See my blogs on Notary Signing Agents after reading this Op-Ed by Herbert today.
Op-Ed Columnist
Climbing Down the Ladder
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18herbert.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 17, 2008
I asked Kim Richardson, who is 59 and lives in a modest ranch house in Rocky Mount, N.C., what she would do if a hearing next month goes against her and she loses her home to foreclosure.
Post a Comment »
After a long pause, she said, in a voice faint from worry, “I don’t know. I’ll be out on the street, I guess. I don’t have anywhere to go.”
Ms. Richardson, who lives on a pair of monthly disability checks, lies awake night after night, unable to fend off the frightening homeless scenarios that dominate her thoughts. “I never believed that anything like this could ever, ever happen to me,” she said.
If you believe Ms. Richardson’s account, and I do, she was fast-talked into a mortgage that would have been impossible to pay off with her fixed income. Foreclosure would have seemed inevitable. But Ms. Richardson and her current lawyer, Carlene McNulty of Raleigh, N.C., said the figures that would have made it obvious to Ms. Richardson that she couldn’t afford the mortgage were deliberately concealed.
While the news media have been focusing on the banks, brokerage houses and mega-millionaires being buffeted by the ill winds of the financial crisis, the millions of lower- and middle-income Americans sinking toward the protracted hell of destitution are getting very little attention.
Older Americans are taking a particularly wicked hit. Analysts at AARP have found that “Americans age 50 and over represent about 28 percent of all delinquencies and foreclosures in the current crisis.”
Losing a home to foreclosure is a disaster for anyone. It’s a catastrophe for older people. The AARP Public Policy Institute, in a recent report, poignantly explained: “For Americans age 50 and over, losing a house represents a loss from which there is limited time to recover, and for some, a recovery may be impossible given their age and limited incomes.”
When Ms. Richardson bought her house in December 2005, she tried to make it clear that she could not afford monthly payments much higher than $500. Fine, she was told. She closed the deal with the understanding that she had a fixed-rate mortgage with monthly payments of $537. Prudent and skeptical, she tried to find out if there were any economic bombs hidden in the confusing mass of paperwork that she was confronted with.
“I had all these stacks of papers at the closing,” she told me, “and they were just passing papers back and forth to me, back and forth, telling me to sign. And I kept saying, ‘Wait a minute. Wait a minute.’ ”
She was assured that nothing untoward was going on.
Ms. Richardson did not have a fixed-rate mortgage. Her monthly payment rose, and rose again, eventually passing $800, which she could not pay. There was also a balloon payment provision hidden in the welter of documents, along with other obligations that would not emerge until Ms. Richardson was waist-high in economic quicksand.
Ms. McNulty, the lawyer, is trying to forestall the foreclosure, while at the same time trying to locate those who, in her view, defrauded her client. Her attempt to hold anyone accountable has been maddeningly difficult. As she explained, the original deal “was securitized into one of these now infamous trusts.”
The distress calls from despondent men and women who believed until very recently that they were living the American dream are coming from all over the country. Tova Navarra of Atlantic Highlands, N.J., was waylaid by illness. “I will end up bankrupt, disabled and bereft of a career,” she told me. “I’m wondering if this will become a bankrupt society.”
After a series of medical setbacks forced her to stop working, Ms. Navarra, 60, watched her standard of living deteriorate step by agonizing step to the point where she was forced to leave her condominium and move into a senior citizens’ residence that she currently cannot afford. The condo is in foreclosure, and she is staring at a future with no upside.
“The first time you realize that you can’t pay the mortgage — that’s the beginning of a very keen panic,” said Ms. Navarra. “The medical bills pile up and that’s when people start deliberately skipping doses to try to make the medicine stretch out a little more.
“You find yourself gradually climbing down the economic ladder, and you start thinking, ‘How am I going to survive, and where am I going to go?’ I said to myself, ‘Oh, my God. I’m going to end up sleeping in my car.’ ”
Real people. Real suffering. We may be fascinated by Wall Street, and bogus yarns like Joe the Plumber’s. But the real story in this country right now is the increasingly dire plight of those heading toward the bottom of that ladder that Ms. Navarra was talking about.
Showing posts with label Notary Signing Agents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Notary Signing Agents. Show all posts
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Makes Sense to Me
Editorial
What About the Rest of Us?
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri1.html
Published: September 25, 2008
Lawmakers were still wrangling Thursday night about the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of the financial system. Political theater was mainly responsible for the delay, but it will be worth the wait if lawmakers take the time to make sure that the plan includes real relief for homeowners and not only for Wall Street.
