Category:

Judge’s Ruling an NJ Foreclosure Game Changer

April 26th, 2019 by

On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal, but here is why it is important to a homeowner who may be facing or fighting foreclosure.

Here is how it helps the homeowner.

Foreclosures are filed in state court.  In New Jersey, the state courts have become more unfavorable to homeowners since 2012, and they

often rubber stamp bank requests even where the documents are missing.  Courts have made it easier and easier for banks to obtain foreclosure judgments in New Jersey.

Where the State Court allowed the bank to get a judgment including money not owed by the homeowner and the Federal Court ruled that by seeking to collect money not owed the attorneys involved violated Federal Law.  When a bank seeks to collect money it is not owed, a homeowner can sue in Federal Court instead of State Court.  Federal Courts apply the law more accurately than the State Courts.

Homeowners that go on the offensive level the playing field.  A homeowner that shows the bank they are not afraid to fight when their rights are violated, creates leverage.

The number of ways banks and their collection attorneys violate homeowner rights is never-ending and always evolving.  Federal Courts can hear claims where a bank refuses to honor a loan modification, misapplies money paid to the bank, or where the bank breaks into a home.  These are the types of violations that happen on a daily basis across the country.  These are violations of homeowner rights ignored by the State Courts.

Additionally, banks process foreclosure cases as quickly and inexpensively as possible and don’t look into details unless forced to.  Often times they haven’t even looked at the repayment history or loan servicing file before filing a foreclosure.  This increases the chance for an error on by the debt collecting lawyers.  Finding these errors and turning them into leverage for the homeowner is the foundation to creating a smart and effective legal plan for combating foreclosure.

Denbeaux & Denbeaux doesn’t just think about how to defend a foreclosure, they have developed tools to utilize several Federal Laws that allow homeowners to go on the offensive if their rights have been violated by the loan owner, servicer, attorney or their representatives.  The Denbeaux firm uses the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act to obtain a homeowner’s complete loan servicing file.  This includes loan payment history, letters sent by the loan servicer, loan modification applications, phone call records, and other documents that often demonstrate violations of Federal Law that can be acted upon by the homeowner.

Going on the offensive is the best way a homeowner facing foreclosure can improve their situation.  The banks, loan servicers, and their attorneys take matters seriously when they get sued with legitimate claims.  They pay attention in part because they are under a close watch from the Financial Consumer Protection Bureau (CFPB) which pays attention to how often financial institutions get sued, and the reasons for the lawsuits.  The ruling in Psaros v. Green Tree Servicing demonstrates the difference between operating in State Court and Federal Court and shows that homeowners facing foreclosure have many rights, but only if they are willing to directly stand up for themselves.

Sued by Pressler? Read this.

March 23rd, 2019 by

If you were sued by Pressler & Pressler you may have the opportunity to sue them for up to $1,000, plus any actual damages you have suffered.

Denbeaux Will Help Consumers Sue Pressler for FDCPA Violations

For a free evaluation of your case, click here now.

Your responses will allow us to identify all potential claims and quickly evaluate your case.  This evaluation is at no cost to you, of course, and if we can identify an actionable violation, we will be able to take your case.

Federal law penalizes debt collectors such as Pressler & Pressler for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace.

On April 25, 2016, the law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP and debt buyer New Century Financial Services, Inc. were fined by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a federal agency, for sending out deceptive, intimidating, and illegal collections lawsuits to collect money from people in New Jersey.

You may be able to collect up to $1,000 at no cost to you if a debt collector violated the FDCPA while trying to collect a debt from you.


RESOURCES

CFPB Takes Action to Halt Illegal Debt Collection Practices and Lawsuit Mill and Debt Buyer – CFPB Press Release April 25, 2016

So Sue Them. What We’ve Learned About the Debt Collection Lawsuit Machine – by Paul Kiel Pro Publica May 5, 2016

$2.5 Million CFPB Action Ratchets Pressure on Debt Collection Suit – by Chris Bruce Bloomberg BNA April 26, 2015

CFPB Announces Consent Orders Against Law Firm and Debt Buyer – by Tim Bauer insideARM.com accounts receivable management April 26, 2016

Feds Take Action to Stop Illegal Debt Collection Practices bu Morris County “Lawsuit Mill” by Dave Schatz New Brunswick Today April 26, 2016

New Jersey Lawsuit Mill Fined $2.5 Million by Teresa Lo JD Journal April 26, 2015


Category:Press Release

CFPB Takes Action to Halt Illegal Debt Collection Practices By Lawsuit Mill and Debt Buyer

CFPB Bars Law Firm, Debt Buyer from Churning Out Illegal Collections Lawsuits and Imposes $2.5 Million in Penalties

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered the debt collection law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP, two principal partners, and New Century Financial Services, Inc., a debt buyer, to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The orders also require the firm and the named partners to pay $1 million, and New Century to pay $1.5 million to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund.

