Tips for Goal Setting, Monitoring, and Measuring For Results
This is an ODV PREVIEW
Members can view full On Demand Video by clicking link below
Archive for 2010
Tips for Goal Setting, Monitoring, and Measuring For Results
Leave your comment
Bank executives who were hoping for a quiet end to this fall’s controversy over irregularities in the foreclosure process are facing a new threat: state judges.
The chief justice of New Jersey’s Supreme Court, Stuart Rabner, announced Monday that the state’s courts would stop foreclosures by big banks if they cannot show they’re following state law when foreclosing.
Rabner made the announcement after assigning a judge to oversee foreclosure matters. That judge, Mary C. Jacobson, issued an order Monday requiring six banks – Ally Financial, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, OneWest Bank and Citigroup – to appear in court and explain why she shouldn’t suspend foreclosures.
The New Jersey action stems from the controversy over questions surfaced over the legality of documents submitted to courts in foreclosure proceedings.
"Today’s actions are intended to provide greater confidence that the tens of thousands of residential foreclosure proceedings underway in New Jersey are based on reliable information," Rabner said in a statement. "Nearly 95 percent of those cases are uncontested, despite evidence of flaws in the foreclosure process."
The six banks must by Jan. 19 show the court why it should not suspend foreclosures. The order said the banks were chosen "based on a public record of questionable practice."
Only one bank would comment on Monday. Mark Rodgers of Citigroup said the bank would review the judge’s order and ensure that it is in compliance.
Banks are expected to argue that problems in the foreclosure process have been minor and the vast majority of those facing foreclosure lost their homes because they didn’t pay their mortgages for many months.
They’re also likely to say that a protracted freeze in foreclosures could have a negative effect since it would keep those vacant homes out of the market.
But homeowner advocates and others will likely argue that banks’ problems with following the letter of the law in foreclosure proceedings reflect a range of harmful practices that have hurt borrowers trying to avoid foreclosures.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
For more: http://wapo.st/gxhd7G
STRUGGLING homeowners can sometimes benefit from hiring a lawyer to try to modify a mortgage or avert foreclosure, but avoiding scam artists and sketchy practices requires vigilance.
Carefully vetting lawyers to weed out the good from the bad can mean the difference between saving tens of thousands of dollars in fees and actually having a loan modified — and being out the cash, with your home in foreclosure and a radioactive credit score.
“It’s difficult for consumers to differentiate between the bad actors and the ones who can help, because they’re so inundated with scams these days,” said William Mackin, a bankruptcy lawyer in Woodbury, N.J.
So what are some of the potential red flags?
According to PreventLoanScams.org, a new online site operated by the nonprofit Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, homeowners should be cautious about: any guarantees that a loan will be modified, since not all can be; requests for an upfront fee or that the property title be signed over to a third party; and offers to redirect the monthly mortgage payments to a third party who will forward them to the lender or mortgage servicer.
“My best advice is, be wary of the too-good-to-be-true remedies,” Mr. Mackin said.
Brian E. Sullivan, a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says homeowners may want to contact a HUD-approved housing counseling agency before hiring a lawyer. A list of nonprofit counselors — some of which offer free loan-modification services, and others that refer clients to outside loan-modification lawyers — can be found on HUD’s Web site.
One benefit of using lawyers is that they typically know the ins and outs of the welter of government homeowner-assistance programs. Those homeowners who decide to hire one should contact their local bar association to ensure they find “an ethical law firm” that does loan modifications, said Thomas Martin, president of America’s Watchdog, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.
Lawyers typically charge $1,500 to $2,000, and up, for a loan modification. But they might be reluctant to accept clients who have lost their jobs and have no other outside income, as arguing with the bank or servicer in that situation can be pointless.
A lawyer will typically ask for
- your last two federal income tax returns,
- two most recent W-2 forms,
- six months’ worth of pay stubs,
- evidence of other income
This On Demand Video features Mike Butler and his Field Services Superintendent Dan Giggs describing in detail how to handle emergencies and extreme weather conditions.
Watch how Mike explains "frozen pipes" are not an emergency.
Dan shows you how to thaw out frozen pipes in less than 10 minutes.
Many great tips and techniques for both rental properties and vacant property.
Watch this short 20 minute ODV
A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia’s attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON — A U.S. judge in Virginia on Monday declared unconstitutional a key part of President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law in the first major setback on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance by 2014 or face a fine.
"The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," Hudson wrote in a 42-page decision. However, he declined to invalidate the entire healthcare law, a small victory for Obama.
The Obama administration will likely appeal.
The U.S. Justice Department is confident it will ultimately prevail in defending a key part of President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a department spokeswoman said Monday.
Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler expressed disappointment that a federal judge in Virginia declared a key part of the law unconstitutional but said the department continued to believe, as other judges in Virginia and Michigan have found, that the law is constitutional.
"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail," she said in a statement.
First decision against the law
Virginia’s lawyers argued that the federal government could not regulate someone for not buying a good or service under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and could not penalize them for failing to buy health insurance.
Hudson said that neither the Supreme Court nor the various appeals courts had ever extended the "Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."
"This dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate," Hudson wrote.
The decision is the first finding against the law that was passed in March and aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system.
Two judges rejected other challenges to the law, including one in Virginia last month.
The law has become a cornerstone of Obama’s presidency, aiming to expand health insurance for millions more Americans while curbing costs, and his Justice Department lawyers have been sent around the country to defend it in federal courts.
Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress have said one of their top priorities next year when they control the House of Representatives is to repeal the law. But chances of that are slim because Obama’s Democrats still control the Senate.
The Obama administration has vigorously defended the law and said that the state of Virginia did not have the legal standing to challenge it on behalf of its citizens, particularly for something that has yet to take effect.
The individual coverage mandate is a major component of the overhaul law, a bid by the Obama administration to expand coverage to the tens of millions of Americans who are without insurance and to thereby help lower exploding healthcare costs.
Great Deal On Holiday Gift just in time!
Limited Offer Brand New Course!
$100 QuickBooks Instant Rebate!
Amazon Best Seller!
Saturday, May 19, 8:53 am
Thurs, June 7, 2012
Deal Of The Month!
