S. HRG. 111–10 

COPING WITH THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS: STATE 

AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO COMBAT FORECLOSURES 

IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Congressional Oversight Panel 

( 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS: STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO 

ORECLOSURES IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND 


wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–444 2009

S. HRG. 111–10 

COPING WITH THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS: STATE 

AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO COMBAT FORECLOSURES 

IN PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Congressional Oversight Panel 

( 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Elizabeth Warren, Chair, Leo Gottlieb Professor of 

Law, Harvard University .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel, AFL–CIO .................. 8 

Statement of Richard Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of 

New York .............................................................................................................. 13 

Statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen, U.S. Representative from Maryland ....... 14 

Statement of Lloyd Baskin, Homeownership Center, Prince George’s County 

Department of Housing and Community Development .................................... 16 

Statement of Hon. Donna Edwards, U.S. Representative from Maryland ......... 19 

Statement of Tracy Robison, Resident of Prince George’s County and Distressed Homeowner .............................................................................................. 21 

Statement of John Mitchell, Resident of Prince George’s County and Distressed Homeowner .............................................................................................. 22 

Statement of Teresa Smith, Resident of Prince George’s County and Distressed Homeowner .............................................................................................. 24 

Statement of Anne Balcer Norton, Director of Foreclosure Prevention, St. 

Ambrose Housing Aid Center .............................................................................. 29 

Statement of Lisa McDougal, Co-Chair, Coalition for Homeownership Preservation in Prince George’s County, and Executive Director, Sowing Empowerment and Economic Development (SEED) ............................................... 36 

Statement of Hon. Thomas E. Perez, Secretary, Maryland Department of 

Labor, Licensing and Regulation ........................................................................ 41 

Statement of Phillip Robinson, Executive Director, Civil Justice, Inc ................ 55 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

(1) 

COPING WITH THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS: 

STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO COMBAT 

FORECLOSURES IN PRINCE GEORGE’S 

COUNTY, MARYLAND 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL, Largo, MD 

The panel met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in Community 

Room B, Largo Student Center, Prince George’s Community College, Elizabeth Warren, chair of the panel, presiding. 

Attendance: Professor Elizabeth Warren (presiding), Senator 

John Sununu, Mr. Damon Silvers, Mr. Richard Neiman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH WARREN, CHAIR, LEO 

GOTTLIEB PROFESSOR OF LAW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Ms. WARREN. This hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel 

will come to order. 

I want to start by welcoming everyone. This hearing is entitled 

‘‘Coping with the Foreclosure Crisis: State and Local Efforts to 

Combat Foreclosures in Prince George’s County, Maryland.’’ 

I’d like to start out by thanking Prince George’s Community College Provost Charlene Dukes—Provost Dukes, you’re here, I saw 

you earlier. She’s standing up in the back of the room. Thank you 

for graciously hosting this hearing. We very much appreciate the 

cooperation of the college. 

I also want to thank Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, who’s sitting right down here in front, and 

Lloyd Baskin, of the Prince George’s County Department of Housing and Community Development, for their participation here 

today. They will give remarks to us this morning before we hear 

from our witnesses. 

I also would like to thank Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, Congressman Steny Hoyer, Governor Martin O’Malley, and 

County Executive Jack Johnson, all for helping make this hearing 

possible. These hearings are very much a joint effort of many 

hands. 

I’m Elizabeth Warren. I’m the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. This oversight panel was created as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in order to oversee TARP and, 

principally, to try to stabilize our economy. Our mandate is to assess the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts. We are in 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

2 

Prince George’s County to gain a better understanding of the foreclosure crisis and to learn from your experiences. 

This is our second field hearing on mortgages and foreclosures. 

We had a field hearing in December, in Clark County, Nevada, another area that has been hard hit by declining home values and an 

epidemic of foreclosures. 

Since our first hearing, there is a new leadership. We have an 

announcement of the Obama Homeowner Affordability and Stabilization Plan to help homeowners at risk of foreclosure get mortgage loan re-financings and modifications. 

Our report for March will focus on the mortgage crisis, on barriers to loan modifications and refinancing, and on the key characteristics of a successful program. We’re here in Prince George’s 

County today because it is the foreclosure capital of the State, and 

because both the State and the county have been creative and active in searching for means to combat the foreclosure crisis. 

In preparing to come here, like all good academics, you have to 

have a little research and understand what the numbers are. It 

turns out—you may already know these numbers, but it’s worth 

making sure that they’re entered in the record—that, although income in this area has remained relatively stable since 2000, inflation-adjusted housing prices from 2000 to 2007 increased by 124 

percent in this area. Housing prices more than doubled. This is a 

bubble that had to burst. 

In 2008, Maryland reported 32,338 foreclosure filings. That is a 

71-percent increase from 2007, and, more critically, a 945-percent 

increase since 2006. Prince George’s County had the State’s top 

foreclosure rate, and the crisis seems to be getting worse. 

Maryland has aggressively confronted this crisis, and this is a 

large part of what we are here for today: to learn about your experiences through the crisis; and to learn about your experiences in 

how to try to cope with those crises; and third, to learn about 

where the needs are that the Federal Government may be able to 

help with, the extent to which changes in rules, as well as financial 

support, may be relevant in trying to solve this problem. 

So, I’m going to skip the rest of my comments and try to save 

time to hear from you, because I think that’s what we’re here for, 

most importantly. But, I want to say one other thing about a field 

hearing. We are here to hear from you, but this is not the only way 

in which we can hear from you. From the first day that we began 

our work in a public way, we set up a Web site. And it’s 

www.COP—that’s Congressional Oversight Panel, COP— 

.Senate.gov. We hope, through that Web site, not only that you will 

download the information that we have available, our reports and 

our videos and our work, but we hope that you will use this Web 

site in order to let us hear from you. We’re here today to do it in 

person, but we’re there all the time on the Web. So, send us your 

stories, encourage your neighbors to send us their stories. We want 

to be able to hear from the American people on these issues. We, 

in turn, take those stories and make them a part of our work, and 

make sure that others in Washington see them and hear them. So, 

please let this be the start of a two-way street between us. 

Now that I’ve made this part clear, I also want to make clear 

that we have other people available here today. We have housing 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

3 

caseworkers from Congresswoman Edwards’ and Congressman Van 

Hollen’s offices, as well as representatives of local counseling agencies, to help any homeowners who are in need of assistance, so we 

can use this in a small way, at least as our contribution to trying 

to solve this problem. 

I’m joined here by—there will soon be three other members of 

our panel; right now, I have two of them in place—Damon Silvers, 

Associate General Counsel of the AFL–CIO and Richard Neiman, 

Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York. 

I now will yield to my colleagues for any opening remarks. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

4 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 12 48444A.001
5 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 13 48444A.002
6 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 14 48444A.003
7 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 15 48444A.004
8 

Mr. Silvers. 

STATEMENT OF DAMON SILVERS, MEMBER OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL 

Mr. SILVERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Good morning, and thank you, to Elizabeth and to the panel 

staff, for putting this very important hearing together. 

And I also want to express my deep gratitude to the good people 

of Prince George’s Community College for accommodating us, and 

particularly on such short notice. 

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the presence of my congressman, Chris Van Hollen—and hopefully we will be joined shortly by 

Congresswoman Donna Edwards—both for their leadership on this 

and so many other issues, and for taking the time to be with us 

today. We are very grateful. 

This hearing is about the foreclosure crisis. We are rightfully 

here, just a few miles from Capitol Hill and K Street, to learn 

about the details of what is happening in our country’s neighborhoods, and to make some simple points. 

The foreclosure epidemic is not a regional phenomenon, it’s not 

confined to some corner—some far-distant corner of our country, 

and it is not under control. And here in Prince George’s County, 

home to the people who make our nation’s capital work, the foreclosure epidemic is running wild, accounting for over a third of all 

foreclosure events in the State of Maryland in the last quarter of 

2008. The Congressional Oversight Panel is here today because our 

job is to ensure that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 achieves its purpose of getting the foreclosure epidemic under 

control. Our next monthly report will focus on foreclosure mitigation. 

To do our job, we need to understand what has happened here 

in Prince George’s County, where, in the last quarter of 2008, there 

were over 3500 foreclosure events, a 30-percent increase over the 

third quarter of 2008, and a 45-percent increase over the same period in 2007. 

Mass foreclosures were supposed to be the nightmare of our 

grandparents’ youth, a memory out of faded newsreels. The fact 

that a lender can throw a family out of their home is a necessary 

part of a system of housing finance, but it is also an act of emotional violence and economic destruction. 

Foreclosed homes typically yield less than 40 cents on the dollar 

to lenders, while destabilizing neighborhoods and driving down real 

estate values. Foreclosures should be the last option, after all else 

has failed. 

But, it is impossible to look at the numbers nationwide—millions 

of foreclosures, but only thousands of loan modifications—and not 

conclude that foreclosure is not just the first option lenders and 

services offer to homeowners in trouble, it is effectively the only option. 