Post a Comment »
The problems in the financial system have their roots in the housing bust, as do the problems of America’s homeowners. Millions face foreclosure, and millions more are watching their equity being wiped out as foreclosures provoke price declines.
The problems became even more evident Thursday night with the federal seizure and sale of Washington Mutual to JPMorgan Chase.
It’s unacceptable that lawmakers have yet to come out squarely in favor of bold homeowner relief in the bailout bill. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the biggest advocate of bailing out Wall Street, is also a big roadblock to helping hard-pressed borrowers. He wants to keep relying on the mortgage industry to voluntarily rework troubled loans, even though that approach has failed to stem the foreclosure tide — and does a disservice to the taxpayers whose money he would put at risk in the bailout.
Many of the assets that Mr. Paulson wants to buy with the $700 billion have gone sour because they are tied to mortgages that have defaulted or are at risk of default. Unless homeowners get some help — and its a pittance compared to what Mr. Paulson wants to give to bankers — the downward spiral of defaults, foreclosures and tumbling home prices will continue, which could push down the value of those assets even further.
We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don’t have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers’ $700 billion investment.
Mr. Paulson has long opposed what is probably the best way to help Americans stay in their homes: allowing a bankruptcy court to reduce the size of bankrupt borrowers’ mortgages. Unfortunately, but predictably, drafts of the bailout plan circulated late Thursday do not mention that relief.
It is simply outrageous that every type of secured debt — except the mortgage on a primary home — can be reworked in bankruptcy court. The law was designed to protect lenders, who have obviously and disastrously abused that protection. There would be no favors dispensed in bankruptcy proceedings. Lenders would have to accept less of a payback and borrowers would have to submit to the oversight of the bankruptcy court for years.
But the bankruptcy process would mean many fewer foreclosures. And that would halt the downward slide in home prices, reduce the number of vacant homes — and the blight that comes with them — and help preserve equity for all homeowners. It would cost the taxpayer nothing.
Arguments against bankruptcy relief for mortgages have all been raised and refuted in Congressional hearings and debates over the past year.
There should be no more balking. Any bailout bill must allow struggling homeowners to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy court. Mr. Paulson should drop his opposition now. If he won’t, Congress should insist on the bailout for homeowners. Americans’ $700 billion investment needs to be protected.
What About the Rest of Us?
comments
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri1.html
Published: September 25, 2008
Lawmakers were still wrangling Thursday night about the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of the financial system. Political theater was mainly responsible for the delay, but it will be worth the wait if lawmakers take the time to make sure that the plan includes real relief for homeowners and not only for Wall Street.
Post a Comment »
The problems in the financial system have their roots in the housing bust, as do the problems of America’s homeowners. Millions face foreclosure, and millions more are watching their equity being wiped out as foreclosures provoke price declines.
The problems became even more evident Thursday night with the federal seizure and sale of Washington Mutual to JPMorgan Chase.
It’s unacceptable that lawmakers have yet to come out squarely in favor of bold homeowner relief in the bailout bill. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the biggest advocate of bailing out Wall Street, is also a big roadblock to helping hard-pressed borrowers. He wants to keep relying on the mortgage industry to voluntarily rework troubled loans, even though that approach has failed to stem the foreclosure tide — and does a disservice to the taxpayers whose money he would put at risk in the bailout.
Many of the assets that Mr. Paulson wants to buy with the $700 billion have gone sour because they are tied to mortgages that have defaulted or are at risk of default. Unless homeowners get some help — and its a pittance compared to what Mr. Paulson wants to give to bankers — the downward spiral of defaults, foreclosures and tumbling home prices will continue, which could push down the value of those assets even further.
We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don’t have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers’ $700 billion investment.
Mr. Paulson has long opposed what is probably the best way to help Americans stay in their homes: allowing a bankruptcy court to reduce the size of bankrupt borrowers’ mortgages. Unfortunately, but predictably, drafts of the bailout plan circulated late Thursday do not mention that relief.
It is simply outrageous that every type of secured debt — except the mortgage on a primary home — can be reworked in bankruptcy court. The law was designed to protect lenders, who have obviously and disastrously abused that protection. There would be no favors dispensed in bankruptcy proceedings. Lenders would have to accept less of a payback and borrowers would have to submit to the oversight of the bankruptcy court for years.
But the bankruptcy process would mean many fewer foreclosures. And that would halt the downward slide in home prices, reduce the number of vacant homes — and the blight that comes with them — and help preserve equity for all homeowners. It would cost the taxpayer nothing.
Arguments against bankruptcy relief for mortgages have all been raised and refuted in Congressional hearings and debates over the past year.
