According to 2011Year-End U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™ by RealtyTrac®, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure cases, there were 2,698,967 foreclosure filings on 1,887,777 American properties in 2011. The filings include foreclosure fraud notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions. Under this situation, property owners would require legal advisory services.

The Litvin Law Firm also provides comprehensive legal services to clients in New Jersey, Florida, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Long Island, Staten Island, Kings and Queens County. Apart from foreclosure defense law, the Litvin Law Firm also practices in bankruptcy, personal injury, real estate, corporate law, debt arbitration, debt mitigation and contract formation. The firm has qualified, experienced and licensed foreclosure defense attorneys offering free advisory services.

The Litvin Law Firm has been featured in LawGuru.com, AVVO, Moneywatch.com, Citysearch, and interviewed on NBC, CBS Radio, Russia Today, Wood 106.9FM & 1300AM. Being client centric, the personnel of this foreclosure defense firm always consider the impact of legal decision on their customers’ personal and business life.

About Litvin Law Firm, P.C: Litvin Law Firm reviews and prepares all the paperwork necessary to complete both commercial and residential real estate transactions. The foreclosure defense firm also drafts mortgage agreements, notes, liens and deeds. Their real estate practice works involves lease and eviction matters, land use issues and development and construction agreements. In addition to this, the firm caters to corporate organizations as well.

New data show foreclosure activity jumped sharply in June in MetroWest and the Milford area. In 26 towns, foreclosure petitions – or the start of the foreclosure process – rose 81 percent from May to June, according to The Warren Group, a Boston-based company that tracks real estate data.

The change was particularly pronounced in Milford and 11 surrounding towns, where foreclosure petitions nearly tripled, rising from nine in May to 26 in June.

“Real estate values aren’t improving – which would take care of a lot of foreclosure troubles – and people are still having a problem finding jobs,” said Tim Warren Jr., CEO of The Warren Group. “A lot of people are still unemployed and underwater on their mortgages, and the conditions are ripe for foreclosure proceedings to be initiated and continued.”

Bill Gassett of Re/Max Executive Realty in Hopkinton, who has worked in the area for 25 years, said Milford has seen home values hit particularly hard since the real estate bubble burst in 2008. Coupled with the type of blue-collar jobs many Milford residents have, it’s served as a bad mix for foreclosure trouble.

“If you look at all the towns in the area, Milford has probably been hit harder than any other town, both in foreclosures and short sales, and how much property values have dropped,” Gassett said.

When a homeowner owes more on a mortgage than the home is worth, that mortgage is considered underwater. Gassett said many homeowners in that predicament will keep making payments while hoping values increase.

If a homeowner suddenly has to move, then he or she is faced with tough choices.

“There are a lot of people who look at it…and they see themselves so far underwater, and they realize they’re not going to catch back up,” Gassett said. “They want to get out of there, and the only alternative they have is to either let the house go, or they short-sale it.”

A short sale is when a lender agrees to let a homeowner sell the home for less than the balance of the mortgage, but absolves the seller of further financial responsibility. Gassett said short sales are more prevalent in the area, but some homeowners still decide just to give the bank the keys and walk away.

“They fall into the category of somebody that didn’t know they had an option to short sale the property, or they fall into the category where they…don’t care or feel like they have any obligation to the bank whatsoever,” he said.

Although home values have fallen in the past three years, they may continue to sag if banks start to process foreclosures faster.

Lenders greatly slowed down the foreclosure process last year, partly to review their own procedures after a series of paperwork scandals and political pressures, and partly because of judicial rulings and new laws.

But with a spike statewide in foreclosure petitions and deeds, which are recorded when a bank officially takes a home, lenders may be signaling they’re ready to pick up the pace.

Mal Duane, the broker/owner of MetroWest Homes in Framingham, said foreclosed properties are cheap and bring down offers on homes not being sold by a bank. Duane said she’s worried that if large numbers hit the market, even fewer sellers will get their asking prices.

“If we have too many (foreclosures) on the market, especially in Framingham, it really depresses the town because it’s driving down the price point,” Duane said. “I think I’d rather see them trickle out and be managed, so we’re just not flooded with them. The offers we’re getting now from buyers are insane, insanely low.”

Duane said the real estate market needs another boost like a homebuyer tax credit, not more poison.

“I was in the market of 1989 and ’90 and ’91, when we had the savings and loan crisis, and this particular situation we’re in now is far worse than that,” Duane said. “It’s really scary to hear the stock market is in decline, the credit rating for the country has slipped. You put it all together, and it’s overwhelming.”