The foreclosure epidemic should teach policymakers something 

that policy elites are always in danger of forgetting: we are one 

country and, increasingly, one world, our fate bound together. The 

family put on the street here in PG County is not simply a regrettable personal tragedy for that family, it is the beginning of a chain 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

9 

of events that leads to falling property values, collapsed 

megabanks, trillion-dollar government bailouts, frozen credit markets, 401(k) meltdowns, political crises in foreign countries, closed 

factories and lost jobs, from here to China and back. 

Many people find the financial-markets crisis a complete mystery, but really it’s very simple. Mortgages on terms families can’t 

afford aren’t worth the face value of those mortgages. Banks that 

hold those mortgages don’t have enough real assets to fund their 

liabilities, and foreclosing on homes makes the problem for both 

homeowner and bank worse. 

So, in a very real sense, the crisis in our financial system begins 

here in the American home and in the suffering of American families. And so, this hearing is not just about our foreclosure mandate, 

but our mandate to understand whether the $700 billion Congress 

appropriated to address the financial crisis is being used effectively. 

Foreclosures and sick banks are two sides of the same coin. We 

have been on a path of denial, the path that assumes that buying 

time will, itself, be a solution. We pretend houses are worth more 

than they ever will be, that families with stagnant incomes will 

somehow pay exploitative mortgages, that banks that are underwater are actually healthy. This has been the strategy for too long, 

and we cannot afford to play ‘‘Let’s Pretend’’ any longer. 

Home foreclosures and zombie banks are dragging down our 

housing markets and our economy. Buying time is making the 

problem worse, not better. We need to revive both our communities 

and our banks, and that means that both banks and mortgages 

must be restructured. 

This hearing, finally, is so timely because we are at a moment 

when action is finally on the table. The President has proposed 

spending real money to help homeowners in trouble, building on 

the leadership shown in this area by the FDIC. Here in Maryland, 

there are models for action in the efforts of the State government, 

under the leadership of Governor Martin O’Malley, to encourage solutions other than foreclosure when homeowners get in trouble. 

Maryland’s efforts, like those of other States, like New York, ably 

represented here at the table, have outpaced Federal efforts, up 

until now. As President Obama details his mortgage relief plan, I 

believe Maryland’s experience can help guide our efforts at the 

Federal level, so I am very pleased the leaders of the Maryland 

State initiatives are here with us today. 

I hope, today, we will hear more about these solutions and that 

testimony will help us answer key questions about addressing the 

foreclosure crisis. What are the obstacles to mortgage restructurings? Do we need to encourage principal write-downs, or will interest-rate reductions be enough for most homeowners in trouble? 

What carrots and sticks work to encourage loan restructurings? In 

particular, what should we ask of recipients of TARP money in this 

area? Looking at Federal, State, and private-sector efforts to address foreclosures over the last 2 years, what, if anything, has 

worked? And finally, and quite importantly, how can government 

communicate effectively with borrowers, who are in trouble and 

who may not trust what they get in the mail, to help those people 

get help? 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

10 

I look forward to hearing what our distinguished panels of witnesses have to say on all these issues, and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Silvers follows:] 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

11 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 21 here 48444A.005
12 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 22 here 48444A.006
13 

Ms. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Silvers. Mr. Neiman. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD NEIMAN, MEMBER OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you. 

As our Chair pointed out, in my day job I am Superintendent of 

Banks in New York, but I really think that my presence on this 

committee has probably more to do with the role that I’ve played 

in foreclosure prevention and mitigation in the State of New York. 

I serve as the Governor’s chair of an interagency task force that we 

call HALT, Halt Abusive Lending Transactions, and it is really addressing the whole compendium, the continuum, of the foreclosure 

crisis, from initiation to foreclosure, to the impact that foreclosed 

properties have on destabilizing neighborhoods. 

We have addressed this from—as your State has, and as many 

States—from bringing borrowers directly together with lenders, to 

modify mortgages and to prevent filings of foreclosures, to providing multi-million-dollar grants to the not-for-profits, who are so 

necessary in providing the counseling, to imposing legislation to assure that a crisis like this never happens again, and that banks impose and utilize sound underwriting standards to assure that borrowers have the ability and the wherewithal to pay and put that 

burden and duty of care on the lender, and also to bring serious 

and effective enforcement for mortgage fraud, and to assure that 

mortgage originators, mortgage brokers, are licensed—properly licensed in this country. 

But, the only way for us to effectively do this is to actually interact with the people who are impacted by this, and that’s why, for 

the last 2 years, since I’ve been in this role, I have made it a serious attempt to walk the streets of the communities that are being 

impacted by foreclosures. 

Fortunately, New York has not been impacted to the same extent 

as communities like Maryland. However, New York is being disproportionately impacted in some areas—there are areas in Brooklyn and Queens that comprise almost 30 percent of all the foreclosure filings. And when you walk those streets of Jamaica, 

Queens, or Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, or even Buffalo and Rochester, 

and you see the destabilizing impact that foreclosed properties, not 

only have on the families who were displaced, but on the neighbor—every neighbor of those homes; you see the impact that this 

is having on our cities, on our counties, on our States, our Federal 

Government, and our economy. 

So, that’s why I am so excited that we have this opportunity to 

be out here, to hear from the borrowers, to hear from the not-forprofits, and to hear from the government officials who are working, 

day in, day out, to address this problem. When we hear from you 

as to what are those impediments—and as Damon and Elizabeth 

mentioned, our next report will focus on the impediments and the 

obstacles to bringing about successful mitigation efforts. But, only 

by understanding the impediments, whether they be at the servicer 

level, the bank level, or at the financial level, can we really recommend to Congress, to the Federal Government, appropriate 

modification efforts. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

14 

So, I am very anxious to hear from you all today, and thank you 

for coming. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Neiman. 

The Chair now recognizes Congressman Chris Van Hollen for 

some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. Thank you, Professor 

Warren. Thank you for chairing the Congressional Oversight Panel. 

And thank your other members for joining you—Mr. Silvers, Mr. 

Neiman. Thank you for the work that you’re doing. We all look forward to your report, not just Members of Congress, but the people 

of Prince George’s County and people of our country, as we look for 

a way forward and a way out of what is clearly a crisis. 

I’m very pleased to be here today with Lloyd Baskin, and I know 

we’re going to be joined shortly by my colleague in Congress, 

Donna Edwards, and we have been working to try and address this 

problem as expeditiously as possible. 

I also want to thank Prince George’s County Community College 

and Charlene Dukes for hosting us today, and to say to our State 

and local officials here in Maryland, as you have said, that they 

have been taking aggressive steps to try and stem the tide of foreclosure. But there are, of course, limits to what you can do at the 

local and State level, and that’s why it’s essential that we take very 

firm and strong action at the Federal level, which, in late fall of 

last year, I think, was very piecemeal; I think, now it is accelerating; and we’re going to be really rolling up our sleeves and getting to it with the new administration and the election of President 

Obama. 

I’m not going to recite the statistics for Prince George’s County; 

I think you all did a very good job of laying out the problem. It’s 

bad, and it’s getting worse. It’s already been at a pretty rapid decline, and that curve is getting steeper. There is a perception, I believe, that there’s sort of a bubble around the nation’s capital area 

that has not been bursting, as Mr. Silvers said, and others have 

said. That just isn’t so. And Prince George’s County is a vivid example that, right in the backyard of our nation’s capital, the foreclosure crisis is here, and growing. 

You’re going to hear the testimony from some witnesses later, 

and, I think, as you’ve said, it’s important to get that—the stories, 

right from the ground. 

I would like to underscore the point that Mr. Silvers made with 

respect to the sense that we have gotten in our office with respect 

to trying to deal with some of the lenders or the servicers. It has 

been very frustrating. We have had some success stories, and we’re 

always pleased when we’re able to have a success story. But, we’ve 

also had many cases where we have not been able to make 

progress, which is why it’s essential that we move forward more 

aggressively on that front. 

I just want to relate a story from one constituent who could not 

be here today. This is a letter we received from the constituent, 

‘‘On Christmas Eve, we received a letter from a lawyer representing HomeEq Servicing Company, informing us that they had startwwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

15 

ed the foreclosure process. We have been given 45 days to either 

pay everything we owe them or challenge their claim of us being 

delinquent since September 1st. In reality, we paid them the September and October payment, but they credited them to a missed 

payment in May, and my husband tried to make a partial payment 

in November, which they refused. He also tried to pay them in December, which they refused. 

‘‘I am very frustrated, because I feel that we have done everything that was suggested in the,’’ quote, ‘‘ ‘Prevent Foreclosure’ 

package that was sent to me by your office. Unfortunately, our loan 

servicing company doesn’t seem too interested in trying to help us 

stay in our home. I feel like we have been very honest with our 

lender, and have acted in good faith, but I feel we have been treated unfairly. I feel like they have knowingly and willingly put us 

further behind in our payments, and now added additional legal 

fees which has made it nearly impossible to pay what we owe. 