“For years, Pressler & Pressler churned out one lawsuit after another to collect debts for New Century that were not verified and might not exist,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Debt collectors that file lawsuits with no regard for their validity break the law and violate the public trust. We will continue to take action to protect borrowers from abuse.”

Pressler & Pressler is a New Jersey-based law firm that collects consumers’ debts for creditors through lawsuits and other means. New Century Financial Services, also based in New Jersey, buys and collects defaulted consumer debts and hands off those accounts to Pressler & Pressler for collection. To collect alleged debts on behalf of New Century and others, Pressler & Pressler filed hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers.  Sheldon H. Pressler and Gerard J. Felt, partners of the firm, each participated in the firm’s debt collection litigation practices.

The CFPB found that to mass-produce these lawsuits, Pressler & Pressler used an automated claim-preparation system and non-attorney support staff to determine which consumers to sue. Attorneys generally spent less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit. This process allowed the firm to generate and file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2014. The CFPB found that the respondents violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace. Specifically, the CFPB found that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services:

  • Made false or empty allegations about consumer debts: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed lawsuits against consumers without sufficient basis. Neither the firm nor New Century reviewed documents supporting the validity of debts.
  • Filed lawsuits based on unreliable or false information: Some consumers had previously challenged the validity or accuracy of the debts, but the firm or New Century did not obtain or review information to justify their claims. The firm and New Century also filed suits and collected debt knowing that some account portfolios targeted for lawsuits contained unreliable or false information.
  • Harassed consumers with unsubstantiated court filings: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed collection suits generated mainly by automated processes that relied on summary data. The firm won the vast majority of the lawsuits by default when consumers did not defend themselves, even though neither Pressler & Pressler nor New Century had verified that the debts were actually owed.

Enforcement Action

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals that engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB also has authority over debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB orders require that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services must:

  • Stop filing lawsuits with unsubstantiated claims: Pressler & Pressler, the named partners, and New Century cannot file lawsuits or threaten to sue to collect debts unless they obtain and review specific account-level documents and information showing the debt is accurate and enforceable.
  • Ensure accurate court filings: The firm, the named partners, and New Century may not use affidavits as evidence to collect debts unless they accurately describe relevant facts including that the individual executing the affidavit has personal knowledge of the debt, or, if not, has reviewed documentation related to the debt. The firm must also keep an electronic record showing it is following proper procedures.
  • Pay civil penalties: The firm and the named partners must pay a penalty of $1 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. New Century must pay a penalty of $1.5 million.

The CFPB’s order against Pressler & Pressler and the named partners is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order-pressler-pressler-llp-sheldon-h-pressler-and-gerard-j-felt.pdf 

The CFPB’s order against New Century Financial Services is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order_new-century-financial-services-inc.pdf 

This action continues the Bureau’s work to address illegal debt collection practices across the consumer financial marketplace, including companies that sell, buy, and collect debt. In recent separate enforcement actions, the CFPB has ordered large banks, credit card issuers, debt buyers, and firms to overhaul their debt collection practices and refund millions to harmed consumers. The Bureau will continue working to ensure all players in the collections market treat consumers fairly.

###
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.

Are all lawsuits by Pressler fraudulent?

March 7th, 2019 by

No. That said, in 2014, Pressler obtained over 50,000 judgments in New Jersey Courts. Please get us all communications you still have from Pressler and the docket number of the lawsuit that Pressler filed against you.

How Do I Know if I Have a Claim Against Pressler?

In order for us to review your case, we will need your address, the docket number of the complaint filed by Pressler and as much of the communication you sent to and received from Pressler as you saved.

What is the DEBT was more than six years old?

Please reach out to my firm right away.  The statute of limitations on most debts is only six years after default.

What if there is an Existing Judgement?

Existing judgments might be actionable. You should contact us so we can guide you as to best how to do this.