CNN has confirmed the “I Believe I Can Fly” artist has been named in a $2.9-million foreclosure suit involving his property in Olympia Fields, Illinois.

According to CNN affiliate WBBM CBS 2 Chicago, 11,140 square feet mansion which features six full bathrooms, seven half-baths, and a four-car garage was built 11 years ago.

The station cites a report by Crain’s Chicago Real Estate Daily that the singer, whose full name is Robert Sylvester Kelly, has not made a payment on the home since June of last year.

J. P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. filed the suit against the R & B singer last month in Cook County Circuit Court. A source told Crain’s that Kelly has not lived in the home for more than a year.

It is the latest in legal woes that have dogged Kelly.

He was indicted in 2002 on charges of producing child pornography after a videotape surfaced that allegedly showed him having sex with an underage girl. He was later acquitted of those charges in 2008.

Last month, TMZ reported that an ex-manager of Kelly’s filed suit against him for allegedly refusing to pay him more than $1 million in commissions. The former manager alleges the money was instead used by Kelly to settle with those who had accused the singer of sexual misconduct.

- CNN

Class actions have grown in popularity over the past few years, especially when it comes to stopping foreclosure and seeking damages. An advantage to joining a class action is the reduced expense. Normally but not always, legal fees are only handed when the plaintiff receives a favorable outcome or a settlement is reached; in which case the fees are deducted from the settlement amount. If this occurs, a homeowner does not have to front thousands of dollars in legal fees to begin or keep the fight going. Another benefit is that class actions tend to be more detailed with thousands of pages of documentation and evidence that supports not only your case, but everyone else in the class. Perhaps one of the main reasons to start or join on is due to the power in numbers. It’s often times easier to challenge big companies and corporations with several people behind you, supporting you, on a big scale than doing it alone.

While class actions have some clear advantages to them, there are also major drawbacks. The key is keeping in mind what your goal is when it comes to stopping foreclosure. One issue that arises with class actions is time. In many cases, it takes years for class actions to be settled or to reach a judgment. When it comes to stopping foreclosure, this can be good news for some homeowners who still live in their home, allowing them extra time to stay in their house. But for families that have lost their homes already to foreclosure it is a drawn out process and means that they will not see any financial relief or assistance for quite some time, perhaps never. Again, it comes back to what a person’s desire result is. Are you looking to receive damage compensation? Are you looking to be awarded your home back? Or do you believe that you’re a victim of foreclosure fraud, and wish to challenge your pretender lender on their alleged right to foreclosure? For families that need help immediately, class actions may not be the best route.

Other issues with class actions are the actual settlement amounts and distribution of compensation upon being victorious. A $50 million dollar settlement may sound like a lot, but after all of the legal and miscellaneous fees are taken out and it’s split amongst 50,000 homeowners it doesn’t amount to much. Again, homeowners must determine what their goals are first, and then decide on a proper plan suited to their needs?

When it comes to stopping foreclosure class actions typically address one or two main issues or claims, but not the root problems. They may focus on predatory lending or illegal loan modification practices, but many times their settlements do not address the real issue at hand. In a 2009 large bank settlement, approximately half an $8 billion dollar settlement was allocated to “help” homeowners receive an affordable mortgage loan modification. Now how does that address the issue that the pretender lender never had right or possession to the property in the first place? In many instances, settlements and class actions do not address the real underlying issue of who has “real interest,” and the right to foreclose.

When a homeowner takes on the task of stopping foreclosure there are pros and cons as well. While an individual case may take less time to conclude in court, with results of greater monetary settlement for the homeowner, the legal fees can quickly add up, if a homeowner opts to recruit legal aid.

In practically every state across the country, there exists evidence of homeowners having success instopping foreclosure fraud. Many are experiencing years of living in their home without having to pay a mortgage; while others have received a quiet title judgment to their home, removing a pretender lenders claim to interest from the property. To true quest of fighting to stop foreclosure for many homeowners nationwide, is freedom. Freedom of victory, freedom to win back lost time, freedom to stand for truth and justice, verses agreeing to fall victim of fraud. The reality is that fighting to stop foreclosure isn’t about debt anymore; it’s about freedom and reclaiming what is a constitutional right—life, liberty, truth, and the pursuit of happiness.

To learn more about foreclosure defense, the foreclosure process, and how to stop foreclosure, call: (877) 829-4104

If your Summit County home is foreclosed upon by a company that does not hold your loan and has no legal right to operate in Utah, there may be nothing you can do about it.