‘‘I hope someday legislation will be passed to protect people like 

us. To send us the notice on Christmas Eve was like adding salt 

to the wound. The very least, I would appreciate your letting Representative Van Hollen know what we have dealt with, because I 

feel it has been unfair, to say the least. 

‘‘We had no control over the housing crash, and couldn’t sell our 

home. We have resigned ourselves to the fact that we will now 

have to go forward with a bankruptcy plan and hope, someday, to 

be able to regroup and rebuild.’’ 

Since that constituent sent us the letter, they filed for bankruptcy. HomeEq then filed papers to lift the stay of bankruptcy 

protection so that they could go ahead with their foreclosure. Our 

constituent since had a heart attack and a stroke, and is now in 

intensive care at Washington Hospital. 

These are the kind of stories you’re hearing in Prince George’s 

County in Maryland and around the country. 

Last week, President Obama announced his housing plan to help 

7 to 9 million American families restructure or refinance their 

mortgages to avoid foreclosure. We all need to get behind that plan. 

Yesterday, the House of Representatives began debate on legislation entitled ‘‘Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.’’ It has a 

number of provisions in it. I’m not going to go through all those 

provisions. I do want to mention one, with respect to the option to 

go into bankruptcy and have a bankruptcy court readjust your 

mortgage. I think we all know that people with second homes, people with yachts, real estate speculators and others can currently go 

into bankruptcy court and have a judge consider all the factors, all 

the individual factors that a blanket rule cannot, and make a judgment tailored to the individual circumstances of that person, going 

forward. And one of the provisions in the bill the House is taking 

up will allow people who are currently undergoing foreclosure to 

seek some relief in bankruptcy. I think it’s an important hammer, 

and it’s even effective in the cases where they don’t eventually 

have to go into bankruptcy, because it provides a much greater incentive to lenders to negotiate and renegotiate these arrangements. 

Hopefully, the more aggressive approach that’s being taken now 

will make a real difference in people’s lives. As I said, we get lots 

of constituent cases; we try and deal with them, one on one. Somewwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

16 

times we’re successful; sometimes, very unfortunately, we’re not, 

which is why we need to supplement the efforts at the local and 

State level by dramatic Federal action. 

I really thank you, again, for the work that you’re doing, and we 

look forward to your report as a way forward in getting us out of 

this crisis so we don’t have to hear the kind of stories I just related 

to you. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

Ms. WARREN. Congressman Van Hollen, Chris, thank you very 

much for coming here today. And thank you for participating in 

this hearing, but thank you for the work that you’re doing in Washington, and particularly on the very important bill yesterday. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN. We hope to get it done—— 

Ms. WARREN. Godspeed. 

Representative VAN HOLLEN [continuing]. In the next week. 

Ms. WARREN. I now want to recognize Mr. Lloyd Baskin, who is 

the manager of the Homeownership Center in the Prince George’s 

County Department of Housing and Community Development. 

Welcome, Mr. Baskin, and would you make your opening statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF LLOYD BASKIN, MANAGER, HOMEOWNERSHIP 

CENTER, PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BASKIN. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, 

Madam Chair Elizabeth Warren, members of the panel—Mr. 

Damon Silvers, Mr. Richard Neiman, and Chris Van Hollen. I am 

Lloyd Baskin, and I manage the Homeownership Center for Prince 

George’s County. Thank you for inviting me to talk about foreclosure and its effects on homeowners who have tried to refinance 

or obtain loan modifications. It’s really a struggle for folks to have 

to go through. 

It’s fitting that this august panel has decided to take up the most 

important issue facing America, which is foreclosure and the questions surrounding reviewing the current state of financial markets 

and the regulatory system. 

Our jurisdiction appreciates the fact that your panel, which has 

oversight of foreclosure mitigation, has come to listen and assess 

the impacts the current bank credit crisis has demonstrated on several homeowners facing foreclosure proceedings. The broad outline 

of my remarks today will do two things; first is to provide a cursory 

snapshot of the state of foreclosures in the county, the second will 

be to offer recommendations for your panel to consider in addressing the impediments that thousands of homeowners are facing in 

their efforts to refinance or execute a loan modification. 

I’ll start with—the subprime mortgage market experienced tremendous growth between 2001 and 2006. The county believes that 

this was facilitated by the development of private-label mortgagebased securities. Investors in search of higher yields kept increasing the demands for these private-label mortgage-backed securities, 

which also led to sharp increases in the subprime share of the 

mortgage market—it went up from 8 percent in 2001 to 20 percent 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

17 

in 2006—and in the securitized share of the subprime mortgage 

market, which increased from 54 percent in 2001 to 75 percent in 

2006. In Prince George’s County, our experience shows that as the 

subprime market grew dramatically, mortgage loan underwriting 

standards were deteriorating just as dramatically. Rapid appreciation of housing prices hid the true riskiness of these subprime 

loans; and when housing prices stopped climbing, the risk in the 

market was apparent. 

We now know that the subprime market experienced a classic 

lending boom-bust scenario, with rapid market growth, loosening 

underwriting standards, and deteriorating loan performance, which 

decreased risk premiums. 

In addition to rising default and foreclosure rates throughout 

Maryland, the Homeownership Preservation Task Force was established to develop an action plan to address escalating foreclosure 

rates and identify effective ways to preserve homeownership. The 

task force examined the capacity of the housing counseling agencies 

to address foreclosure prevention. The Homeownership Coalitions 

in Prince George’s County and in Baltimore recommended that 

homeowners be provided with financial literacy information about 

the importance of their credit and understanding the loan terms in 

order to make good choices in the mortgage products. In Prince 

George’s County, this took the form of group financial literacy education and one-on-one counseling for those who have missed one or 

more mortgage payments. 

‘‘Under a Shadow,’’ which is a weekly series of foreclosure prevention workshops that are put on by the Prince George’s County 

Coalition, are held every Thursday at various locations throughout 

the State. This 2-hour workshop basically gives people information 

on the foreclosure process, as well as their mortgage rights and responsibilities. Participants are taught to order a credit report, develop a budget, and complete a hardship letter to describe what 

caused the delinquency and what they are prepared to do to resolve 

it. 

The goal is to provide families information on repayment, loan 

modification, and refinancing programs to prevent the loss of their 

homes. Approximately 6500 people have attended these weekly 

workshops since September of 2007. 

And we get a lot of our foreclosure information from Realty Track 

and also from the State of Maryland. And they’ve been studying 

and tracking foreclosure statistics throughout the nation. And Realty Track reported that 10,030 property foreclosure filing events 

were filed during the fourth quarter in Maryland. 

Now, let me describe what a foreclosure event is. A foreclosure 

event is a notice of sale, a notice of default, or an actual purchase 

of a foreclosed home. Now, in Prince George’s County, we’re accounting for about 36 percent of those in the State of Maryland, or 

3,621 notices of default; notices of sale, about 570 in the fourth 

quarter; and purchases were 592. So, a lot of folks are in trouble. 

Now, the State of Maryland has also gone out and identified 

hotspot communities, where foreclosure has impacted those communities greater than the State average. And in our area, three 

areas that are very hard hit are Fort Washington, Upper Marlboro, 

and Capitol Heights. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

18 

And you may ask, What is the county doing? Well, the county is 

focusing our efforts on sustaining homeownership through financial 

literacy education, community outreach, and one-on-one counseling. 

We work closely with the State of Maryland and Mr. Skinner’s office. We also work with the Coalition for Homeownership Preservation in Prince George’s County. 

We believe pre- and post-purchase education, along with effective 

outreach to the community are the best tools to assist families to 

become successful homeowners; at the same time, preparing them 

to analyze and act on repayment problems, should they occur. 

Financial assistance is available through the Bridge to Hope Program, which is called—help for Prince George’s families in danger 

of losing their homes. This program provides temporary relief to 

county homeowners facing foreclosure difficulty caused by an adjustable rate or a subprime mortgage. Eligible homeowners are 

able to borrow up to 15,000, payable as a zero-interest preferred— 

I mean, zero-percent deferred loan, to be repaid when the house is 

sold, refinanced, or the title is transferred. The borrowers can use 

these funds to bring their mortgage current in order to qualify for 

a fixed-rate CDA loan or an FHA loan, loan product. You must contact a nonprofit housing counseling agency in order to get this assistance. If you need more information on it, you can call 1–877– 

462–7555—that’s the State’s line—or you can go to the Web, 

www.mdhope.org. 

Okay, what actions does the county think will help the situation? 

Really, we’d like the whole process to be streamlined. The problem 

right now is, many folks are asked to call their lender, but when 

they call their lender, they are met with someone in the collections 

department who takes them through a whole series of questions 

and answers to try and gain information. The banks, on the other 

hand, say they have to take a long time to hire someone and train 

them so that they can handle that information. So, what you have 

is people rushing to the nonprofit counseling agencies; there’s long 

lines there for assistance. And then, when they get their information together, they have to contact the bank, and then there’s more 

lines for assistance. 