There should be no more balking. Any bailout bill must allow struggling homeowners to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy court. Mr. Paulson should drop his opposition now. If he won’t, Congress should insist on the bailout for homeowners. Americans’ $700 billion investment needs to be protected.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Excessive Fees and Mortgages
This New York Times article spotlights Ohio and the subprime mess. Nothing new, really.
Click on Title or cut and paste.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/business/04auction.html
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Notary Signing Agents -- So Who Answers the 'Why' Questions?
.jpg)
Re the subprimes, the alt-A's, the second mortgages, etc.
It used to be attorneys.
From The National Notary - September 2007 at 33.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Subprimes -- And The Know-Nothing "Signing Agent"
F. Bruce Abel
copyright 2007
Remember when attorneys handled closings, and did such things as actually explain what the documents meant?
Now there's a new category of employment -- Know-Nothing Notary Signing Agents who do the subtle dirty-work of the lender.
They go to the homes of the borrower ostensibly to verify John Smith is John Smith. Ah, but of course there's much more! And all for the Notary Fee of $125.
Hilarious Example by Attorney Covering for His Daughter Who Took the Notary Signing Agent Course But Was Out of the Country:
August 6, 2007: Telephone call 3:30 pm from Countrywide: "Can you be in Mxxx (11 miles away) in an hour to close a mortgage?"
[negotiation of fee of $125: see below]
$21,000 15-year loan. (To consolidate his cars on the borrowing so he can deduct the interest on the mortgage). Borrower makes $60,000 a year. Wife makes -- guessing -- $20,000. Own a new 2600 sq ft home in Mxxx. (1300 plus just finished out the basement for a second 1300). All houses on very long and winding street backing up to nice woods. All the same.
The borrower, Jxxx (or Jxxxx) xxxxxx, a young (maybe 40) IT guy with Txxxxxxxx, was very smart and helped me through the process because he had taken his 1st mortgage through Countrywide and had gone through the drill. He had a Korean wife, having met her in the Army.
$1,000 closing fee deducted by Countrywide! Net to client.
Fears (of the first-time "Notary Signing Agent") along the way to Mxxxx and how they were handled:
The fear that the forms would not be fully filled out.
Borrower: "I signed a lot of empty forms before."
Lesson: Just have them sign where indicated, whether it makes sense or not. You don't -- or do you? -- have to sit and wait while they understand what they are signing before filling things out. You don't -- or do you? -- yourself have to understand the myriad of papers being signed.
[Upon reflection, all of the above is pretty easy after one does the first closing.]
However, where they have to identify themselves, and the notary has to verify that, that has to be done right.
Borrower: "When more is needed after the closing they call the borrower and he then faxes the relevant page."
The "first" closing:
So I get to the borrower's house in Mxxxx.
Borrower: "where are the papers?"
Call to "home office." "Where are the papers?"
"Oh, you didn't download them?"
Home office tries to put the blame (for no papers) on the notary.
Borrower: "same thing happened before. Exactly." "Earlier Today!"
"And at the First Mortgage Closing Last November too."
"The last notary showed up and said 'Where are the papers?'"
Me: THEY E-MAIL ALL PAPERS TO THE NOTARY. 110 pages! So Countrywide, not even having the overhead of an Ohio office, doesn't even pay for the paper or printing ink!
Called my home/office. Mxx downloaded the 110 pages on my printer.
The wife worked as a waitress at Bxxxxxxhanas near Gxxxxxxx and so we had the closing at xxx xxxxxxx at 9:30 p.m. (They had suggested TGIF)
No copies go to the borrower -- I'm not paying for them! -- even the form which (on reflection) they should keep as it is the one where they can rescind within 3 days. Copies are sent to the borrower from the lender later.
Back to the early part of the story: So at the borrowers, with no papers, I call the lender on the cell phone. You know my temper. An argument ensued. The woman at the other end, "counseling" me: "Now we don't air our dirty linen in front of the client!"
(On Wall Street they are talking this week about when the borrower cannot pay he doesn't have anyone to call to renogotiate. His paper may be held by a Japanese bank.)
I probably spent 3 hours in all. But I enjoyed it! Met new people.
But, oh how the "law" or "non-law" has changed. Gone are the days of the lawyer's $500-1000 fee for "getting everything right because it is 'real estate.'"
Oh and I almost killed myself making a U-turn on Butler-Hamilton Road during rush hour when I missed my turn getting to the strange location.
Titles all across the country must be screwed up!
I had negotiated the $125 this way.
"Genny is not here. I'm a lawyer. All lawyers in Ohio are Notaries. I'll do it."
"We pay $90."
"I'll do it for $100 plus mileage."
"How much then?"
"$125."
phony pause (to get "permission")
"OK."
-----Original Message-----
From: Genevieve
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:16 PM
To: Eunice Abel
Subject: Re: this notary business
The notary signing agent book is in my room if dad wants to brush up on it.
Good for him for giving it a go: it's more than I ever did!
copyright 2007
Remember when attorneys handled closings, and did such things as actually explain what the documents meant?
Now there's a new category of employment -- Know-Nothing Notary Signing Agents who do the subtle dirty-work of the lender.
They go to the homes of the borrower ostensibly to verify John Smith is John Smith. Ah, but of course there's much more! And all for the Notary Fee of $125.
Hilarious Example by Attorney Covering for His Daughter Who Took the Notary Signing Agent Course But Was Out of the Country:
August 6, 2007: Telephone call 3:30 pm from Countrywide: "Can you be in Mxxx (11 miles away) in an hour to close a mortgage?"
[negotiation of fee of $125: see below]
$21,000 15-year loan. (To consolidate his cars on the borrowing so he can deduct the interest on the mortgage). Borrower makes $60,000 a year. Wife makes -- guessing -- $20,000. Own a new 2600 sq ft home in Mxxx. (1300 plus just finished out the basement for a second 1300). All houses on very long and winding street backing up to nice woods. All the same.
The borrower, Jxxx (or Jxxxx) xxxxxx, a young (maybe 40) IT guy with Txxxxxxxx, was very smart and helped me through the process because he had taken his 1st mortgage through Countrywide and had gone through the drill. He had a Korean wife, having met her in the Army.
$1,000 closing fee deducted by Countrywide! Net to client.
Fears (of the first-time "Notary Signing Agent") along the way to Mxxxx and how they were handled:
The fear that the forms would not be fully filled out.
Borrower: "I signed a lot of empty forms before."
Lesson: Just have them sign where indicated, whether it makes sense or not. You don't -- or do you? -- have to sit and wait while they understand what they are signing before filling things out. You don't -- or do you? -- yourself have to understand the myriad of papers being signed.
[Upon reflection, all of the above is pretty easy after one does the first closing.]
However, where they have to identify themselves, and the notary has to verify that, that has to be done right.
Borrower: "When more is needed after the closing they call the borrower and he then faxes the relevant page."
The "first" closing:
So I get to the borrower's house in Mxxxx.
Borrower: "where are the papers?"
Call to "home office." "Where are the papers?"
"Oh, you didn't download them?"
Home office tries to put the blame (for no papers) on the notary.
Borrower: "same thing happened before. Exactly." "Earlier Today!"
"And at the First Mortgage Closing Last November too."
"The last notary showed up and said 'Where are the papers?'"
Me: THEY E-MAIL ALL PAPERS TO THE NOTARY. 110 pages! So Countrywide, not even having the overhead of an Ohio office, doesn't even pay for the paper or printing ink!
Called my home/office. Mxx downloaded the 110 pages on my printer.
The wife worked as a waitress at Bxxxxxxhanas near Gxxxxxxx and so we had the closing at xxx xxxxxxx at 9:30 p.m. (They had suggested TGIF)
No copies go to the borrower -- I'm not paying for them! -- even the form which (on reflection) they should keep as it is the one where they can rescind within 3 days. Copies are sent to the borrower from the lender later.
Back to the early part of the story: So at the borrowers, with no papers, I call the lender on the cell phone. You know my temper. An argument ensued. The woman at the other end, "counseling" me: "Now we don't air our dirty linen in front of the client!"
(On Wall Street they are talking this week about when the borrower cannot pay he doesn't have anyone to call to renogotiate. His paper may be held by a Japanese bank.)
I probably spent 3 hours in all. But I enjoyed it! Met new people.
But, oh how the "law" or "non-law" has changed. Gone are the days of the lawyer's $500-1000 fee for "getting everything right because it is 'real estate.'"
Oh and I almost killed myself making a U-turn on Butler-Hamilton Road during rush hour when I missed my turn getting to the strange location.
Titles all across the country must be screwed up!
I had negotiated the $125 this way.
"Genny is not here. I'm a lawyer. All lawyers in Ohio are Notaries. I'll do it."
"We pay $90."
"I'll do it for $100 plus mileage."
"How much then?"
"$125."
phony pause (to get "permission")
"OK."
-----Original Message-----
From: Genevieve
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:16 PM
To: Eunice Abel
Subject: Re: this notary business
The notary signing agent book is in my room if dad wants to brush up on it.
Good for him for giving it a go: it's more than I ever did!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)