The term “federally related mortgage loan” includes any loan (other than temporary financing such as a construction loan) which is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed principally for the occupancy of from one to four families, including any such secured loan, the proceeds of which are used to prepay or pay off an existing loan secured by the same property; and is made in whole or in part by any lender the deposits or accounts of which are insured by any agency of the Federal Government, or is made in whole or in part by any lender which is regulated by any agency of the Federal Government, or is made in whole or in part, or insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted in any way, by the Secretary or any other officer or agency of the Federal Government or under or in connection with a housing or urban development program administered by the Secretary or a housing or related program administered by any other such officer or agency; or is intended to be sold by the originating lender to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Government National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a financial institution from which it is to be purchased by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or is made in whole or in part by any “creditor”, as defined in 15 U.S.C.A. § 1602(f) who makes or invests in residential real estate loans aggregating more than $1,000,000 per year, except that for the purpose of this chapter, the term “creditor” does not include any agency or instrumentality of any State.

QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUEST UNDER 12 U.S.C. 2605 et seq. (RESPA – QWR)

A. THE LAW: 12 U.S.C. § 2605 STATES:

(1) Qualified written request:

For purposes of this subsection, a qualified written request shall be a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer, that includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower. (RESPA therefore provides the explicit statutory right for a borrower to request “other information” as deemed necessary to the borrower).

NOTE: This Section makes clear that a Borrower may request “other information” (with no limits placed on what constitutes “other information”). Therefore, please do not state that this request “goes beyond that which is permitted by RESPA.” RESPA places no statutory limitations on the information which can be requested. A loan servicer is not therefore entitled to ignore this provision merely because of any perceived inconvenience in responding.

B. LEGALLY MANDATED LOAN SERVICER ACTIONS REQUIRED (LOAN SERVICER DUTY):

(1) Action with respect to inquiry:

Not later than 60 days (excluding legal public holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays) after the receipt from any borrower of any qualified written request under paragraph (1) and, if applicable, before taking any action with respect to the inquiry of the borrower, the servicer shall make appropriate corrections in the account of the borrower, including the crediting of any late charges or penalties, and transmit to the borrower a written notification of such correction (which shall include the name and telephone number of a representative of the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower);

After conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes to the extent applicable, a statement of the reasons for which the servicer believes the account of the borrower is correct as determined by the servicer; and the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower; or after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the servicer; and the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower.

NOTE: This makes clear that 2605 requires the lender or loan servicer to take action includling providing information requested by the borrower, conducting an investigation of the borrower’s concerns, providing an explanation or clarification of the reasons the servicer believes the account is correct and, if necessary, making appropriate corrections to the borrower’s account. Once a borrower makes a “qualified written request” RESPA requires loan servicing companies to: (a) provide written notice to the borrower (within 20 days) acknowledging receipt of the request, (b) take appropriate action with respect to the inquiry either by making corrections or providing a written explanation or clarification; and (c) protect the borrower’s credit rating by not reporting to credit bureaus the overdue payments relating to request for 60 days after receiving the request.

(3) Protection of credit rating:

During the 60-day period beginning on the date of the servicer’s receipt from any borrower of a qualified written request relating to a dispute regarding the borrower’s payments, a servicer may not provide information regarding any overdue payment, owed by such borrower and relating to such period or qualified written request, to any consumer reporting agency.

NOTE: This Section provides for damages for any negative credit which is reported to any credit bureau which causes damage to my Clients.

C. RECOVERABLE DAMAGES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:

Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be liable to the borrower for each such failure in the following amounts:

(1) Individuals:

In the case of any action by an individual, an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure; and any additional damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of this section, in an amount not to exceed $1,000.

(2) Class actions:

In the case of a class action, an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages to each of the borrowers in the class as a result of the failure; and any additional damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of this section, in an amount not greater than $1,000 for each member of the class, except that the total amount of damages under this subparagraph in any class action may not exceed the lesser of $500,000; or 1 percent of the net worth of the servicer.

(3) Costs:

In addition to the amounts under paragraph (1) or (2), in the case of any successful action under this section, the costs of the action, together with any attorneys fees incurred in connection with such action as the court may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances.