Many of the people in the banking community are telling these 

borrowers, ‘‘We can’t do anything for you until you are at least 90 

days behind.’’ Well, by the time most folks are 90 days behind, 

their time to do anything is really reduced, so they don’t have a— 

they don’t have much of a choice. So, we’d—asking for this process 

to be streamlined. 

Now, we would suggest that the homeowner counseling agencies 

themselves be given these funds, something like what HUD does 

with their SuperNOFA program; just let the counseling agencies 

apply directly to HUD or the FDIC or another entity, and then the 

counseling agencies can provide these funds to homeowners in an 

emergency basis. We think that would help—we think that would 

help tremendously. 

Also, we’d like more options for the homeowners. We have the 

Bridge to Hope, we have FHA Secure, we have Help for Homeowners, we have many different programs, but all of them have 

various rules. If we could streamline that whole process, make one 

standard process for the counseling agencies to go through, for the 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

19 

borrowers to go through, we think it would help people tremendously. 

Finally, we’d like the banks to follow the IndyMac Federal Bank 

loan modification model proposed by Sheila Bair, from the FDIC. 

The FDIC systematically reviews its mortgage portfolios to modify 

troubled residential loans for delinquent or at-risk borrowers. 

That’s a much more proactive approach than your statistical modeling. FDIC uses statistical modeling software to review their loan 

portfolio. Then they send a letter, where it makes sense, to those 

borrowers that are at risk or in trouble. With that kind of process, 

that can be done with little or no cost, that could be done without 

training a lot of people on the bank side, that could be done without all these long lines and this long wait for assistance that most 

counseling agencies and homeowners are going through. 

Finally, the FDIC expects that future defaults will be reduced, 

the value of the mortgages will improve, and servicing costs will be 

cut. This streamlined process has the greatest potential to assist 

the most people in the shortest amount of time. At the same time, 

any troubled borrowers will remain in their homes. 

I look forward to your panel’s report after today’s testimony. 

Thank you, again, for the invitation to appear today. I hope my testimony has been useful, and I’ll be happy to address any questions. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Baskin. Appreciate it. 

And I want to welcome Representative Donna Edwards here. 

Congresswoman Edwards, I’ve followed your career for some 

time, and particularly in your ability to link up the issues in bankruptcy law and what’s happened in the housing crisis very early on. 

And so, I want to welcome you here today and invite you to make 

some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA F. EDWARDS, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND 

Representative EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, 

of course, I have followed you, too. 

Let me just say this. First of all, welcome to Prince George’s 

County and to the 4th Congressional District in Maryland. I appreciate that you are here, because here in Prince George’s County we 

really are at the center of the storm in our State. 

I live in Fort Washington, Maryland. And as you have already 

heard from earlier testimony, it is one of the jurisdictions in Prince 

George’s County that is more severely hit than almost anyplace 

else in the State. 

Three years ago, I drove both through my neighborhood and my 

community, and I actually began to see, at that point, what was 

happening. It was slow, at first. And now it is a cascade. 

In my own neighborhood in Fort Washington, just driving 

through my small neighborhood, I would estimate that about 10 

percent of the homes in that small neighborhood are in some state 

of foreclosure. The impact is really devastating on communities like 

mine and across the State. 

Our office in the 4th District has held two foreclosure mitigation 

forums in the last few months. We brought together legal services 

providers, home counselors, our Federal, State, and county agencies, and our utilities. Utilities are another small piece of the pie, 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

20 

in terms of what homeowners need to try to mitigate. This is not 

enough. The programs that are in existence actually are geared toward people who are already in a state of trouble, and not looking 

ahead. 

While, even in this county, the crisis may have begun with 

subprime loans (some of them that were made to people who could 

have had prime loans and long-term fixed-rate loans), now the crisis is hitting in a different way. That is because there are folks who 

are stretched because their hours have been cut back or they have 

lost a job. So, we have a cascading problem here in this congressional district and around the country. 

For some time I had called for the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

funds to be used to mitigate foreclosures. We did not do that with 

the first tranche of money, quite frankly. And now I think that we 

are in a different place. 

I am looking forward to hearing more about President Obama’s plan and the Treasury’s plan to use about $75 billion of the other 

$350 billion to try to mitigate foreclosures. 

We will, in the House of Representatives, very shortly, be considering a provision that would allow for some homeowners to have 

their homes considered in the context of bankruptcy. I believe that 

this strategy should have happened a long time ago, because, for 

some homeowners, and for bankers and lenders, that prospect of 

bankruptcy actually might initiate modifications that might not 

happen otherwise, and then, for those who are in their hardest-hit 

moment and for whom bankruptcy is a last resort, they will do 

that, but at least they can have their single largest asset considered in the context of that bankruptcy. 

We need to tackle this problem with multiple prongs. There is no 

one single fix to the problem. As I look throughout our county and 

at the forums that we held, we had hundreds of people coming out 

to get help. We could not help all of them. Even in the best of all 

possible worlds, we will not be able to help all of them, but we will 

be able to mitigate the cascading rate of foreclosures that are happening through our community and across the country. 

I appreciate your being here in Prince George’s County and in 

the 4th Congressional District. We are looking, also, that accountability is in the program. What are we doing to really help homeowners and to make a difference in opening up credit markets so 

that people will be able to refinance, and so that their small businesses are not placed in jeopardy when their homes are in foreclosure? 

I have been working closely with my colleague Chris Van Hollen 

from the 8th Congressional District, and the entire Maryland delegation, to figure out how we can try to stave this program off for 

Maryland and for communities around the country. 

I appreciate, again, your being here, look forward to any questions that you have, particularly about the forums we have been 

hosting, because they have been instructive, in terms of the kind 

of help that we need to offer to our homeowners. Again, thank you 

very much for being here in Prince George’s County. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you, Congressman. Thank 

you, Mr. Baskin, for being with us. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

21 

I also want to note that Senator Sununu has now joined us. 

We will, today, have two panels. We’re going to have a panel, 

first, of homeowners from Prince George’s County who have faced, 

or are facing, the threat of foreclosure. And then, second, we will 

have a panel of those who are working on the foreclosure mitigation efforts, both to hear about the creative and successful efforts 

that are occurring, but also to hear where the impediments are, 

where the problems are, and where we need greater assistance and 

can make some changes. 

So, with that, I say thank you very much, and I ask for the first 

panel to come up. Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. WARREN. I want to thank you all. 

So that we can be respectful of everyone’s time and have an opportunity to hear from as many people as possible, we’re going to 

ask that you hold your comments to 5 minutes; but, anything that 

you wish to put in the record—we will hold the record open, and 

you’re certainly welcome to add other remarks, if you would like to. 

We also, just to help us stay on time—we actually have someone 

who will just give us some little signals on time. I’m sure I’m the 

only person in the room who sometimes gets so carried away with 

the content of what we’re talking about, but I do want to make 

sure we keep things moving on time. 

We have three people with us here today to talk about their experiences. Tracy Robison, is from Hyattsville. 

Ms. ROBISON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WARREN. Is that right? 

Mr. Mitchell—John Mitchell, is from Forestville. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That’s right. 

Ms. WARREN. And we have Teresa Smith, from Palmer Park. Is 

that right? 

So, if you would, I’d just like to hear from each of you, for up 

to 5 minutes, if you could. 

Ms. Robison. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY ROBISON, RESIDENT OF PRINCE 

GEORGE’S COUNTY AND DISTRESSED HOMEOWNER 

Ms. ROBISON. Good morning. My husband and I had been in foreclosure for 2 years, and we recently have gotten our modification 

from our lender, Chase Bank. And that would not have happened 

without Ann Humphries, from Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s office. 

The thing that I really want to point out, that I think people 

need to know, is that there needs to be more action taken, not only 

against predatory lending, but against companies that pretend to 

be able to help you with your modification. 

During the last 2 years, my husband—my husband and I have 

been in the home—he had the home for about 16 years. We got 

married. I brought in my family. Our family expanded, but our 

house didn’t, so we had to renovate; we had to add on. So, we refinanced. And we were okay. But my husband got ill, and he wasn’t 

working, so that cut our income. That started our financial woes. 

During the course of the last 2 years, we found ourselves in foreclosure because we had to refinance again. We weren’t really exwwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

22 

plained by our lender what happens when you take out a second 

mortgage, a home equity line of credit. That got us in trouble. And, 

of course, having less finances, we weren’t able to pay our bills. We 

tried filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but then the trustee payment 

was so high, we couldn’t keep up with that, either. 

We tried every avenue. Once we realized that we were going to 

lose our home, we tried methods, like going to this place, The 

Money Store. And although we weren’t victims of them, because we 

got out when we realized that this was not right, we were saved. 

But, that was a couple of months tied up with them. We fell further behind in our mortgage payments. 

We went to another place to try to get a modification—and that 

was recently—Home Alliance USA—where they said, ‘‘We can get 

you a modification,’’ and we believed them. We paid them $500 of 

the $2,000 they were asking us to pay. 

At the same time, Congressman Van Hollen’s office got involved. 

I called them. And basically, at the same time I reached out to this 

company that wasn’t very ethical is when I heard from my congressman. They put me in contact with Chase Bank at the executive resolution branch. I never knew about the executive resolution 

branch. There’s a branch at our lender that will respond to the congressman, but I could never get through to them. I had to go 

through loss mitigation for 2 years, trying to work out a deal that 

was affordable to my family. They wanted a huge downpayment. 

They wanted me to enter into a forbearance agreement, and I 

couldn’t. I did not have $7,500 or $8,000 to pay them on a forbearance agreement, but I could pay my mortgage. 

So, essentially, what ended up happening was, they gave us our 

modification with a downpayment that we could afford, and they 

also lowered my monthly payment. 

I am not understanding why we had to go through this rigmarole 

of talking to people in loss mitigation who weren’t really able to 

help us, when the bottom line was, eventually they came through 

for us. But, the hoops we had to jump through in getting help was 

ridiculous. When you call your lender, you talk to one person; and 

then when you call them back, you have to speak to another person. It reminds me of that game, where you have a nut under a 

shell, and they move them and you never know who you’re going 

to talk to, you never know what’s going to be under that shell, if 

you’re going to get somebody or you’re not going to get somebody. 

And I played that game with my lender for months and months 

and months. And it’s not fair. 

And even worse than them, like I said, was these companies that 

pretend they’re going to help you with your modification. They 

need to be shut down. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. We appreciate it, Ms. Robison. 

Mr. Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MITCHELL, RESIDENT OF PRINCE 

GEORGE’S COUNTY AND DISTRESSED HOMEOWNER 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Good morning, Ms. Chair and Senator and 

other colleagues. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

23 

My name is John Mitchell, and I have a similar, but more successful, situation than my neighbor, here. 

Mine started back in 2005. I got married in—my wife’s going to 

kill me—1996. And actually, the home we had wasn’t big enough 

for the family, so I fell behind in my taxes and things, and I said, 

‘‘Well, what I’ll do is have the house refinanced to pay the taxes 

and redo the home.’’ 

Well, that part was fine, and I talked to mortgage brokers everywhere. And they were saying that we couldn’t get a refinancing because of my wife’s credit. This was in 2005. 

So, I kept going and kept going, and one day a mortgage company called Oak Crest called me. And the mortgage lender then 

was—I think his name was Talley. And we went back and forth, 

back and forth, and he assured me that he could save me from 

bankruptcy or foreclosure, and he could get me a loan. 

Well, naturally, as most Americans do, you’ve got somebody that 

can help you, you go along with it. And at that time, I was paying, 

like, $1100 a month, which I could handle. When he got through— 

I don’t know where the money went or where the money came from 

or how he did it—my mortgage loan had gone up to 2104. 

And I told him, point blank, ‘‘There’s no way I can afford this. 

Come on, I can’t afford—from 1100, you then doubled my mortgage 

payment. How in the world am I going to do this? And where’s the 

money?’’ 

He says, ‘‘Well, what we’re going to do is pay your back taxes off 

and this, to save your home, and this’’—and I didn’t get any money. 

So, then it went on and on and on, and I was struggling to make 

the 2104, which was almost impossible. 

So, in 2007 I met another mortgage person, and he said that he 

could lower my mortgage payments and he could stop the foreclosure on the house. And I said, ‘‘Well, what do I have to do?’’ He 

said, ‘‘Well, how much can you afford to pay?’’ I said, ‘‘Well, you’re 

the mortgage man. I would like to pay my $1100 I was paying before.’’ He says, ‘‘Well, no, we can’t do that.’’ He said, ‘‘But, if you 

can give me 1345 a month, I can save your house.’’ 

So, I was paying him 1345 a month for 2006, 2007, I got sick in 

2007. And I was making these payments monthly. Come to find out 

there was a foreclosure on my home that I didn’t know anything 

about. And he was handling all the paperwork, because he told me 

that if anyone asked, refer them to him, which I did. If any mortgage people called, refer them to him, and he would take care of 

all of the things, as long as I paid my mortgage. So, I did. 

And I thought I was going along good. I got sick, and I had to 

have a heart operation, and I was in the hospital for 6 weeks one 

time, and I was in the hospital another time. My wife had a heart 

attack. I mean, we had all kind of medical bills come in. But, some 

kind of way, I kept paying him the 1345. 

One day in 2008—I’ll never forget that, as long as I live—my 

wife called me, and she said, ‘‘Mitch, the sheriff’s department is 

here.’’ ‘‘The sheriff’s department there for what?’’ ‘‘He said they 

come to set us out.’’ I said, ‘‘No way. Put the guy on the phone.’’ 

So, the sergeant got on the phone, and he said, ‘‘Mr. Mitchell, 

why are you still there?’’ I said, ‘‘Because I live there.’’ He says, 

‘‘Well, I have the eviction notice to set you out today.’’ 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

24 

But, there was a postponement, because he got there 2 hours 

after the men that come to put your stuff on the street, so he said 

there would be a postponement and he would let me know when 

the postponement would be, but I would have to leave the house, 

because they were going to put my furniture on the street. 

So, I talked to my pastor and my overseer, and they contacted 

Ms. Alisa Hall from NCRC. And she went to work for us on saving 

the house. And she talked to all the lawyers at Griesen, Berman 

& Ward. Those were the people that had the mortgage on the 

house, because the fellow, while I was in the hospital, sold my 

home. And I didn’t know none of this until the sheriff’s department 

came to put us out. 

So, then Ms. Hall went to work for us, and I asked her, pointblank, ‘‘Ms. Hall, will you be able to save my home?’’ She says, ‘‘Mr. 

Mitchell, I assure you that we will be able to save your home.’’ 

So, fortunately, she was able to get the lawyers, because when 

we went down to Upper Marlboro and went through the records 

and things, the fellow had sold my house without my knowledge. 

I never went to a hearing, I never did anything. He did it all. 

So, then I guess the lawyers felt guilty, or whatever, and they 

made an agreement, through NCRC, with me, that if I could make 

six payments of $1400 a month, and—which will be the 15th of 

May—that then we would sit down and the house would be deeded 

back to me at a interest rate of 3.9. 

So, come May 15th, hopefully, the house will be mine, because 

I can make $1400 a month. 

So, that’s my success story. I’d just like to catch up with the villain that shammed me, though. [Laughter.] 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. You’re welcome. 

Ms. WARREN [continuing]. For sharing your story. We really appreciate it. 

Ms. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA SMITH, RESIDENT OF PRINCE 

GEORGE’S COUNTY AND DISTRESSED HOMEOWNER; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN HARRISON 

Ms. SMITH. My name is Teresa Smith. I work at P.G. College on 

weekends, and I work for public school, Monday through Friday. 

And I have a learning disability. 

My real estate lady, she took advantage of me on both homes. My 

first home, she took advantage of. The second home, she took advantage of. She took money, putting a high house note I can’t afford. 

Ms. WARREN. Can you move your mike just a little bit closer? I 

know it’s hard, but we want to be sure we’re hearing you. 

Ms. SMITH. And she knew my disability. She knew I couldn’t 

read. She knew I couldn’t count that well. 

And I trusted her for a whole year. In 2 years, the second year, 

that’s when she really took advantage of me. 

Mr. HARRISON. Madam Chair, I’m Attorney John Harrison, and 

I represent Teresa Smith. She asked that I be up here today. She’s 

here for my emotional support. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

25 

She was the victim of fraud. Her case is distinct in the wide spectrum of people that are suffering right now. The Metropolitan 

Money Store was probably the most notorious criminal enterprise 

in Maryland history, when it comes to equity-stripping schemes. 

Ms. Smith is also a victim of that kind of fraud, although it’s a 

different type. We are preparing a civil case to help her with that 

issue. 

The problem, though, is, as Teresa indicated, she’s currently taking classes to learn how to read. She has two jobs. I have one. She 

works here on the weekends, and she works at Prince George 

County Schools as a janitor. She’s a hard worker. She deserves to 

have a home. 

And at no point in time did anyone look after her best interests 

when she was approached. She cannot read. At no point in time did 

anyone look after her best interest. 

Phillip Robinson will be speaking in a moment, from Civil Justice, and he’ll talk more about that kind of victim and, the spectrum of people that need help. But what kind of criteria are we 

going to use to help the folks that are actual fraud victims, versus 

folks that maybe are in a difficult loan? It’s a different category. 

And I would also like to just thank you for being here. It’s heartwarming to see our government here on a such a grassroots level. 

I am a Prince George’s County resident. I live in Upper Marlboro, 

Maryland. And it’s just wonderful that you’re here doing what 

you’re doing for people like my client. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Thank you for being with us, Ms. Smith. Did you want to say 

something more? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. I thank you all for listening to me, because I 

waited for this for a long time, because at the time when I did 

want help, people just turned away from me. And I finally got in 

touch with my lawyer, found a nice lawyer, and the people working 

with him. 

I went to different people to get help. They turned me away, like 

I didn’t know what I was talking about. So, I finally found someone, to stand by me and look out for me, for my situation. And I 

thank God for him, and I thank God for you all. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HARRISON. If I might say one more thing also—— 

Ms. WARREN. Please. 

Mr. HARRISON [continuing]. I’d like to really thank Secretary 

Perez, from DLLR; again, Phillip Robinson, with Civil Justice; also 

April Richardson and Doyle Neiman, over at the State’s Attorney’s 

Office. These are the people that help attorneys like me, who, at 

a grassroots level, are trying to help victims of fraud. They’re giving me the tools and information I need on—I have a limited 

amount of time—the ability to help folks that are in this position. 

Teresa is struggling just to pay for the bus to get to work. She is 

struggling to p ay her bills, but she’s still a capable homeowner, 

and this should not have happened to her. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SMITH. I would like to—— 

Mr. HARRISON. Go ahead. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

26 

Ms. SMITH [continuing]. To say I—when I walk up to my house, 

I’m afraid somebody is going to come out there and put me out. 

When I come home at night, I’m afraid there will be a lock on my 

door and I can’t get in. And now I thank God for looking out for 

me right now, because I may be happy on the outside, but inside, 

I’m torn up. And I just need help. And I don’t want to lose my 

home, because I came a long way to where I’m at today. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

This is why we are here, and I am grateful to all of you for coming and sharing these stories with us. 

Do we have questions? Can we excuse this panel? Did you have 

a question you wanted—— 

Mr. NEIMAN. I just wanted to make—— 

Ms. WARREN [continuing]. To ask, Mr. Neiman? 

Mr. NEIMAN [continuing]. One comment. And it’s really not a 

question. But, again, thanking you for sharing your personal experiences, as difficult as they are. 

But, what I think they all have done, what you all have contributed here, is so significant, because all of you have highlighted, I 

think, all of the significant issues that have to be addressed at the 

national level. You highlighted that voluntary efforts by lenders 

and servicers are not working. You highlighted that disclosure, 

when you opened up your mortgages, is insufficient; nobody can 

understand the disclosures that are presented to you. You highlighted the abusive practices of the mortgage brokers. You particularly—and I appreciate Ms. Robison highlighting these foreclosure 

rescue scams. I think that is the worst result of this, because now 

you have people who are capitalizing on the misery of individuals. 

You’ve highlighted the question ‘‘why should you have to rely on 

a congressman or another executive to get what you really deserve 

in loan modifications’’? 

So, I think you highlighted and you’ve provided as critical a basis 

for this hearing that we could have asked for, so I thank you all 

very, very much. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Mr. Silvers, any comments? 

Thank you, Mr. Neiman. 

Mr. SILVERS. Well, like my colleagues, I want to express my gratitude to each of you for coming here today. 

It is difficult and I know it’s difficult to come out in public here 

with TV cameras and discuss these matters and so I just want to 

express my gratitude and my appreciation for your courage in what 

you have done. 

I have a question for you all, if you wish to say anything more. 

I think you know that part of our responsibility is to look at whether our government, your and my government, is doing everything 

we can to put an end to the foreclosure crisis and to see that people, such as yourselves, are treated fairly, and a second part of 

what we are supposed to do is to oversee and look into what all 

of our taxpayer dollars are doing when they are provided to banks 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

27 

and financial services companies in order to try to repair the crisis 

in our economy. 

Some people have pointed out that there’s a connection between 

mortgages and what’s gone wrong with banks. I’m curious if you 

have any thoughts, based on your experiences with your lenders, 

as to what your government ought to ask of the financial institutions in the mortgage markets. Do you have any—and in particular, if you can think of anything that would have been helpful 

as you were dealing with these experiences, being tied up all this 

time, as you’ve described it, anything you think would be helpful, 

would have been helpful to you or would be helpful to your neighbors in similar situations, any tools, any kind of—anything your 

government might be able to do to make the process of keeping 

folks in their homes quicker and easier? 

Ms. WARREN. Ms. Robison. 

Ms. ROBISON. Yes, ma’am. We refinanced our home twice and I 

will be the first to admit that we did not exercise probably great 

judgment in some of the financial decisions that we made. It is not 

all the fault of our lender. We probably would have fared better 

had my husband and I not gotten ill. Life happens. 

But one of the things that I found to be almost bizarre was that 

when we were called by the company that gave us our second mortgage, we never had to go into their office, we never had to make 

appearances. We didn’t know really who Wits they were. Everything was done via telephone and fax machine. They made it very, 

very, very easy for us to take that great big old piece of pie because 

we had a need. 

I mean, we had a need and they had an offer and that whole 

dealing, it didn’t seem right and I had that feeling that it didn’t 

seem right, but I wanted to stay in my home. I needed their money. 

I feel as though if they had been made to be more accountable, 

more reputable, it probably would have made it a little more difficult for us to get that loan, but in the long run, I wish we didn’t 

ever refinance. We could have probably made it out a better way. 

We took the easy route and they made it really, really easy for us 

because you can get a lot done on a telephone and a fax machine 

without ever having to really appear before somebody or meet 

somebody. It wasn’t done locally. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, I have the same opinion that she does because when I refinanced, it was the same way. I talked to someone 

way in Indiana. I never seen them, I never visited there. It was all 

done by fax machine, through telephones. Even when they paid my 

taxes, instead of the money coming to me, it went to P.G. County 

and they paid the taxes. I filed the paperwork saying that it was 

paid and all of this, but it wasn’t like when I first bought the home. 

I first bought the home from Virginia Mortgage and someone 

came to my home, sat down, talked to me. I could ask questions 

back and forth, but when they did it, somewhere $35,000 got lost. 

I don’t know if it went in the agent’s pocket or whoever, but it 

never got to me, and I said, you know, I think I’ve been scammed. 

I think I’ve been scammed, but at the time, all I knew was that 

I wanted to save my home. I had my home. Now how do I make 

this person pay me? 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

28 

When I realized I couldn’t, that’s when things went haywire and 

then you try to go in, get more people to refinance and they tell 

you they can’t do this for you and they can’t do that for you. The 

loan, they should never have made you the loan and all that. 

Well, as a resident of the state, I think there should be some government in that because if there was a loan made to me and they 

knew I couldn’t pay it, why was it made to me? Why didn’t they 

leave me at the $1,100 I was paying and said, well, you’ve got to 

make a loan to pay your taxes or rebuild your house or whatever? 

But just to take people’s money knowing that you can’t pay it and 

that sooner or later something’s going to happen, I would say the 

government fails on that because everything through a house is 

through Federal Government. 

Everybody know I couldn’t pay that loan except me. [Laughter.] 

But yet still they did it, and two years later, I’m in the hospital, 

then someone can take my home and just sell it and how we find 

out is when the Sheriff’s Department come to your house to tell you 

you gotta go. Now, there’s a big problem and that’s when good people go bad. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That’s all I have to say. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. I 

want to encourage you all to provide us with as much information 

as you possibly can about your experiences. What you’ve shared 

with us today is extremely helpful, but you may have additional information that obviously doesn’t fit into five minutes. You may 

leave here, you may think of something else that you wanted to 

add. 

It’s extremely helpful to provide that information because we’re 

responsible, as our name implies here, the Oversight Panel, for 

looking at how this $700 billion that’s been allocated for the TARP 

is used and our President has just announced a new initiative 

using some of those TARP funds to help with mortgage modifications and foreclosures and so what we want to do is look at what 

has been proposed and try to determine whether it would have 

helped in your situation and therefore will help people just like you 

in the future. 

So any information you can provide for us will help us to do our 

job in looking at all the new initiatives that the Administration has 

put forward to try to deal with this and then make an assessment 

of whether or not we think those ideas can be improved even further to make them more effective and ultimately to make sure that 

the taxpayer funds that are being spent here really do what we all 

hope they’ll do and that’s deal with this housing and foreclosure 

crisis and the bigger credit crisis that it’s caused. 

So thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you again. We appreciate it. This panel is 

excused. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. While we’re settling in here, the Chair wants to acknowledge that we have Secretary Skinner in the audience, I believe. Secretary Skinner, thank you for being with us. The Secretary of Housing for the State of Maryland. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

29 

Secretary SKINNER. Housing and Community Development. 

Ms. WARREN. Housing and Community Development. So there 

are many listening to the stories today. We appreciate you being 

with us. 

Also, for those of you who want a chance when we have concluded this panel to add any comments for the Congressional Oversight Panel, that’s what the two microphones are here for. If you 

got a slip earlier, it’s not necessary to fill it out, you’re just welcome to come to one of the mics and we welcome your comments, 

once we have concluded with this panel. So that will be our third 

panel for the morning. 

I want to start by welcoming our next panel, our second panel. 

We have Lisa Butler McDougal, who is Co-Chair of the Coalition 

for Homeownership Preservation in Prince George’s County and 

Executive Director of Sowing Empowerment and Economic Development (SEED). I like that. 

We also have Mr. Phillip Robinson, Executive Director of Civil 

Justice, Inc. 

We have Anne Balcer Norton, Director of Foreclosure Prevention 

at St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center. Welcome. 

We have Secretary Thomas E. Perez, who’s Secretary of the 

Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. 

Thank you all for being here today. We appreciate your taking 

the time. We ask again if you could hold your comments to five 

minutes and I think we have someone to help you see and who will 

hold them up. He’s probably outside your line of vision and that 

may be a little more helpful in that direction for you. But if we can 

hold our comments to five minutes but the record will remain open. 

Your written statement will be included in the record in its entirety. 

Ms. Norton, welcome, and if we could start with you. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE BALCER NORTON, DIRECTOR OF FORECLOSURE PREVENTION, ST. AMBROSE HOUSING AID CENTER 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chairperson Warren. 

Thank you, Senator Sununu, Mr. Silvers, and Mr. Neiman, for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

My name’s Anne Balcer Norton. I’m Director of Foreclosure Prevention at St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center. 

St. Ambrose is a 41-year-old non-profit housing institution, located in Baltimore, Maryland, but we serve residents across the 

state of Maryland. 

Prior to joining St. Ambrose, my background was as general 

counsel for a mortgage lender that was based in Baltimore but with 

offices around the country. 

I came to St. Ambrose in 2007 to run the Foreclosure Prevention 

Division and the division combines direct legal representation as 

well as housing counseling services for homeowners that are facing 

foreclosure. 

We work with about 3,000 families each year that are facing 

foreclosure and they’re in all stages of foreclosure from every corner of the state of Maryland. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

30 

It’s based on this experience that I wanted to share our observations from the ground and particularly as they relate to effective 

loss mitigation efforts and in particular what I would refer to as 

institutional barriers to obtaining successful loss mitigation relief 

and these are really based on our direct observations. 

You know, I provided my written testimony and I know I have 

a brief amount of time, so I’m just going to focus on a few points. 

One area that I addressed is that what we are seeing now are 

really what can be generally or generically categorized as two different groups of homeowners that are seeking assistance from St. 

Ambrose. Those are—the first are those that are just ill-suited for 

the mortgage product that they were provided, who probably otherwise could have afforded a mortgage, could have afforded a property, but I think this was far more eloquently covered by Ms. Robison, Mr. Mitchell and those on the panel prior to me, so I will not 

get into this. 

The others that we are seeing are those that are affected by the 

downturn in the economy. These are people that have lost their 

jobs, have in some cases quickly taken on a new job but not 

healthcare but it pays less than the prior position that they had. 

So of these categories of homeowners, there are unique challenges in each group. You know, they are complicated by fraud, 

complicated by geographic variables, and in my written testimony, 

I break these down into really six areas that we have seen as barriers to obtaining, you know, sustainable loss mitigation and those 

are affordability and re-default rates and that’s affordability with 

the loan modification when loss mitigation is offered, the required 

length of delinquency as a prerequisite to obtaining loss mitigation 

which has also been addressed in the prior testimony of Congressman Van Hollen, negative equity and junior liens, and I think Mr. 

Silvers had mentioned whether interest rate reduction is sufficient 

or if principal reductions are necessary and particularly when you 

look at an area like Prince George’s County, the interest rate reduction alone is not making an affordable or long-term sustainable 

loan modification without also reducing principal. 

The other areas are capacity, capacity from the loan servicer as 

well as for the non-profit housing counseling agencies, access to 

credit and retail markets, and this is something that was addressed as well as just the barriers when dealing with loans that 

have been securitized. 

In examining these barriers, the two areas that I just want to 

quickly address are capacity and access to credit. The others I 

cover in more detail in my written testimony, and as far as capacity is concerned, the capacity of the mortgage loan servicers, we 

face two barriers in this. Either they don’t have enough staff or 

they so quickly and artificially ramp up staff that they have multiple data procedures, data collection procedures, you know, contradictory points of entry, and procedures for processing requests. 

So although they provide a single point of entry for loan counselors, 

when you submit documents, they’re typically lost, misplaced or the 

knee-jerk reaction of sending out these mass or blind mailings for 

loan in modification offers to homeowners in default which are not 

based on affordability, they’re not based on income. They’re offers 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

31 

that are blanket offers in which the homeowner either accepts or 

rejects. 

When addressing capacity, obviously we have to look at the capacity of housing and counseling agencies which is a concern which 

again I cover in more detail in my written testimony. 

The one point I just want to quickly make is, that I’m not sure 

really was covered in any other testimony today, is about the access to credit in the retail markets and this has become an increasing problem for those homeowners who are current, not necessarily 

in eminent risk of default but would benefit from a reduced interest rate, you know, through a sound responsible refinance product 

and when products through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or even 

FHA, what we’re seeing is, you know, this infusion of capital or the 

innovative products that are being announced do not trickle down 

to the retail market. 

There are restrictions on credit that’s available for even those 

who are sound credit candidates that have decent—you know, very 

good credit histories, requiring considerable down payments and 

just on the retail side, the warehouse lines of credit that fund these 

loans are prohibiting a lot of the loans that would otherwise fit 

Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines to be held on the lines of 

credit. 

I see that time is up and I can certainly cover this in more detail 

and I mention it in more detail in my statement and I know it’s 

more complicated, you know, and I can be here all day on this topic 

alone, but I do want to thank you again for your time. 

I do want to again stress that what we have seen is that voluntary efforts to provide sustainable loss mitigation are not working, more of what refer to as the character fixes certainly are necessary, including our recommendations for the Bankruptcy Code 

must be amended to permit cram-down for primary residences in 

Bankruptcy. 

So thank you, and I apologize for this abbreviated summary. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:] 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

32 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 78 48444A.007
33 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 79 48444A.008
34 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 80 48444A.009
35 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 81 48444A.010
36 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Norton, but your remarks are here. I was able to read them last night and they will 

be made part of the public record. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. McDougal. 

STATEMENT OF LISA McDOUGAL, CO-CHAIR, COALITION FOR 

HOMEOWNERSHIP PRESERVATION IN PRINCE GEORGE’S 

COUNTY, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOWING EMPOWERMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (SEED) 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. Good morning. I’m Lisa McDougal. 

Ms. WARREN. Could you pull the microphone a little closer so 

that everyone can hear you? 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. Better? 

Ms. WARREN. I think that’s better. 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. I hope so. I want to echo the sentiments of everyone that’s gone before me in welcoming you to Prince George’s 

County and thanking you for taking the time in coming down. 

Good morning. My name is Lisa Butler McDougal. I’m the Executive Director of Sowing Empowerment and Economic Development, 

also known as SEED. I’m also here today representing as the CoChair of the Coalition for Homeownership Preservation in Prince 

George’s County. 

In the spring of 2007, the Coalition was formed by the public and 

private sector leaders to address the high number of foreclosures 

occurring in the county. The goal of the Coalition is to strengthen 

homeowner assets and neighborhood stability by helping troubled 

borrowers and by increasing homeownership. 

The Coalition mission is to preserve and strengthen homeownership by increasing education and other resources that foster good 

consumer borrowing choices while also working to eliminate foreclosures and abusive real estate practices in Prince George’s County. 

One way the Coalition is working to educate homeowners is 

through the creation of the Under the Shadow Workshop that 

Lloyd mentioned earlier. The workshop does travel throughout the 

county and is held every week through 10 or more counseling agencies, most of them HUD-approved counseling agencies. It’s offered 

in English and Spanish. 

The goal is to inform clients who are unaware about their mortgage situation. We have people who come to the workshop who are 

not behind, who have what I call a kind of financial—they’re a financial hypochondriac. They’re hearing that there’s a foreclosure 

crisis and I want to be a part of it, too, and then there are others 

who are very seriously behind and may have a stack of unopened 

letters and we use this as a way of determining exactly how serious 

an individual is when we bring them in for counseling. 

But more than anything, they’re just very unsure about the process and they don’t understand what it means and a lot of individuals don’t understand that foreclosure is a legal proceeding. They 

look at it in some ways of the same kind of repossession when you 

don’t pay your car and you have to park it around the corner to 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

37 

hide it from the snatch man and this is a little bit different, that 

this is a legal proceeding. 

The Coalition has also provided training for counselors on best 

practices, available resources, and we’re in the process of really 

gearing up toward fighting a very aggressive foreclosure fraud. 

Another counselor, when we were preparing to come in here 

today, handed me a very thick envelope just of all the different 

types of solicitations that look like government solicitations that 

will say that they are from HUD that will tell you all you have to 

do is sign on the line to get your $8,000 piece of the stimulus. I 

didn’t know that—I knew about the $8,000 tax credit for the firsttime homebuyers, but I didn’t know that if I just signed this paper 

that I would get $8,000 and give you my house. So it just doesn’t 

seem like it balances. 

