Suitor saves home from foreclosure redeeming lawful money

I think we have a new word to add to our vocabulary... decisioner. I keep a brain trust of about 120 competent courts (record-forming). I just want to share something...

Quote:

---

"Hi David:

"Latest update. While researching our options I came across law stating, basically, a servicer cannot foreclose "If a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application [..] more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale ..." See paragraph (g) here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/1024.41

"So we hustled to submit a complete "loss mitigation application." These are also called "loan mods." Lo and behold we were just approved for HAMP Tier 1 at 2% (whatever that means). See attached.

"Considering the mortgage hasn't been paid in over 4 years (saving about $70k), a Ch 13 bankruptcy filing by attorney to stave off foreclosure would cost about $5k and restructure debt into a similar monthly payment, this doesn't appear too bad of an option to continue living in the family home (worth $390k according to the servicer) and ride out the financial collapse. Factor in the wife & kids too.

"Interesting thing came up while getting everything together for the application. They wanted tax returns, if I was "self-employed",etc. Told them I was making lawful money but not "self-employed" as defined by statute. They thought the Joint tax return was incomplete, no Schedule C (for business) & wanted it. Told them there was no Sched C; not required, and return was complete. Put together profit/loss statements at their request. The rep responded with something like "if it's not on the tax return the loan company cannot count it." Told them that was their decision, not mine."

---

Then a few days later, he shared.

Quote:

---

"one more thing. If you take the new, modified monthly payment and divide by the HAMP Tier 1 figure of 31%, you get exactly my wife's income. So the "decisioner" did NOT take my lawful money income into the equation. It's not federal reserve income!

"Your file is now with the decisioner awaiting review."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...mp-tier-2.html

---

The logical next step would be to conclude if both husband and wife were redeeming lawful money, the new payments would be extraordinarily low.


Regards,
David Merrill.

"Perfect" Like what I'm reading.

Failure to be involved in the piracy game amounts to no presence in 'the district'?

I was thinking in terms of counter-piracy from about 1600 or so. When did the Dutch East Indies Trading Company incorporate?

Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions...

I am a bit confused here; could someone explain how redeeming lawful money was THE reason the foreclosure was stopped in this specific instance? For the record, I make demand in lawful money for ALL transactions, however, I am struggling to see how that demand staved off foreclosure for these people.

It seems that the wife had enough of the "conventional" info on her own so as to discard the husband's lack thereof. It appears the "loss mitigation application" went through only because the wife's tax info was sufficient without the husband's participation altogether. How is this considered a "win" by way of redeeming lawful money?

I imagine that the application would have been denied if the wife's tax info had fallen short of the requirements.

Am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

I am a bit confused here; could someone explain how redeeming lawful money was THE reason the foreclosure was stopped in this specific instance? For the record, I make demand in lawful money for ALL transactions, however, I am struggling to see how that demand staved off foreclosure for these people.

It seems that the wife had enough of the "conventional" info on her own so as to discard the husband's lack thereof. It appears the "loss mitigation application" went through only because the wife's tax info was sufficient without the husband's participation altogether. How is this considered a "win" by way of redeeming lawful money?

I imagine that the application would have been denied if the wife's tax info had fallen short of the requirements.

Am I missing something here?

---

You might be right. Science will tell us as we proceed. There are plenty of people who have been staving off foreclosure and eviction slowly but are just tired of how execution is only slowed down.

Of course for me, the husband's income is not use of the Fed's currency and therefore it is not taxable. So the family can keep possession of the home but at ridiculously low monthly payments under the HAMP - Tier 2 legislation. As people use the HAMP Tier 2 applications, and tell of their redemption or not, we will have more information. Theoretically if a couple where both are redeeming apply the monthly payments will just cover the administrative costs of the HAMP plan.

That is rather exciting!


P.S. Recently I was looking idealistically at BOYKO and O'MALLEY for the application of law, that a claimant would have to produce the original note in court. There are suitors on the brain trust who successfully keep homes for others to possess but they have to take each case like a chess game. There is no master key... at least not yet. The OP actually integrates redemption of lawful money and shows promise of an overall Redemption.

A general endorsement places the endorsers assets into the general pool and provides a floating debenture over the entire estate. Redeeming for lawful money removes one's asset pool from that kind of attachment. That is, when you do a general endorsement, you are basically pledging your entire asset pool to underwrite the transaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

A general endorsement places the endorsers assets into the general pool and provides a floating debenture over the entire estate. Redeeming for lawful money removes one's asset pool from that kind of attachment. That is, when you do a general endorsement, you are basically pledging your entire asset pool to underwrite the transaction.

---

Amen Brother!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIjMwGC1730&t=2s