Please let us know if you receive any other communications from Pressler or any other collection outfit and we will review your potential case at that time

In the future, no matter what happens with this potential claim, please keep careful track of all documents you receive from any debt collector.

What is Pressler is harassing me on the phone or with letters related to collecting a debt?

Harassment by any means can violates federal law.  If Pressler harassed you, or is still harassing you, then you may have a claim. What records of these communications have you kept? It is strongly advised that you retain all records from all collection companies. Please give my office a call and get us your communications to and from Pressler.

Is Pressler actively Garnishing wages or Paid a Judgement on a Debt that was old or not owed?

We are interested in speaking with you about your possible claim.  Please be able to get us certain information when we speak, including: your contact information, the docket numbers of all suits that Pressler has filed against you and any documentation to or from Pressler that you have kept.

Pressler Sue You?

March 1st, 2019 by

If you were sued by Pressler & Pressler you may have the opportunity to sue them for up to $1,000, plus any actual damages you have suffered.

Federal law penalizes debt collectors such as Pressler & Pressler for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace.

On April 25, 2016, the law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP and debt buyer New Century Financial Services, Inc. were fined by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a federal agency, for sending out deceptive, intimidating, and illegal collections lawsuits to collect money from people in New Jersey.

After being sued by the CFPB the firm agreed to pay a $1,000,000 penalty. It also admitted to violating a key federal consumer protection law known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

You may be able to collect up to $1,000 at no cost to you if a debt collector violated the FDCPA while trying to collect a debt from you. Contact us below now to learn more.

According to a May 5, 2016 article in ProPublica by Paul Kiel,  “So Sue Them: What We’ve Learned About the Debt Collection Lawsuit Machine”, in recent years Pressler & Pressler obtained debt collection judgments against 76,000 New Jersey residents annually. In 99% of these collection actions, the defendants being sued by did not have attorneys and could not often adequately stand up for their rights.

In fact, the firm admitted that many of the lawsuits were filed without having proof that the debt was owed by the consumer or that the amount owed and terms were accurate.  They admitted filing lawsuits based on false information.

Even if a judgment has already been entered against you, you may be entitled to a statutory recovery of up to $1,000.00.  This time, stand up for your rights with an attorney.

Pressler & Pressler already agreed to pay $1,000,000 to the Federal Government, but none of that will be distributed to you.  Your relief requires you take action now.

Category:Press Release

CFPB Takes Action to Halt Illegal Debt Collection Practices By Lawsuit Mill and Debt Buyer

CFPB Bars Law Firm, Debt Buyer from Churning Out Illegal Collections Lawsuits and Imposes $2.5 Million in Penalties

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered the debt collection law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP, two principal partners, and New Century Financial Services, Inc., a debt buyer, to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The orders also require the firm and the named partners to pay $1 million, and New Century to pay $1.5 million to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund.

“For years, Pressler & Pressler churned out one lawsuit after another to collect debts for New Century that were not verified and might not exist,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Debt collectors that file lawsuits with no regard for their validity break the law and violate the public trust. We will continue to take action to protect borrowers from abuse.”

Pressler & Pressler is a New Jersey-based law firm that collects consumers’ debts for creditors through lawsuits and other means. New Century Financial Services, also based in New Jersey, buys and collects defaulted consumer debts and hands off those accounts to Pressler & Pressler for collection. To collect alleged debts on behalf of New Century and others, Pressler & Pressler filed hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers.  Sheldon H. Pressler and Gerard J. Felt, partners of the firm, each participated in the firm’s debt collection litigation practices.

The CFPB found that to mass-produce these lawsuits, Pressler & Pressler used an automated claim-preparation system and non-attorney support staff to determine which consumers to sue. Attorneys generally spent less than a few minutes, sometimes less than 30 seconds, reviewing each case before initiating a lawsuit. This process allowed the firm to generate and file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against consumers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2014. The CFPB found that the respondents violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace. Specifically, the CFPB found that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services:

  • Made false or empty allegations about consumer debts: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed lawsuits against consumers without sufficient basis. Neither the firm nor New Century reviewed documents supporting the validity of debts.
  • Filed lawsuits based on unreliable or false information: Some consumers had previously challenged the validity or accuracy of the debts, but the firm or New Century did not obtain or review information to justify their claims. The firm and New Century also filed suits and collected debt knowing that some account portfolios targeted for lawsuits contained unreliable or false information.
  • Harassed consumers with unsubstantiated court filings: The CFPB found that the firm, the named partners, and New Century filed collection suits generated mainly by automated processes that relied on summary data. The firm won the vast majority of the lawsuits by default when consumers did not defend themselves, even though neither Pressler & Pressler nor New Century had verified that the debts were actually owed.

Enforcement Action

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals that engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB also has authority over debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The CFPB orders require that Pressler & Pressler, the firm’s named partners, and New Century Financial Services must:

  • Stop filing lawsuits with unsubstantiated claims: Pressler & Pressler, the named partners, and New Century cannot file lawsuits or threaten to sue to collect debts unless they obtain and review specific account-level documents and information showing the debt is accurate and enforceable.
  • Ensure accurate court filings: The firm, the named partners, and New Century may not use affidavits as evidence to collect debts unless they accurately describe relevant facts including that the individual executing the affidavit has personal knowledge of the debt, or, if not, has reviewed documentation related to the debt. The firm must also keep an electronic record showing it is following proper procedures.
  • Pay civil penalties: The firm and the named partners must pay a penalty of $1 million to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. New Century must pay a penalty of $1.5 million.

The CFPB’s order against Pressler & Pressler and the named partners is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order-pressler-pressler-llp-sheldon-h-pressler-and-gerard-j-felt.pdf 

The CFPB’s order against New Century Financial Services is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201604_cfpb_consent-order_new-century-financial-services-inc.pdf 

This action continues the Bureau’s work to address illegal debt collection practices across the consumer financial marketplace, including companies that sell, buy, and collect debt. In recent separate enforcement actions, the CFPB has ordered large banks, credit card issuers, debt buyers, and firms to overhaul their debt collection practices and refund millions to harmed consumers. The Bureau will continue working to ensure all players in the collections market treat consumers fairly.

###
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.

Sued by Pressler? Read this.

February 28th, 2019 by

If you were sued by Pressler & Pressler you may have the opportunity to sue them for up to $1,000, plus any actual damages you have suffered.

Denbeaux Will Help Consumers Sue Pressler for FDCPA Violations

For a free evaluation of your case, click here now.

Your responses will allow us to identify all potential claims and quickly evaluate your case.  This evaluation is at no cost to you, of course, and if we can identify an actionable violation, we will be able to take your case.

Federal law penalizes debt collectors such as Pressler & Pressler for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the consumer financial marketplace.

On April 25, 2016, the law firm Pressler & Pressler, LLP and debt buyer New Century Financial Services, Inc. were fined by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau,

a federal agency, for sending out deceptive, intimidating, and illegal collections lawsuits to collect money from people in New Jersey.

You may be able to collect up to $1,000 at no cost to you if a debt collector violated the FDCPA while trying to collect a debt from you.

The Hourly Income You Need To Afford Rent Around The U.S.

March 31st, 2018 by

Housing and Affordable Rent Is Out of Reach

Millions of Americans struggle to find affordable rentals.

In order to afford a modest, two-bedroom rental home in the U.S., renters need to earn a wage of $21.21 per hour. The Housing Wage for a two-bedroom apartment is $13.96 higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and $4.83 higher than the average hourly wage of $16.38 earned by renters nationwide.

The Struggle is Widespread

In no state can a person working full-time at the federal minimum wage afford a two-bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent.

A renter earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would need to work 117 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom rental home at the Fair Market Rent and 94.5 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom. In only 12 counties can a full-time worker earning the prevailing federal or state minimum wage afford a one-bedroom rental home.

Click here to read the full report from the National Low Income Housing CoalitionThere is also a budget calculator on the site that works for any zip code. Just type in the zip code and you will see the hourly wage that is needed to afford the rent on a two-bedroom house in that zip code.

For the basic information about New Jersey wages and housing click here.

For more housing information

NLIHC Housing Advocacy Organizer

Tori Bourret
[email protected] | 202.662.1530 x244

State Partner

Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey
145 West Hanover Street
Trenton, NJ 08618
Phone: 609-393-3752
Fax: 609-393-9016
Website: www.hcdnnj.org
Mr. Arnold Cohen, Senior Policy Coordinator | [email protected]
Ms. Staci Berger, President and CEO | [email protected]

Click Here to find out New Jersey’s State Housing Wage

Lookup State and Federal Officials

Loan Modification

March 19th, 2018 by

Loan Modification and Foreclosure

Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. has been protecting the rights of NJ home owners since the housing crisis of 2008. He is one of the few attorneys to have brought cases and won in the NJ Supreme Court.

Loan Modification Representation

We can reveal your eligibility for a loan modification with a specific lender along with the terms and payment amounts to provide more successful outcomes.

Clients have found this helpful in order to make short term and long term financial decisions related to servicing their mortgage debt. We have the resources to research the specific trust, investor or servicer and identify the specific modification programs available to you by your lender and know the terms of that offer.

How it Works

We do an analysis of your eligibility for a loan modification based upon information about your loan.

We will be able to tell you :

1. Who actually owns your current loan.
2. What other loans exist within your pool.
3. See characteristics of the loan pool.
4. Loan history what loan terms for which you may be eligible.

From this information we can draw conclusions and make strong predictions about what the lender has offerred to borrowers in the past. We will be able to see if they are dealing with you fairly when they make the offer of the modification. Also we will be able to ascertain if the loan modification terms will be able to help your situation.

Benefit to Homeowners of Proactive Loan Modification Representation

If the loan modification application is not properly administered you have the right to bring a federal lawsuit against mortgage servicer and their attorneys.

We do all the work necessary to have the legal basis to protect your rights and bring a lawsuit if it comes to that. Often clients have started the loan modification process on their own and run into problems and misfortune such as losing their home due to loan servicing errors in handling their file. By having legal representation from the outset we are able to compile an accurate record of exactly what the loan servicer is doing and hold them accountable. If they have violated the law we can bring a suit against them.

Loan Modification Homeowner Rights

If the loan servicer neglects to administer the loan modification application carefully then they may be subject to penalties under the law know as The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“ RESPA”) and the Truth-In-Lending Act (“TILA”).

  1. The loan servicer upon receiving a complete loan application must issue a decision within 30 business days from the date of receipt.
  2. If any documents are missing or if the servicer needs additional documents they must advise the borrower within 5 business days after receipt of the application.
  3. While a complete application is being reviewed the loan servicer must stop all actions in a foreclosure.
  4. Provide information properly requested e.g. RFI about ownership of note and mortgage under TILA within 10 business days; and
  5. Provide information properly requested about loan payments, loan history, and other loan information within 30 business days.
  6. Provide payoff or reinstatement figures within 7 business days of receipt of written request.
  7. If a servicer violates these regulations, there can be liability under Regulations X and Z for statutory damages, attorney fees, and compensatory damages e.g. legal fees, loss of credit and other losses.

When Denbeaux and Denbeaux provides the representation for your loan modification we hold the lender accountable for following the these rules and document violations that can be used to sue the loan servicer and their attorneys. The primary benefits for the borrower of Denbeaux and Denbeaux involved are :

  • stopping the foreclosure process
  • getting you more time to arrange your finances
  • securing a loan modification

Our attorneys and experts have worked with loan modifications for our clients with these and other lenders:

Bank of America
Caliber
Chase
Citibank
Ditech
Fay Servicing
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
Federal Housing Authority (FHA)
Greentree
Nationstar
Ocwen
PennyMac
PNC
Rushmore
Selene Finance
Seterus
Shellpoint
Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS)
US Bank
Wells Fargo

CFPB Rules Establish Strong Protections for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

New Rules Prevent Servicer Surprises and Runarounds for Mortgage Borrowers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (January 17, 2013) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued rules to establish new, strong protections for struggling homeowners facing foreclosure. The rules also protect mortgage borrowers from costly surprises and runarounds by their servicers.
“For many borrowers, dealing with mortgage servicers has meant unwelcome surprises and constantly getting the runaround. In too many cases, it has led to unnecessary foreclosures,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Our rules ensure fair treatment for all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes.”

Mortgage servicers are responsible for collecting payments from mortgage borrowers on behalf of loan owners. They also typically handle customer service, escrow accounts, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. Generally, borrowers have no say in choosing their mortgage servicers. Lenders frequently sell loans to investors after the mortgage deal is signed, and the investors, not the consumers, often choose the servicers.
Even before the financial crisis, the mortgage servicing industry at times experienced problems with bad practices and sloppy recordkeeping. As millions of borrowers fell behind on their loans as a result of the crisis, many servicers were unable to provide the level of service necessary to meet homeowners’ needs. Many simply had not made the investments in resources and infrastructure to service large numbers of delinquent loans. Consumers complained about getting the runaround and being hit with costly surprises. Now, with millions of homeowners in distress, many borrowers are continuing to experience serious problems seeking loan modifications or other alternatives to avoid foreclosure.

Strong Protections for Struggling Borrowers

The CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules ensure that borrowers in trouble get a fair process to avoid foreclosure. Borrowers shouldn’t have to worry about mortgage servicers cutting corners or losing applications for relief. They should be told about their options and given time to apply and be considered for loan modifications and other alternatives. Most of all, they shouldn’t be surprised by the start of a foreclosure proceeding until they have had time to explore all available options. If they act diligently to seek alternatives, they should not face a foreclosure sale before their applications have been evaluated. The new protections for struggling borrowers include:

Restricted Dual-Tracking: Under the CFPB’s new rules, dual-tracking – when the servicer moves forward with foreclosure while simultaneously working with the borrower to avoid foreclosure – is restricted. Servicers cannot start a foreclosure proceeding if a borrower has already submitted a complete application for a loan modification or other alternative to foreclosure, and that application is still pending review. To give borrowers reasonable time to submit such applications, servicers cannot make the first notice or filing required for the foreclosure process until a mortgage loan account is more than 120 days delinquent.

Notification of Foreclosure Alternatives: Servicers must let borrowers know about their “loss mitigation options” to retain their home after borrowers have missed two consecutive payments. They must provide them a written notice that includes examples of options that might be available to them as alternatives to foreclosure and instructions for how to obtain more information.

Direct and Ongoing Access to Servicing Personnel: Servicers must have policies and procedures in place to provide delinquent borrowers with direct, easy, ongoing access to employees responsible for helping them. These personnel are responsible for alerting borrowers to any missing information on their applications, telling borrowers about the status of any loss mitigation application, and making sure documents get to the right servicing personnel for processing.

Fair Review Process: The servicer must consider all foreclosure alternatives available from the mortgage owners or investors – those with decision-making power over the loan – to help the borrower retain the home. These options can range from deferment of payments to loan modifications. And servicers can no longer steer borrowers to those options that are most financially favorable for the servicer.

No Foreclosure Sale Until All Other Alternatives Considered: Servicers must consider and respond to a borrower’s application for a loan modification if it arrives at least 37 days before a scheduled foreclosure sale. If the servicer offers an alternative to foreclosure, they must give the borrower time to accept the offer before moving for foreclosure judgment or conducting a foreclosure sale. Servicers cannot foreclose on a property if the borrower and servicer have come to a loss mitigation agreement, unless the borrower fails to perform under that agreement.

No Surprises
Mortgage borrowers should not be surprised about where their money is going, when interest rates adjust, or when they get charged fees. The CFPB’s rules help every borrower, whether struggling or not, by bringing greater transparency to the market with clear and timely information about mortgages. These rules include:

Clear Monthly Mortgage Statements: Servicers must provide regular statements which include: the amount and due date of the next payment; a breakdown of payments by principal, interest, fees, and escrow; and recent transaction activity.

Early Warning Before Interest Rate Adjusts: Servicers must provide a disclosure before the first time the interest rate adjusts for most adjustable-rate mortgages. And they must provide disclosures before interest rate adjustments that result in a different payment amount.

Options for Avoiding Costly “Force-Placed” Insurance: Servicers typically must make sure borrowers maintain property insurance and if the borrower does not, the servicer generally has the right to purchase it. The CFPB’s rules ensure consumers will not be surprised by this insurance, which often can be more expensive than the insurance borrowers buy on their own. The rules say servicers must provide more transparency in this process, including advance notice and pricing information before charging consumers. Servicers must also have a reasonable basis for concluding that a borrower lacks such insurance before purchasing a new policy. If servicers buy the insurance but receive evidence that it was not needed, they must terminate it within fifteen days and refund the premiums.

No Runarounds
When mortgage servicers make mistakes, records get lost, payments are processed too slowly, or servicer personnel do not have the latest information about a consumer’s account, the consumer suffers the consequences. The CFPB’s rules will require common-sense policies and procedures for handling consumer accounts and preventing runarounds. These rules include:

Payments Promptly Credited: Servicers must credit a consumer’s account the date a payment is received. If the servicer places partial payments in a “suspense account,” once the amount in such an account equals a full payment, the servicer must credit it to the borrower’s account.
Prompt Response to Requests for Payoff Balances: Servicers must generally provide a response to consumer requests for the payoff balances of their mortgage loans within seven business days of receiving a written request.
Errors Corrected and Information Provided Quickly: Servicers must generally acknowledge receipt of written notices from consumers regarding certain errors or requesting information about their mortgage loans. Generally, within 30 days, the servicer must: correct the error and provide the information requested; conduct a reasonable investigation and inform the borrower why the error did not occur; or inform the borrower that the information requested is unavailable.

