And if you think I am overstating, consider the judge’s overview comment:
Standing has become such a pervasive issue that I frequently use the term “presumptive mortgagee in foreclosure” to describe the Plaintiff Mortgagee.
In other words, the problems with standing are so widespread that the judge no longer assumes the party showing up to foreclose really has the right to do so.
The testimony is simply damning and goes through a long litany of deficiencies at every step of the process. One example:
Plaintiff Mortgagee “Bad faith.” CPLR 3408(f) – Plaintiff Mortgagees must participate in mandatory settlement conferences, and negotiate in good faith for a mutually agreeable resolution, including loan modification, if possible.
Timely response – A Plainliff Mortgagee must timely acknowledge the information provided by the Defendant Homeowner and respond to justified offers of modification. There are many instances o f a Plaintiff Mortgagee refusing to consider a loan modification because the Defendant Homeowner’s financial information was not up-to-date, even though the delay was due to the Plaintiff Mortgagee’s own failure to timely respond to the Defendant Homeowner.
So will we see the ASF issue yet a new paper to refute this damaging testimony? How will the ASF respond to this suggestion of problems? Attack the judge too? Given the ASF’s advanced state of denial, it might take a paper a week before they engage the issues that are well known and well documented in tens of thousands of consumer cases across the US.
Join us on our
Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network: