LAWYER HAS A DUTY TO DISCLOSE FALSE EVIDENCE TO THE COURT (NOT PERSONALLY PREPARE IT AND SEE THAT IT MAKES IT WAY INTO THE CLERK AND CHAMBER FILES)

FLORIDA BAR ORDERS LAWYERS TO DISCLOSE FAULTY PAPERWORK

Posted on July 19, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Lawyers obligated to disclose faulty foreclosure paperwork

By Gary Blankenship
Senior Editor

Lawyers representing banks and other mortgage service companies must tell the courts if they know of paperwork problems in their clients’ foreclosure cases, according to the Bar’s Professional Ethics Committee.

The committee, at its June 24 meeting during the Bar’s Annual Convention, voted 20-6 to uphold a Bar staff opinion which advised a lawyer representing a bank in thousands of foreclosure cases.

According to the attorney, the bank used two employees to prepare and review necessary affidavits needed for the foreclosures. One employee always verified the figures in the necessary affidavits and signed the necessary paperwork in the presence of a notary. The second signer relied on a conscientious assistant to verify the figures before signing that he had personally reviewed the figures. Also, those signatures were sometimes notarized when the signer was not present, as required by law. The second signer’s practices extended back for 20 years.

The lawyer wanted to know if the court had to be informed of those irregularities, since it was unlikely to change the outcome of any pending case. He also inquired whether it made any difference if the case was pending or closed, the stage of pending cases, or that the second signer had reverified information in the improperly notarized forms.

A Bar staff opinion held it makes no difference whether the case was open or closed or what stage an open case is at in terms of the lawyer’s duty. The opinion said that under Rule 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), the improperly prepared affidavits constitute false evidence, and the lawyer has a duty to disclose that to the courts.

Other rules must also be considered, the opinion said, including Rule 4-1.2(d) which prohibits assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct, Rule 4-3.4(b) which prohibits a lawyer from fabricating evidence or assisting a witness who offers false testimony, Rule 4-8.4(a) which prohibits violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or assisting another to do so, Rule 4-8.4(c) which bars an attorney from conduct that constitutes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and Rule 4-8.4(d) which prohibits a lawyer from conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The staff opinion concluded that, “the inquiring attorney first should attempt to have the client correct the improperly verified and notarized affidavits. The inquiring attorney should advise the client that if the client fails to correct the affidavits, then the inquiring attorney will have to withdraw and will have to reveal the truth to the court. If the client refuses to take the required corrective action, the inquiring attorney will have to reveal the fact that there has been an improperly verified and notarized affidavit filed in each of these cases, whether they are pending or already closed. The inquiring attorney also will have to move to withdraw from further representation of the client in pending cases, where the client refuses to correct the affidavits, while making as minimal a disclosure as necessary when doing so.”

The committee discussed changing the staff opinion to say the lawyer would have a duty to disclose only if it would make a material difference in the case, but in the end left it unchanged.

“I strongly urge against watering down this opinion,” said committee member Ana Maria Martinez. “I understand the practical problem, but we can’t approve lying for 20 years.”

Added committee member Deborah A’Hearn: “Anything other than affirming the opinion, as is, is the functional equivalent of suborning perjury. We shouldn’t make allowances regardless of the practical problems. It is never OK to lie.”

Committee member Tim Chinaris voted to affirm the staff opinion, but said it’s questionable whether it affects foreclosures done years ago.

“Our rule refers to the requirement that when there’s been false evidence submitted to the court and you know about it, you have a duty to take reasonable remedial measures,” he said after the meeting.

“What do you do with an 18-year-old case when no one is around, the judge is gone, the parties are gone? Is there any remedial measure at that point? Is there any way to reopen the case?” he added. “According to the people who do that work, unless a very narrow standard is met, it’s a final judgment. If you have to take a reasonable remedial measure, but there’s nothing that can be done, there is no remedial measure.”

At the same time, it’s clear that lawyers have a duty under Bar rules to act, or they could be subject to disciplinary action, Chinaris said, noting that Bar rules in this area are stricter than the ABA model rules. ABA rules specify that the duty to disclose ends when the proceeding ends, while the Bar extends it past the end of the proceeding and leaves it open-ended.

“I thought the [staff] opinion assumed a little too much and went a little too far,” said committee member D. Culver “Skip” Smith, who voted against the final motion.

He noted the committee didn’t have any of the affidavits in question, and it was unclear whether anything was wrong with them other than the affidavit that the signer had personal knowledge of the information in the affidavit.

“It seems to me the opinion quickly assumed this qualified as ‘false evidence,’” Smith said. “The rule talks about a lawyer making a false statement of law or fact. This is not what this is. The staff opinion just assumed it should be false evidence, even if the only thing untrue in it was a notarization statement.”

He also questioned what he said was the assumption in the staff opinion that such a problem would be “material,” adding, “I think the lawyer should make that decision rather than us.”

The question could be appealed to the Bar Board of Governors but has not been as this News went to press.

The issue of foreclosure paperwork and shortcuts taken in preparing it is a sensitive one in Florida, where hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases are pending in court.

The Legislature granted extra funding last year and the courts worked to create programs to handle the extra work, but the effort was hindered when faulty paperwork came to light. That included the use of “robosigners” who signed off on, in some cases, thousands of affidavits without personally verifying the information and improper notarizations, as well as errors in paperwork.

Revelations of those problems caused banks and mortgage companies to drop many cases they had filed and slowed down the filing of new cases. At the same time, it led to more challenges to foreclosures in courts, which lengthened the time it takes for the courts to process those cases.

SHOULD YOU CONSIDER MASS JOINDER LITIGATION AGAINST YOUR LENDER? ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS. AND DO IT QUICKLY.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2011/4/prweb8302303.htm

KRAMER & KASLOW “MASS ACTION” FAQS
________________________________________
1. How do I know if litigation against my lender is right for me?
A. The following criteria are fundamental for a client inclusion in the mass joinder case:
a. Any Purchase Money (original) or Re-Fi mortgage loan made between 2003 and 2007*
i. Loans made outside this time window may also “fit,” but 2003 to the end of 2007 are the years that all five causes of action directly apply to
b. Loans were made by the included list of lenders (mortagors):
i. Named lender Defendants so far are Bank Of America (including Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, First Franklin), Wells Fargo (and Wachovia), JP Morgan Chase (and WAMu, OptionOne), Citibank, OneWest (and IndyMac), and (coming soon) GAMC (and Ally Bank).
ii. Other lenders may be added in the future, including US Bank, Sovereign Bank, EverBank, HSBC, MetLife Bank, Ocwen, and SunTrust Banks.
c. Loan transaction handled by MERS
d. Loan was securitized (bundled and sold in the secondary market)
e. Client may or may not still live in the subject property
f. Client may or may not be in foreclosure, or have been in foreclosure at any time

2. Can we help a client who has already lost their home due to foreclosure?
A. YES! Although we cannot guarantee the return of the property to the homeowner
we will seek additional damages.

3. Does a client stop paying their mortgage when involved in the litigation process?
A. NO! Clients should use best efforts to continue making their mortgage payments
unless instructed specifically by counsel. Clients should be advised that failure to make their mortgage payments will likely have negative implications. It is not true that a foreclosure will automatically be halted merely by suing the lender.

4. What are the case merits that have propelled MLA attorneys forward in filing these cases?
A. The following claims are being asserted in the mass action cases:
a. Claims include:
i. Fraudulent Concealment
ii. Intentional Misrepresentation
iii. Negligent Misrepresentation
iv. Statutory Violations
v. Unfair Business Practices
b. The following are added foundational elements for the additional suits pending:
i. MERS (Beneficiary processes, rights to foreclose, robo-signing of documents)
ii. Proof of Note (security instrument, chain of title)
iii. Proof of Funds (Patriot Act Violations)
iv. Phantom Investors and Beneficiaries
c. Both monetary damages and injunctive relief are sought

5. What were the reasons behind choosing the specific banks?
A. The specific lenders were identified by counsel as having utilized MERS within
the course of their loan transactions, failing to comply with various statutes and violating the law when making the loans (“predatory lending practices”) and/or subsequent servicing of them.

6. What are the potential outcomes of a case like this?
A. The following represent potential outcomes for each of the mass litigation lawsuits filed:
1. Pre-trial settlement: As each client joins the mass joinder action the lender will receive a pre-trial settlement demand. Either through the form 998, or any time thereafter, the litigator may negotiate a viable settlement.
2. Amnesty Program: It is foreseeable that the government may become involved in this crisis. If so, counsel will work with legislature to create an potential amnesty program. The results of which will likely be a universal modification approach. If successful, this process will likely indemnify the lending institutions from multi trillion dollar litigation while providing homeowners universal term reductions. Counsel anticipates our clients "having a seat at the table" may afford increased settlement options.
3. Judgment: Counsel's ultimate goal will be to seek a complete dismissal of the lien by jury trial final verdict.

7. What is the time frame for a case like this?
A. The actual time frame for the new suits is undetermined at this time. There are many factors that could expedite or extend the litigation process. As a result, the plaintiff borrower should prepare for a lawsuit that remains pending for 1 – 3 years, perhaps longer. While it is understood most homeowners would seek a quick resolution it is often in the homeowners’ best interest to extend the time frame allowing the larger aggregation of plaintiffs, as the more plaintiffs the more pressure applied to the defendants. In addition these cases are commonly placed within the complex litigation division of the Superior Court.

8. What is a Mass Joinder case and how does this differ from a class action or
individual lawsuit?
A. Here are some of the fundamental differences between a mass joinder suit and a class action suit and individual lawsuits.
1. In a class action suit plaintiffs are not identified as individual clients. They are one collective group. Additionally their individual causes of action are not identified therefore they must accept the same a uniform class action settlement. The vast majority of class action settlements result in attorneys collecting the bulk of the award.
2. In an individual lawsuit the client bears the burden of the entire litigation expense.
3. Mass Joinder allows individual plaintiffs to aggregate together to share the cost of litigation. In addition each client maintains the autonomy to accept or reject pretrial settlement terms as well as their respective case results according to their individual award/damages.

9. How does this differ from some of the battles borrowers faced with the "Loss
Mitigation" (loan modification) process?
A. Here are some of the major differences separating a litigation approach verses the
traditional loss mitigation process:
1. Your litigator is not submitting documentation with the hopes the lender acts in good faith, your litigator is issuing pre-trial demand settlements at terms that tremendously benefit the homeowner and will continue to sue the banks until judgment or until the bank agrees to a viable solution. For a nominal fee, our attorneys can also file a notice with the county recorder where the property is located which places a notice of pending litigation on the property title which may discourage the lender from putting the property up for foreclosure sale.
2. Attorneys directly overseeing case management with attorney updates provided directly from counsel to plaintiffs, and case updates will be posted on our website.
3. Rather than being subject to lender choice guidelines, litigation notifies lenders that they are in potential violation of lending laws, settlement demand letters will be sent to the defendant lenders, and mandatory settlement hearings will take place.

10. If a client is already in the Loss Mitigation process or has already been offered a
modification are they still eligible for the litigation process?
A. YES (subject to attorney review on an individual basis)

11. What documentation is needed to sign a client up for the Litigation?
1. Executed Litigation retainer agreement (accompanied with payment in full to Kramer & Kaslow)
2. Copy of the Trust Deed
3. Copy of the Mortgage Note

12. What is the process once clients sign up for the Mass Joinder Litigation?
A. Litigation of this size is a complex time consuming process. The following is a very brief outline of the litigation process:
1. Attorney Retainer Agreement Executed and payment in full received
2. Copy of the Deed of Trust and Copy of Note submitted with file
3. Attorney consultation and enrollment into case
4. Clients will officially become listed plaintiffs when the complaint is amended, which will occur every 30-90 days – we will then post the new Amended Complaints on our website
5. 998 Offer and Compromise (demand letter sent to defendant)
6. Seek foreclosure injunction / moratorium
7. Discovery (statutory exchange of documents, evidence, support of allegation’s, etc)
8. Settlement Hearings/Discussions/Negotiations
9. vii. If no settlement is reach, trial by jury
10. viii.Judgment - best case scenario is jury finds defendants guilty on all claims and mortgage at issue is voided; also punitive damages of up to $75,000 per plaintiff are being sought

13. I know hiring an attorney for a case like this could cost me tens of thousands of
dollars in costs and legal fees. How can I afford an attorney for a drawn out lawsuit like this?
A. This is the benefit of the MLA Mass Joinder suit. Normally attorneys in a case like this would charge tens of thousands of dollars as a retainer, with many more thousands owed in legal fees and costs over the course of litigation. In a Mass Joinder case Plaintiffs join together to help share the costs of a case like this. Instead of paying high legal costs individually all plaintiffs share a significantly reduced price while benefiting from "strength in numbers".

There is no definitive timetable regarding your opportunity to join, however these cases may be available only on a limited basis.
Unlike a class action, only people who take proactive steps to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs will be included.

Related articles

• ** Consumer Alert ** Fraud Warning Regarding Lawsuit Marketers Requesting Upfront Fees for So-called "Mass Joinder" or Class Litigation Promising Extraordinary Home Mortgage Relief (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• P2P lawyer: more settlements since former-lobbyist judge's ruling (arstechnica.com)
• Kramer-Kaslow: Homeowners Fight Back with a Massive Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo/Wachovia (WELLS) (prweb.com)
• As Regulators and Banks Review Foreclosures, We'll Be Watching (propublica.org)
• Banks Await Payment Terms in Foreclosure Deal as AGs Split (businessweek.com)
• U.S. regulators settle with mortgage lenders (theglobeandmail.com)

CONSUMER AFFAIR COMPLAINTS AGAINST METLIFE AND FIRST HORIZON

I contacted First Horizon (Metlife) in December 2008 due to lost of income requesting my account be reviewd for a loan modification, to be told that my investor will never agree to modify my loan. So I hired a company to assist me in this quest. this company contacted First Horizon once a week from January 2009 to June 2009 to be told each week that my account would never get a modification.

On July 1,2009 the company that was assisting me called me and told me to go down to my near western union office and wire a $3800 payment to First Horizon at the same time this company sent a fax proposal showing my income along with a payment that I could afford according to the new making home afforable program that had be put in affect March 2009.

With in the next week we were contacted by a rep claiming to be from metlife home loans telling us they received the money and proposal but they would be returning the $3800 and for us to only send $3300 and we complied they sent out a fedx packet to my home, I read the agreement and returned the packet.

I was given a monthly payment for the next 4 months with the last month November 2009 to be a ballon payment that I would be unable to make I wrote a letter before the November payment was due explaining why I wouldn't be making the payment along with current copies of my pay stubs, Bank statements, Tax returns, and a finacial worksheet, the company that is assisting me contacted Metlife to be told that I didn't have an agreement because I had completed the agreement and my account was being reviewed for a loan modification, the rep stated during this process they were not excepting any payment but to save my money,
They sent back the payment I made for December 2009. Each week in December they were contacted and ww were told the account was in review. Then I received a letter dated December 23, 2009 I revceived the letter January 13,2010 stating that They need updated proof of income, financial worksheet, bank statements and tax return. We resent them the next week, a week went by and I received a message from a rep from Metlife telling me she needed the documents that I had sent already 2 times within 60 days. once again we sent the documents this time we called to get the fax number it was the same fax we had been using all the time. and once again we called once a week checking the status to be told the account is in review. until we received a letter dated Febuary 23 2010 stating that to avoid foreclosure send the requested documents, we called to be told they didn't have the document. We sent them once again. following up with Metlife the next week they stated the account was in review.

In March we received a letter dated March 11,2010 my acount was being processed for foreclosure because the requested documents had not be received the company assisting me called and spoke with the rep who said she was working my account and was told she a closed my account and I would have to start over requesting a loan modification,we reaplied on March 15,2010 now we are calling every 3 days to see if the packet was received by next day USP delivery to be told they never received our tracking number show the packet was signed for we also faxed the packet to two different faxed numbers and e-mailed packet to Metlife Hopenow still to be told they didn't received any of the packets spoke to many of the reps from Metlife to be told many diffrent reason for not receiving the packets.

The next letter was to sale my home and making that call to Metlife I was so upsetting because none of the reps I spoke to could help me they all said it was my fault because they had not received any of my documents. They had the sale today. I will be filing a lawsuit against Metlife home loans to get the sale resented. I may have to leave my home for asking for help to stay in my home where I have lived and invested for the last 7 years

Todd of Victorville, CA April 9, 2010

Our First Horizon Mortgage was sold to MetLife two and a half years ago. My husband was laid off from his job in January 2009. We immediately applied for a loan modification through the Help for Homeowners Act. The nightmare with MetLife began. A workout package was sent to us within 3 weeks of starting the procedure. We completed the package and returned it to MetLife via FedEx. Not a word came to us indicating they received it; thank goodness for tracking numbers and signature delivery. We called and spoke to several employees at MetLife to follow-up a couple of weeks later. We were told it was all 'being reviewed' and that someone would 'get back with us'.

After approximately 3 months, and diligently pursuing someone 'higher up' the command on several more phone calls TO MetLife, we received documentation for a 'Forebearance' which we were finally granted. However, we soon started finding hang tags on our door telling us our loan was 'seriously delinquent' and we needed to call an 800 number. These seemed to show up monthly. Bright neon yellow doorknob tags screaming 'you are late paying your mortgage!' delivered by different individuals.

When my husband's employment status changed, WE contacted MetLife to let them know; hoping for some sort of modification or instructions on how to begin repaying our loan again. They sent out another package with an introduction letter, as if it were the first time we had ever contacted them. We were floored, and when we called them, got the runaround as usual and transfers to a plethora of 'agents' before finally being told to just fill it all out (again) and send it back. Once again, thank goodness for delivery confirmation, because they have yet to contact us when they receive anything.

So here we are, over a year later... and STILL no word from MetLife. Our loan is still in 'Forbearance'. We called again recently and this phone call was the most shocking of all: the rep we spoke to acted as if they had no knowledge that we even had a loan in arrears with MetLife. We have no idea what to do. Will they show up one day with the Sherrif and lumber to kick us out and board up the place? This is the most UNPROFESSIONAL process we have ever had to deal with. P.S. We haven't seen a yellow tag on the door in a couple of months.

Karla of Ardmore, OK April 8, 2010

I was helping a Spanish speaking client to do a Loan Modification. The property had three borrowers. They signed a letter of authorization to me and I send it six times to Metlife Home Loans. The customer service were giving me different fax numbers to send the info. Wait from 7-21 days to get answers. This going on since December 2009. They said never received the faxes. They didn't let me talk about the specific problems for this property in behalf of the homeowner.

Metlife Home Loans doesn't have a knowledgeable personnel. They were rude and inconsiderate. A single mother of five children is facing foreclosure, although the company received the loan modification package before the due date. Metlife bought the property from the whoever were the investors and said that my client has to move out. She has to wait for a letter from them. Probably 30 days.

Foreclosure in their credit. Children and a single mother out in the street. How they can afford to get the deposit, rent, moving expenses, emotional distress, finding a new life besides the torture of being abused by incompetent employees that say: We didn't receive the required faxes, when were sent many times. It is totally absurd, inhuman, and repugnant to follow and abide their plot and lies to fulfill their selfish purposes.

Silvia of Lindon, UT March 27, 2010


I sent Metlife a Modification in November, it was assigned to a negotiator on the 16th of December. I have submitted all the necassry documentation and yet I have not been given any relief. Each person I have spoken with has given me the run around and treated me like crap. I just called a minute ago, and spoke with some guy named Hose who told me he was a Default Resolution analyst. I later asked him what his position was and he changed the name to say he was merely in Default Resolution.

Something has to be done or I WILL lose my home. These people have no sense of urgency and has gone so far as to threaten me with the knowledge that whatever they do for me, will inevitably have a negative effect on my credit. HOW DARE THESE PEOPLE! This is the worse company to deal with. My friend went through a loan mod with Wells Fargo that took approximately 3 weeks. What is going on with METLIFE?

SHANNON of SLIDELL, LA March 24, 2010


I missed the Jan 2009 mortgage payment, our loan was placed into their collections, loss mitigation department for handling. We listed the property for sale, they began foreclosure proceedures. We objected to the amount, the LM dept "could not help us".

We filed for bankruptcy and requested a deed-in-lieu from Met Life (six times. WITH NO RESPONSE from MET LIFE. Currently, we had been assigned a Mr. D. - whom their lost mitigation department states he does not work there. My home is being foreclosed upon, even though I have been trying to contact them for more than 14 months. They do not even respond to me or my attorney's letters or phone calls.

Ed of Lynden, WA March 2, 2010



Recently I received a format letter that I was insufficient with my payment of my mortgage of $17.90. It was a disturbing letter since I am a very good customer and send $2300 monthly for the last 5/6 years toward my mortgage. I tried calling MetLife to find out why I had an increase and how they can notify me with such a standard letter that states they won't withstand another deficient payment without penalties.

I tried to call customer service to find out if my payment went up monthly or was this a bill for the one month of December. I could not believe that the first time i tried to reach someone in 5 years to ask a question about my mortgage I was sent through an endless loop of recordings without being able to reach a representative for over 20 minutes. I finally called in for "new mortgages" and miraculously someone picked up for new business right away, yet I was deterred because she was locked out of my file because I am an existing account.

I am disgusted with this company and appalled that my hard working money is about all this company cares about. I will need to be refinancing to get a personal loan in the near future and I am seriously considering taking my business elsewhere. I would also like to add that Metlife took it upon themselves to change my billing address and I would like it switched back immediately.

To recap I would like to know why my bill reflects a $17.90 increase, and why my billing address was change without mine or Jeff Harris' signature. I would like to be contacted through e.mail with a number of someone I can contact within NY or NJ so that I may call during working hours. I would like a supervisor's attention in this matter.

If I do not hear from a representative in a timely manner within the next 24hours I will be refinancing with another mortgage company as well as reporting MetLife to NY State as well as other Government Agencies that monitor mortgage companies. THe fact that MetLIfe has a helpline that offers no more than a machine recording is disgusting. How do [they] take thousands of dollars yearly from people and not even offer assistance when your customers need it?

Caroline of Kings Park, NY Jan. 5, 2010


I missed a payment several years ago with First Horizon Home Loans, made a double payment the following month, and was back on track. Earlier this year my First Horizon Home Loan account was assumed by MetLife. I missed a payment in October through a stupid oversight. I got a new bill late October with a new balance, which I paid - same as before. Only this time, when I received my bill in November, I still owed a double payment, plus the additional fees.

I thought that maybe my payment and the bill had somehow crossed, so I went ahead and made another double payment, thinking that that would get us ahead of the schedule. My wife suggested that I call to confirm that the payment had gone through. I did, and found that I was going to be charged another double payment in December! Meanwhile, for the month of November, I was going to again have to pay the "late" charges, for the "missing" payment. Their rationale was that anything over the monthly payment goes to principle. I pointed out to them that my bills came with bottom lines, I expected that when I paid the bottom line - the amount due - that the amount would no longer be due.

They said that the allocations are clearly identified in the body of the bill, and that this is consistant with their policies. I told them that their policies sounded like consumer fraud. They said that they would fix it.

Well, it is now December 7 - I have made two double payments to make up for my lapse in October. I just received a bill stating that I owe another payment before the 15th of this month! I will still owe January's on the 30th. I hope it all works out, I just found out this week that I no longer have employment as of the 11th. This could not have happened at a worse time.

Matthew of Portland, OR Dec. 8, 2009


I spoke with MET life since April 10,2009 about a loan modification who carries the first Mortgage on my home. I secured loan when I was married with 2 incomes. SInce the I am divorced and had to pay the divorce settlement to my EX Debbie. She got the money and I got the bills. I lost my job 12/31 2007. For eight months. I now work but during unemployment I borrowed all my retirement and used all my credit cards to stay current with mMet life. I had a 830 credit Score when I secured loan with MEt Life. I have sent Met life all documentation and hardship letter they required , six times. I faxed and overnight with return reciept. I know they recieved all my documents they asked for because of return reciept.

I was given a Forebeareance while MEt LIfe secured me amodification. I have paid my paymnets on time. NOv 4 2009, I phone because I was closing my checking account at Chase BANK and opening an an account. I over nighted money orders for the payment $1240.08 but now they want more money. I have caled three times and have been placed on eternal hold but nothing gets solved.

Lytichia Confermation #4815133693 was the one I spoke to reguarding me sendingmy money order NOvember 14 2009. The paymnet was due November 4 and I had 14 days grace as we have all understood since conception of loan. NOw MET life what the entire Payment $2498.00 Which I do not have. I have had my home since I buildt it 1983. This is my families Dream home. I feel since I have done everything to secure a modification and completely ignored. Unless I get amodification I will loose my home. My home started out apraised value $1.2 million 2007 now it is worth $367,000 since all the foreclosers. MY mortgaes are $425,000 above the apraised and tax value.

larry of Henderson, NV Nov. 23, 2009


We have a mortgage that is being serviced by MetLife Home Loans ("Metlife") who either acquired it originally from First Horizon Home Loans or is servicing the loan for them, with whom we fell behind on our mortgage payments for two months. We fell behind on our mortgage payments for two months. On July 2nd I sent Metlife an electronic payment from US Bank for $6,000 to catch up. They redeposited the money a few days later saying that they didn't except partial payments and we owed them around $7,200. On July 10th I sent them an electronic payment of $9,000 from US Bank. The overpayment was to ensure that we wouldn't be short again. The payment cleared our bank and $9,000 was removed from our account. I proceeded to make electronic payments for our mortgage for July and August from our Bank of America account. All payment can be seen in the enclosed attachments. Our family went to the west coast for the rest of the summer on a working vacation. On Septemeber 9, 2009 my wife and I received multiple letters from McCarthy, Holthus & Ackerman, LLP, a law firm stating that the full amount of our loan was now due because of failure to pay.

On September 10 I found that Metlife had taken our $9,000 payment on July 10. It cleared our bank and on July 15th Metlife deposited to our bank $9,000. They had our money for five days and we can't figure out why it was sent back. Below is the next few days dealing with Metlife and the lawfirm as told by my wife:

September 9: 1) Left two messages with the law firm. They never returned the calls. 2) Spoke with unidentified female at Metlife. She went over the history of our payments and explained the $6,000 on July 2nd and the $3,000 in late July. She had no record of a $9,000 payment. She asked if we could prove it and we said yes our bank records show $9,000 on July 10 being removed from our US Bank account to them and we have the confirmation #. 3) Spoke with Anthony at Metlife who also did not see a $9,000 payment in their system. He asked us to prove it by sending a fax showing the transaction. He gave us a fax number (214-441-7390). The person at the UPS store tried numerous times and couldn't get through.

September 10: 1) Called Metlife again because the fax wouldn't go through and was given the same fax number. I explained it didn't work and was finally given another fax number that did end up working. 2) Called attorney's and spoke with Cindy and was told by her that our foreclosure process had been put on hold by Metlife just moments earlier. 3) Called Metlife again and spoke to Belinda and was told that our house had a foreclosure sale date of October 6, 2009 (first we had heard of this) and it was the law firm that put it on hold and not Metlife. She asked for the reason of non-payment for 5 months and saw no record of the $9,000 dollar transaction. I explained she had sent a fax showing our payment cleared our bank and was informed by her that we could send 100 faxes and we still aren't going to help you because it is in the law firm's hand. I explained that there is miscommunication between Metlife and the law firm over who put our foreclosure sale on hold. She said she didn't know anything about it and suggested I contact the law firm. I said why don't you call them so the three of us can work this out. She came back on the phone a few minutes later and said the call can't go through there are just too many calls entering the system right now. 4) Called law firm again and was informed by Cindy a second time that Metlife had called them that morning to put the process on hold. 5) Called Metlife again asking about our fax showing the $9,000 payment and he said he had no record of such payment and sent me to another department with Brandon. Brandon said they rejected the $9,000 payment because once the bank rejects the first payment it will also reject the second payment. 6) Called back the law firm twice between 4 and 4:30 and got no answer.

September 11: 1) Left a message with Cindy at the law firm to call me back. 2) At 11:58 called Metlife, explained the entire story again and was informed they could not see a $9,000 transaction in their system but saw the other transactions. I told him I sent a fax yesterday showing the transaction went through and told by him it will take 7 -- 10 days to get in their system. He could not say why our money was returned to us but it was probably because our house was in foreclosure (on July 10 our house was not in foreclosure). 3) 12:21 called Metlife again and spoke to Diana. Explained the entire story again. She saw no record of the $9,000 dollar transaction but said it was probably rejected because if an Internet transaction is rejected their system will reject all Internet transactions for 60 days. I explained that Metlife accepted the transaction and then sent us a payment back 5 days later. The money was already in Metlifes bank. I then asked her about the hold put on our foreclosure and was informed by her that there is no hold and the house is still set for foreclosue.

During the proceeding few weeks my wife has been in numerous conversations with both Metlife and the law firm. We continue receiving all sorts of different reasons why our payments were not accepted, all of which make no rational sense. Not only is our house in still in danger of foreclosure which has caused enormous stress in our family, this episode is now having damaging and irreversible effects to our credit as lenders are beginning to either cancel our accounts or drastically lower our credit limits. We were sent a settlement letter by the law firm that had over $800 dollars worth of fees in it. It is our position that Metlife needs to take responsibility for their mistake cancel all fees and immediately remove any adverse information that they had supplied to the credit scoring agencies. Depending on the level of damage to our credit score as well as the final emotional stress this has placed on us will determine if we seek future civil damages.

Steven of Murphy, TX Nov. 19, 2009

6mos. And still getting the runaround! My wife and I have 3 homes, and we applied to refinance the primary recidence with MetLife Home loans almost 6mos. ago. The interest they gave us is 5 % fix 15yrs. Conventional, we both have Fico scores in the 720 and the appraisal came in our favor 50K over the loan amount. The previous loans for the other homes were all done in less than 45 days. Is there anything wrong here or shall get legal action? Their excuse is that the whole industry is in a jam, no to mention that I had to pay $350 for the appraisal.

All the required paper work was submitted in one week, and the appraisal completed with in three weeks of Appling for the loan. In Sep. 8th will be 6mos. Since we apply for the loan and still getting the runaround. Please give my advice. Thanks

Jonathan of Manassas, VA Aug. 16, 2009

Related articles

• MetLife Bank Has Foreclosure 'Irregularities,' Moody's Says (businessweek.com)
• MetLife Says Disputes on Foreclosures Not Material (businessweek.com)
• Mortgage Loan Modification: A How To Guide (press.rocketlawyer.com)
• Woman made loan modification; bank sold house (abclocal.go.com)
• Here's the Latest News on the HAMP Loan Modification Program (annarborundressed.com)
• Loan modification process hurts homeowners ()
• MetLife Has Foreclosure Irregularities, Moody's Says (businessweek.com)
• 2,500 Homeowners Put In Foreclosure While Awaiting Mortgage Modifications: Attorneys (huffingtonpost.com)
• MetLife Will Discontinue the Sale of New Long-Term Care Insurance Coverage (eon.businesswire.com)
• MetLife Declares Fourth Quarter 2010 Preferred Stock Dividends (eon.businesswire.com)
• MetLife Completes Acquisition of American Life Insurance Company (eon.businesswire.com)

Related articles

• Mortgage Loan Modification: A How To Guide (press.rocketlawyer.com)
• Woman made loan modification; bank sold house (abclocal.go.com)
• Here's the Latest News on the HAMP Loan Modification Program (annarborundressed.com)
• Loan modification process hurts homeowners ()
• MetLife Has Foreclosure Irregularities, Moody's Says (businessweek.com)
• 2,500 Homeowners Put In Foreclosure While Awaiting Mortgage Modifications: Attorneys (huffingtonpost.com)
• MetLife Will Discontinue the Sale of New Long-Term Care Insurance Coverage (eon.businesswire.com)
• MetLife Declares Fourth Quarter 2010 Preferred Stock Dividends (eon.businesswire.com)
• MetLife Completes Acquisition of American Life Insurance Company (eon.businesswire.com)