D. “ACTUAL DAMAGES” MAY PERMIT RECOVERY OR EMOTIONAL DAMAGES SUFFERED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE:

NOTE: If a lender or loan servicer breaches this duty, a borrower may recover any “actual damages” proximately caused. “Actual damages” includes time spent on the case (and lost wages if required to be away from work), attorney fees, and there is legal precedent for the recovery of emotional distress damages for a loan servicer’s failure to comply with RESPA. See Johnstone v. Bank of America, N.A., 173 F.Supp.2d 809, 814-16 (N.D.Ill.2001) (RESPA plaintiffs may recover for mental suffering); Ploog v. HomeSide Lending, Inc., 209 F.Supp.2d 863, 870 (N.D.Ill.2002); and Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1166 (M.D.Ala.1999). See also Wanger v. EMC Mortgage Corp., 103 Cal.App.4th 1125, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 685, Cal.App. 5 Dist.,(2002)

As an organizer for Patriot Guard Riders, Barb Mitchell showed her support at trial every day for James Hurley, the Van Buren County man who lost his house while he served overseas with the U.S. Army National Guard.

Hurley, 45, settled his lawsuit against Deutsche Bank Trust Co. and Saxon Mortgage Services during trial in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids.

“I was there because I was concerned that Sgt. Hurley gets fair treatment from the court,” Mitchell, a Kalamazoo resident, said today. “As a citizen, I wanted to see the right thing done.”

Attorney John Odom Jr. said her presence buoyed Hurley and his attorneys during trial. She was probably the only one at trial without a direct interest in the case.

“We were really touched by that,” Odom said.

Mitchell also joined other military supporters who stood outside the courthouse as the trial began. Patriot Guard Riders often attend military funerals if asked, and support veterans.

She said the property where Hurley lived, overlooking a river, was important to him. The property was foreclosed upon, and sold.

“I do think it’s wrong he can’t somehow get his home and land back. That’s just wrong.”

Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a soldier is supposed to be given protection from foreclosure while on active duty.

In violation of a law intended to protect active military personnel from creditors, agents of Deutsche Bank foreclosed on his small Michigan house, forcing Sergeant Hurley’s wife, Brandie, and her two young children to move out and find shelter elsewhere.

When the sergeant returned in December 2005, he drove past the densely wooded riverfront property outside Hartford, Mich. The peaceful little home was still there — winter birds still darted over the gazebo he had built near the water’s edge — but it almost certainly would never be his again. Less than two months before his return from the war, the bank’s agents sold the property to a buyer in Chicago for $76,000.

Since then, Sergeant Hurley has been on an odyssey through the legal system, with little hope of a happy ending — indeed, the foreclosure that cost him his home may also cost him his marriage. “Brandie took this very badly,” said Sergeant Hurley, 45, a plainspoken man who was disabled in Iraq and is now unemployed. “We’re trying to piece it together.”

In March 2009, a federal judge ruled that the bank’s foreclosure in 2004 violated federal law but the battle did not end there for Sergeant Hurley.

Typically, banks respond quickly to public reports of errors affecting military families. But today, more than six years after the illegal foreclosure, Deutsche Bank Trust Company and its primary co-defendant, a Morgan Stanley subsidiary called Saxon Mortgage Services, are still in court disputing whether Sergeant Hurley is owed significant damages. Exhibits show that at least 100 other military mortgages are being serviced for Deutsche Bank, but it is not clear whether other service members have been affected by the policy that resulted in the Hurley foreclosure.

A spokesman for Deutsche Bank declined to comment, noting that Saxon had handled the litigation on its behalf. A spokesman for Morgan Stanley, which bought Saxon in 2006, said that Saxon had revised its policy to ensure that it complied with the law and was willing to make “reasonable accommodations” to settle disputes, “especially for our servicemen and women.” But the Hurley litigation has continued, he said, because of a “fundamental disagreement between the parties over damages.”

In court papers, lawyers for Saxon and the bank assert the sergeant is entitled to recover no more than the fair market value of his lost home. His lawyers argue that the defendants should pay much more than that — including an award of punitive damages to deter big lenders from future violations of the law. The law is called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and it protects service members on active duty from many of the legal consequences of their forced absence.

Even though some of the nation’s military families have been sending their breadwinners into war zones for almost a decade, some of the nation’s biggest lenders are still fumbling one the basic elements of this law — its foreclosure protections.

Under the law, only a judge can authorize a foreclosure on a protected service member’s home, even in states where court orders are not required for civilian foreclosures, and the judge can act only after a hearing where the military homeowner is represented. The law also caps a protected service member’s mortgage rate at 6 percent.

By 2005, violations of the civil relief act were being reported all across the country, some involving prominent banks like Wells Fargo and Citigroup. Publicity about the violations spared some military families from foreclosure, prompted both banks to promise better compliance and put lenders on notice that service members were entitled to special relief.

But the message apparently did not get through. By 2006, a Marine captain in South Carolina was doing battle with JPMorgan Chase to get the mortgage interest rate reductions the act requires. Chase eventually reviewed its policies and, earlier this month, acknowledged it had overcharged thousands of military families on their mortgages and improperly foreclosed on 14 of them. Before a public apology, Chase began mailing out about $2 million in refunds and working to reverse the foreclosures.

For armed forces in a war zone, a foreclosure back home is both a family crisis and a potentially deadly distraction from the military mission, military consumer advocates say.

“It can be devastating,” said Holly Petraeus, the wife of Gen. David Petraeus and the leader of a team that is creating an office to serve military families within a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“It is a terrible situation for the family at home and for the service member abroad, who feels helpless,” Mrs. Petraeus said. “I would hope that the recent problems will be a wake-up call for all banks to review their policies and be sure they comply with the act.”

Chase’s response, however belated, is in sharp contrast to the approach taken by Deutsche Bank and Saxon in the Hurley case.

Sergeant Hurley bought the land in 1994 and “was developing this property into something special,” he said in a court affidavit. He put a double-wide manufactured home on the site and added a deck, hunting blinds, floating docks and storage buildings.

According to his lawyers, his financial troubles began in the summer of 2004, when his National Guard unit sent him to California to be trained to work as a power-generator mechanic in Iraq. Veterans of that duty advised him to buy certain tools not readily available in the war zone, he said in his affidavit. With that expense and his reduced income, he said, he fell behind on his mortgage — a difficulty many part-time soldiers faced when reserve and National Guard units were mobilized.

Believing he was protected by the civil relief act — as, indeed, he was, as of Sept. 11, 2004 — his family repeatedly informed Saxon that Sergeant Hurley had been sent to Iraq. But Saxon refused to grant relief without copies of his individual military orders, which he did not yet have.

Although Saxon’s demand would have been legitimate if Sergeant Hurley had been seeking a lower interest rate, the law did not require him to provide those orders to invoke his foreclosure protections.

Nevertheless, Saxon referred the case to its law firm, Orlans Associates in Troy, Mich., which completed the foreclosure without the court hearing required by law. The law firm filed an affidavit with the local sheriff saying there was no evidence Sergeant Hurley was on military duty. At a sheriff’s sale in October 2004, the bank bought the property for $70,000, less than the $100,000 the sergeant owed on the mortgage.

Orlans acknowledged in a court filing that one of its lawyers learned in April 2005 that Sergeant Hurley had been on active duty since the previous October. Nevertheless, neither Saxon nor the law firm backtracked to ensure the foreclosure had been legal or took steps to prevent the seized property from being sold, according to the court record. Lawyers for Orlans Associates did not respond to a request for comment.

When Sergeant Hurley sued in May 2007, the defendants initially argued that he was not allowed to file a private lawsuit to enforce his rights under the civil relief act. Federal District Judge Gordon J. Quist agreed and threw the case out in the fall of 2008.

That drew a fierce reaction from Col. John S. Odom, Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer in Shreveport, La., who is working with Sergeant Hurley’s local lawyer, Matthew R. Cooper, of Paw Paw, Mich.

Colonel Odom, recognized by Congress and the courts as an expert on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, knew Judge Quist had missed a decision that overturned the one he had cited in his ruling. In December 2008, Colonel Odom appealed the ruling.

In March 2009, Judge Quist reversed himself, reinstated the Hurley case, ruled that the foreclosure had violated the civil relief act and found that punitive damages would be permitted, if warranted.

Despite that legal setback, the defendants soldiered on. As the court docket grew, they argued against allowing Sergeant Hurley to seek compensatory or punitive damages in the case. Judge Quist ruled last month that punitive damages were not warranted — a ruling Colonel Odom has said he has challenged in court and, if necessary, will appeal.

“Nothing says you screwed up as clearly as a big punitive damages award,” he said. “They are a deterrence that warns others not to do the same thing.”

When the trial on damages begins in early March, Sergeant Hurley will have been fighting for almost four years over the illegal foreclosure, a fight he could not have waged without a legal team that will probably only be paid if the court orders the defendants to cover the legal bills.

Regardless of the trial outcome, Sergeant Hurley’s dream home is likely to remain as far beyond his reach as it was when he was in Iraq. Its new owner has refused to entertain any offers for it and recently bought an adjoining lot.

Sergeant Hurley said he still loved the wooded refuge he drives past almost every day. “I was hoping I could get the property back,” he said. “But they tell me there’s just no way.”

Foreclosure help for unemployed