Maintain Accurate and Accessible Documents and Information: Servicers must store borrower information in a way that allows it to be easily accessible. Servicers must also have policies and procedures in place to ensure that they can provide timely and accurate information to borrowers, investors, and in any foreclosure proceeding, the courts.

Today’s rules originate from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which directed the CFPB to implement reforms for the mortgage servicing industry. The CFPB announced in August that it was considering a number of proposals to implement the Dodd-Frank Act requirements and address systemic problems in the industry. Today’s rules are a result of the public’s feedback on those proposals.

Recognizing that small servicers approach servicing quite differently, the CFPB made certain exemptions to today’s mortgage servicing rules for small servicers that service 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans that they or an affiliate either own or originated. These servicers are mostly community banks and credit unions servicing mortgages for their customers or members.

The mortgage servicing rules take effect in January 2014. The CFPB plans to work with mortgage servicers to ensure an easy transition to implementation. To help with compliance, the CFPB will, among other things, be issuing plain language implementation guides and, in coordination with other agencies, releasing materials that help servicers understand supervisory expectations. For many of the new rules that require specific notifications, the rule contains model and sample forms. As the effective date approaches, the CFPB will also give consumers information about their new rights under these rules.

The mortgage servicing rules can be found Thursday at:www.consumerfinance.gov/regulations
A summary of the rules is available at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201301_cfpb_servicing-rules_summary.pdf
A factsheet about the rules can be found at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201301_cfpb_servicing-fact-sheet.pdf

Bank of America Loan Modification Scam

February 10th, 2018 by

Woman Says Bank Foreclosed On Her Home Despite Making Mortgage Payments

(Running time: 1 minute 37 seconds)

Here in her own words is Ms. Kim Shibles telling her story in her own words about her experience with Bank of America before she found Denbeaux and Denbeaux. After hearing her brief one on one with CBS Producer Mary McKeever, you can click the link at the end of her video and see the CBS feature that ran in November. If you want to skip Ms. Shibles and the CBS feature is below:

CBS New York / Pittsburgh November 17, 2017  (Running time 2 min 31 seconds)

“I purchased my home Feb.20, 2004. In 2010 I received through the mail an offer from Bank of America (my mortgage bank), soliciting me for the Making Homes Affordable program, which was a President Obama sponsored mortgage modification program at the time. I was approved within two weeks to be part of a trial program, with a three month stipulation that if the payments were made on time the new modification would remain intact and be made into a permanent fixed loan. Prior to this offer, my history of making payments to Bank of America was impeccable and I had no knowledge of nor had ever attempted to contact Bank of America to modify my loan. During this same time period, I was experiencing a disruption of Survivor benefits for one of my sons, which would amount to a loss of roughly $12,800 for the year. This was a tremendous loss considering I am a widowed mother of three and have sole custody of and exclusively care for my severely handicapped grandson. Needless to say this modification was a god send to me at the time. In fact, it was this hardship that made me eligible for the modification in the first place, according to Bank of America.

For the entire three month trial period I made my payments perfectly on time and in compliance with my agreement with Bank of America. For reasons unbeknownst to me, Bank of America never notified me after the trial period had ended, and never sent any forms or statements reflecting the new modification payments. After contacting them on the telephone, I was instructed just to keep making the same payments as I had done for the last three months. This lasted for ten months. On January 1st, 2011, Bank of America sent me a bill for roughly $8,000, reflecting the difference from my original mortgage payments and the modification payments that I had been making.

Along with this billing notice, Bank of America stated that I was no longer eligible for the modification program and they were intending to foreclose on my home if l did not pay the $8,000. At the time raising $8,000 seemed like raising a million.

After a lengthy conversation on the telephone, a representative from Bank of America advised me if I filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, I could clear some of my debts and now be eligible for a second modification. Based solely on their advice, I filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, and in June of 2012, cleared most of my debts and refiled for the modification with Bank of America. Two weeks later Bank of America sent me a notice, stating that I was not eligible for a modification.

