.
But if ever there was a business argument for the banks to get their procedures and processes together when it comes to foreclosure and cleaning up the messes created by the few, truly wrongful foreclosures which, like the Nyerges’ case, will get widespread notoriety and further tear down consumer trust in the banks, it might be contained in these three simple statements. Less trust, more walkaways. More walkaways, more foreclosures. More foreclosures, lower home values. Enough said? We’ll see.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2011: East Troy, WI 1 & 2; Toronto ON 1 & 2; Hamilton ON
2012: Berlin, Germany 1& 2; Stockholm Sweden; Oslo Norway; Copenhagen Denmark
2013: Wrigley Field- Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA 1 & 2; Hartford, CT; Vancouver BC; Seattle, WA.
2014: Cincinnati, OH; St. Louis, MO; Moline, IL; Milwaukee, WI
2016: Wrigley Field- Chicago 1&2
very true.
but if your mortgage company tells you- IN WRITING to stop making your payments, then tells you IN WRITING that your case is under review to see if you qualify for their loan modification program, and you call and write to check on the status for 2 months, and then you get a court summons for your foreclosure hearing.....not exactly the same thing.
2011: East Troy, WI 1 & 2; Toronto ON 1 & 2; Hamilton ON
2012: Berlin, Germany 1& 2; Stockholm Sweden; Oslo Norway; Copenhagen Denmark
2013: Wrigley Field- Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA 1 & 2; Hartford, CT; Vancouver BC; Seattle, WA.
2014: Cincinnati, OH; St. Louis, MO; Moline, IL; Milwaukee, WI
2016: Wrigley Field- Chicago 1&2
this is the second deal like this that I have read about, the first was "wells fargo", they just make a mistake and forclose on a home that has NO bebt, wells fargo,chase,b of a ...they're all a bunch of d-bags.
Godfather.
Which goes both ways.
I was in the loan modificaiton process with B of A also, and they told me the same thing - to stop paying -- so that the mod process could move forward. I didnt realize that this would destroy my credit. apparently they were reporting me as delinquent. My credit rating was perfect before this. I got my modification.. my monthly payment was reduced a few hunderd bucks, but they still havent repaired my credit. They promised they would set it all straight but its still fucked up. B of A are a bunch of shitfucks. Every other time I sent them personal info regarding the mod process, they misplaced/lost it. Amazing how pathetic that place runs.
Based on this story, it appears you can get foreclosed on by these asshats even if you never had a mortgage with them.LOL
Never stop paying down a debt. Wife's cousin did the same thing, and when we read the letter that she said told her to stop paying, it did in fact NOT say that. Now, it didn't tell her to keep paying either, and that is what she thought insinuated to stop paying. Not sure why anyone would interpret it that way, but so be it.
Yes, this is an obvious problem the article highlights. However, there is a very logical conclusion as to why this happened in the first place - the old homeowner never completely paid down their mortgage upon selling. And, if that's the case, unfortunately, the new owners are on the hook in an indirect way (that's why the new mortgagor will hire an investigator - at your expense, of course - to check on liens on the house - you have to make sure there are no encumberances on anything you buy). Because the new owners paid cash, they probably did not follow that procedure that is done in every case where a mortgagor is involved. Thus, without knowing all the facts (and none of us do), this probably left them exposed to the foreclosure (the property is foreclosed, not the people. There is an outstanding lien on the property, the old mortgagor - B of A - has a legal right to the property).
They did probably decide to let the matter go, but felt they had no legal requirement to pay the legal fees of the people who should have had the past liens taken care of in the first place. Now, once the court order took place, they should have paid. But, flip this scenario around - would you have paid? Not saying it's right, but none the less. So, like many things, the media takes it and neglects to tell the entire story. And while this couple was unfortunately hassled beyond all reasonableness, it's really the lawyer looking for some PR that made this a bigger matter than it needed to be. It is also 1 horror story. The story making the fact that most of the previously reported errors had reasonable explanations is only an aside. So, once again the moral of the story is kill all the lawyers.
Edit: And I know...Ramsey would probably not approve of us going to PJ20, but it's happening anyway, lol