Archive for January, 2010
How to Remove a Judgment Lien from your property
Many homeowners have found themselves in the position of owing money on a debt which they simply can not pay back, or have been sued by someone and failed to respond to the law suit. When this happens, the Plaintiff often will attempt to collect on their judgment by putting a lien on the homeowner’s property. Many of my bankruptcy client’s have come to me with just such a situation. This becomes an issue after a consumer’s unsecured debts have been discharged in bankruptcy. The reason is simple; the homeowner has a lien against their house post bankruptcy and they do not owe any money to the lien holder.
After a Chapter 7 discharge, a debtor may avoid a judicial lien by motion to the Court. To the extent lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor otherwise would have been entitled under the Bankruptcy laws. As a result, the bankruptcy court will grant a Chapter 7 debtor’s motion seeking to avoid a judicial lien if debtor’s equity in the property is less than the amount protected under the Massachusetts Homestead Act, which currently stands at $500,000 in value for the land and building, M.G.L. c. 188 § 1, and when the creditor’s lien fully impaired the debtor’s equity in the property. In re Lyons, 355 B.R. 287 (2006).
So what is the gist of all of this legal speak? When the collateral has no value, the creditor has no claim against it because it will be treated as unsecured, and thus the debtor may discharge that lien.
Home Affordability Modification Program: The Troubling Reality
|
President Obama’s Home Affordability Modification Program (HAMP) was intended with the purpose of keeping homeowners in their houses. Unfortunately, the idea was wonderful and the basic core concepts of the HAMP appear to be generated with good faith in mind but it lacks one key component—success in purpose. In other words, HAMP is failing and the troubling reality of the program is becoming very clear.
|
Image Credit: blog.Foreclosure.com |
|
The HAMP was designed to get consumers to work directly with their mortgage company to get into a modification of their current mortgage payment. The program was intended to make the modification so the consumer could actually make a payment that they could afford. The amount of the payment is based upon the general economic principle that a mortgage payment should be about a third of the homeowner’s income. The problem with this philosophy is that the principle owed to the mortgage company is too large to minimize to a third of the homeowner’s income or the homeowner’s income and other expenses cannot meet even the third payment. However, there are more problems on the surface of the HAMP. Once a homeowner is initially accepted into the trial period, the homeowner is given the false hope that this is a final agreement. The “trial” period is exactly that—“a trial.” It is not a final agreement. A homeowner can make all the required payments asked of them in this trial period and still not receive a final agreement from the mortgage company. The real issue is that a mortgage company is only required to “consider” the homeowner for the program. (See Home Affordability Modification Act 2009). A mortgage company is not required to do anything at all for the homeowner under the HAMP. The troubling reality of the program is that a homeowner could make three months of payments and still not have a final agreement and still be facing a foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, the most common pattern that we are seeing with this program is that homeowners are making three months of the trial payments and then being denied without cause or for some superficial reason. If this should happen to you, you should immediately seek a bankruptcy attorney to ensure protection of your home from a foreclosure sale. So what was once thought to be the hope of a nation is really a troubling facade. If you have experienced the troubling reality of the HAMP, we want to hear from you. Please email us at http://www.consumerdebtradio.com/contact.asp. |
|
Home Affordability Modification Program: How does it work?
Everyone knows about President Obama’s program known as the Home Affordability Modification Program (“HAMP”). Many have wondered if the program can help them save their home, but how does it work? In brief, the HAMP was designed to save your home if you are struggling to pay your mortgage. It was also designed for consumers to be able to work through the process on their own without the need of an attorney or a consultant.
The HAMP process is not really that difficult. A consumer should review the mortgage company’s web site for all required documentation which is needed in order to be considered for the HAMP. Once all the required documents are submitted the company will put the consumer’s request for review under the HAMP into a pool of thousands of other like consumers.
It sounds simple right? Well, there are many problems hidden within this simply process. A consumer should keep in mind that the mortgage company in the HAMP is trying everything not to get the consumer into the review of the program. What I mean by this is that the mortgage company is likely to reject a consumer’s request for not having all documents requested even though you’ve submitted them. Also, the mortgage company is not going to stop foreclosure proceeding while the consumer’s request sits in the pool of thousands of request. The biggest issue with this process is time. The HAMP process is likely to take 3 to 12 months.
How to ensure that this process works for you? You really will need to either make a commitment to setting aside at least two hours a week to follow up with the mortgage company for updates and to ensure that the mortgage company continues to review your request. Alternatively, you could hire a professional like an attorney to ensure that the mortgage company continues to review your request and to ensure that the process is documented.
Overall HAMP is a simple process, but be prepared to dedicate the required time to prepare the documents and also for the long review process.