In March of 2014, after many, many telephone calls and conversations with Bank of America, I went through the arduous process of sending form after form, and request after ridiculous request from Bank of America for piles of information concerning the application for a third mortgage modification. At the same time Bank of America was still going through the foreclosure process and assured me that they could stop the foreclosure or any sheriff’s sale, once the modification was approved. It was becoming apparent to me that Bank of America was never going to modify my loan and that I could really lose my house, and the stress of this was taking it’s toll on me. What I didn’t understand was why Bank of America would do such a thing. I had done everything that I was instructed to do, but it seemed like it was never going to be enough.

Several months later I received a notice that my home would be going to sheriff s sale on July 23rd, 2014. On July 16th, I went to the sheriff’s office and gave them a payment to postpone the sale. At 3:30 that same afternoon, I received a call from the sheriff s office, informing me that I could come and pick up the check that I had paid for the postponement, because Bank of America canceled the sale, due to an incomplete FHFA certificate. At 6:30 p.m., on the same day, I received a call from Rayne Lynn Sykes’ assistant. Rayne Lynn Sykes is the Bank of America representative that had been helping me with the modification. Her assistant informed me that I would be very happy to hear that they canceled the sale of my home, because the underwriter was putting the mortgage together. I started to feel relieved but was still apprehensive. Interestingly, another date for sheriff’s sale came and went on August 20th, 2014, and again another postponement by Bank of America. I would like to make it clear that these postponements by Bank of America were not made on my behalf or for any sympathy on their part for me, but due to lack of paperwork and procedural issues on their part.

After that call, I did not hear from Bank of America until October of 2014, when they informed me that a company called BSI would be the new servicer of the loan. Shortly thereafter I was served papers from the sheriff s office giving me a new date of December 10th 2014, for the sale of the house. At this point I just did not know what to believe, because all along Bank of America had deceived me into thinking that I would never lose my home and that the modification would take place.

On December 9th, 2014, I went to the sheriff s office again to postpone the sale and was able to get a postponement and a new date of January 7th, 2015. As suggested by the sheriff s office, I returned at 8:30 a.m. on the morning of January 7th, 2015 to submit and pay for my second (official) postponement. Representatives at the sheriff s office told me to call in at 1:00 p.m. and check to see the status of the sale. They informed me that Bank of America again postponed the sale and that I would get my check back and not be charged for the second postponement. Ironically, right around the same time, I received a certified letter from BSI, stating that there was help for me and still time to get a loan modification.

The stress and anxiety from all of this is really affecting my health and my family. I will be 50 in April, and I’ve raised my three boys by myself since they were one, three and eight years old. In 2012, I went to Louisiana to get my grandson out of foster care and bring him to my home. My grandson Logan is severely handicapped and I was the only person that was willing to take on the responsibility of his care. Logan is the light of my life and we live day by day not knowing what’s coming next or whether we will be homeless tomorrow. Basically, I feel like I am a victim of a fraudulent mortgage. I cannot be put out in the cold with this child. I thank you for any help that you may extend to me on this matter.”

This is Kim in Josh’s office discussing her case with CBS. She is a brave and courageous homeowner to stand up for her rights and also come forth and talk about her case publicly. These next videos are about loan modifications, loan servicing and the banks.


Josh answers the question how his approach to foreclosures is different.

Short answer : the firm takes into account contract law. He suggests that other lawyers offerring foreclosure defense haven’t held loan servicers to account for breach of contract is a tool they should be using.  (Running time 2 min 28 seconds)


In this recorded phone call Josh answers the question about how the intake of documents and analysis is the foundation of  the claim. (Running time 1 min 44 seconds)

In this video Josh answer question of what are the ways to challenge a foreclosure case. (Running time : 1 min 39 seconds)

Download a copy of the Foreclosure Guide to know the steps involved in a foreclosure and the exact legal process.

he Step by Step Guide to NJ Foreclosure Defense

Foreclosure Process w Summary – June 2017

New Jersey Foreclosure Trends, Real Estate Trends and Market Info

January 23rd, 2018 by

Foreclosure rates from RealtyTrac as of December 2017 by county for New Jersey.





Foreclosure Rates for the U.S.

January 23rd, 2018 by

Most recent foreclosure data as reported by RealtyTrac for each state. Although Denbeaux and Denbeaux practices primarily in New Jersey, we may be able to refer you to another attorney in another state.