There are nearly 10 HUD-approved housing counseling agencies 

who are members of the Coalition. Most of us are averaging anywhere between five to 10 calls a day from individuals who are— 

and families whose dream of homeownership is really turning into 

a nightmare. We immediately assess their circumstance, prepare 

authorization work so that we can begin talking with the lender on 

their behalf and really looking at their financial situation and preparing budgeting and really helping clients to understand that not 

everyone is going to retain their home, not everyone should retain 

their home and really helping the individuals be very realistic, especially if they’ve had the kind of life circumstance that would prevent that from happening. 

Once a proposal is submitted to the servicer, it could take somewhere between three to five months before a decision is even 

reached and even possible that in some cases we’re finding where 

new loan terms are only given for five years and in a lot of cases 

loan modifications are given to individuals that they still cannot afford and they’re feeling very pressured to take them. 

We’ve also heard of instances where a lender has declined a 

modification request from a client while working with a counselor 

but then would turn around and send paperwork with a different 

type of modification to the individual at home, circumventing the 

counselor and the best advice that we would be able to provide for 

the homeowner, and those type of tactics, we believe, really have 

to stop. 

In another instance, a lender was initially willing to accept a 

short sale but declined the contract because the cost of the contract 

was only $8,000 less than what they wanted for the home, but then 

the home went into foreclosure and they ended up putting it on the 

market and selling it for a $114,000 less than what they actually 

wanted. So they could have just taken the contract from the borrower who would have walked away and been able to restore their 

financial future, and I have the name. The first one I mentioned 

was Countrywide, the second one was American Servicing Company. 

Technology is also a huge obstacle. You can imagine, as we’re 

pulling individuals, a lot of their financial information, hardship 

letters, we can have a packet for someone that could be anywhere 

between 40 pages and we’re being told to fax those things. When 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

38 

we fax them, we’re told by other lenders that they’re just not 

equipped to handle it. 

Wells Fargo and JPMorganChase at a Foreclosure Summit that 

Fannie Mae set had said that they were just not prepared for the 

onslaught and we were told by another servicer that a lot of times 

when we fax the cases in, that they just sit on the table. If we don’t 

call, they don’t do anything with them. 

So I agree with Anne and those that have come before me in saying that involuntary servicing methods are just not working and individuals really need to know, just as the panel that came before 

them, that their government is really going to step up and work 

on their behalf. Before I close, I did want to acknowledge that the 

State of Maryland, I know Secretary Skinner is here, there are others that work with the counseling agencies very closely and they’ve 

been on the forefront in making sure that we’ve had the resources 

that we’ve needed and making sure that we’ve had the right kind 

of technology that would allow us to come to the right kind of outcomes because, as a non-profit housing counseling agency, two 

years ago our business was first-time homebuyers and we were 

very happy to have a caseload of a hundred or so first-time homebuyers. We’re just glad that those individuals, because of the right 

kind of counseling and education, are not coming back and joining 

the more than 300 cases of foreclosures that we’re handling now. 

So thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McDougal follows:] 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

39 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 89 here 48444A.011
40 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 90 here 48444A.012
41 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 91 here 48444A.013
42 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 92 here 48444A.014
43 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 93 here 48444A.015
44 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McDougal. We appreciate your being here. 

Secretary Perez. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING 

AND REGULATION 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Oversight Board. 

My name is Tom Perez, and I’m the Secretary of the Department 

of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. I’m more the hall closet of 

state agencies. I do a number of things. I have a robust consumer 

protection portfolio. I have the Commissioner of Financial Regulation who oversees and charters Maryland’s state-chartered banks 

as well as one of the tentacles in the octopus known as DLLR. 

I want to acknowledge again my good friend Ray Skinner. I also 

want to acknowledge Sam Dean from the Prince George’s County 

Council who’s in the audience who’s been a real champion in this 

issue. 

Secretary Skinner and I have co-chaired the Governor’s Foreclosure Prevention Task Force and I was listening to Mr. Neiman’s 

very cogent remarks and we’ve been focusing on all those things 

that you acknowledged and I don’t want to be redundant of that 

very comprehensive approach. We had three different workgroups. 

We had a legal-regulatory reform group that I oversaw. We had a 

financial products group that Secretary Skinner oversaw, education 

outreach prevention that we did jointly. Secretary Skinner’s done 

remarkable work in terms of working with the housing counselors. 

These folks are boots on the ground and they are a lifeline and the 

real stars are the courageous people on this panel, meaning no disrespect, but the people before me, and I could spend all of my time 

talking about housing counselors. I could spend all the time talking 

about a lot of the laws that we enacted. 

We addressed the ability to repay. We addressed a lot of the defective features in the loan products. We addressed the licensing 

problems. The case that you heard from this witness about The 

Metropolitan Money Store, that is the largest mortgage fraud case 

in the United States right now, and it is out of Prince George’s and 

Charles Counties, originated in our office, and in terms of what it 

really illustrates, the main ringleader in that case, her job prior to 

starting the Metropolitan Money Store, she was a stripper. That’s 

what she did for a living, and it really illustrated the absence of 

any meaningful barriers to entry for this area. So that’s really 

some of the areas that we’ve focused on. 

I really want to focus, though, on two areas that I have spent a 

lot of time on, which is, Number 1, data collection, and Number 2, 

our interaction with servicers. 

The legislation that we passed with the governor’s leadership 

last year addressed the problem prospectively and I think we’ve 

gotten a good handle on the defective features, et cetera, but the 

panelists before you, it is of no moment if they had loans two years 

ago and they’re in the soup. 

Yes, we extended the foreclosure period, but we really need to 

work with their servicers. We need to take meaningful and 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

45 

scaleable actions and so contemporaneous with our actions, we 

were negotiating with a dozen loan servicers to come up with 

agreements so that we could put in place large-scale modifications 

and we did reach agreements with six servicers and this is the 

punch line of what I learned, having spent a lot of time face to face 

with loan servicers. 

I learned—I have two hypotheses. Why aren’t there more modifications? Hypothesis Number 1. Their hands are tied by pooling 

and servicing agreements. Hypothesis Number 2. They have the 

authority but not the will to modify. 

I would respectfully observe, based on months and months of 

work, face to face meetings, that what I would conclude is that 

they have the authority in the vast majority of cases. Why do I say 

that? Because they told me that. What they lack is the will to modify and that is the real fundamental problem—— 

[Applause.] 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. With the servicers. We got a presentation in one of our meetings from Wells Fargo who told us their, 

quote unquote, innovative modification practices, they used an example of an individual who had an $1,100 payment. He was in the 

soup and they modified his loan with one of their innovative loan 

practices and his new payment was $1,466.66, to which I asked the 

obvious question, how’s he going to afford that? Answer. I’ll have 

to get back to you, and so that is part of the problem, is that we 

really need to address the issues of the will. The bankruptcy reform 

is one way to get at it and there are a host of other issues. 

I want to move quickly because I know that my time is limited. 

We are one of the only states in the country that can provide you 

with information on what servicers are doing. We require servicers 

to submit data and that data has been very interesting. We’ve 

seen, for instance, and it’s in my testimony, is that in August and 

September, roughly 60 percent of the modifications, and we’re talking a denominator of roughly a thousand modifications a month, 

half of which, by the way, are from Countrywide which will be relevant in a minute, about 60 percent of those modifications resulted 

in the same or higher monthly payment. 

You move to October, 52 percent resulted in the same or higher 

payment. In November, 43 percent result in the same or higher 

payment. Throughout this, Countrywide is about half of that cohort. Countrywide throughout has about 75 to 80 percent of their 

modifications are the same or higher payment. So to put it slightly 

differently, a number of the servicers with whom we have reached 

agreements are actually doing a better job. Places like Ocwen, for 

instance, third party servicers are tending to do better than portfolio servicers. 

We have seen no evidence of progress in the Countrywide context 

and Wells Fargo refused to sign an agreement and does not provide 

data to us, so I cannot comment on what they are or are not doing, 

but I would simply observe that if you have this data, it is powerful. We tried to get the OTC, OTS, OCC to do the same thing. We 

worked with our congressional delegation, didn’t have any luck. 

That is a critical element here as we move forward. 

Finally, a couple quick concerns that I have. This attempt, and 

it’s a very righteous and appropriate attempt, to ensure that we 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

46 

have large-scale modifications is going to lead to a proliferation of 

mitigation specialists and we must get a handle on that at the 

front-end because these mitigation specialists—we’re going to have 

another panel like the panel we had in front of us if we don’t get 

a handle on that at the front-end. 

What we’ve done in Maryland is we’ve prohibited upfront payments through mitigation specialists who are helping people who 

are in default. We have to do that at a federal level. We have to 

get a handle on this or you’re going to be having congressional 

oversight hearings in which you’re going to hear from witness after 

witness after witness who was victimized and with that, I will simply say we have lawyers who are helping people and here’s one 

more problem. 

When they attempt to help someone who has a foreclosure tomorrow, they can’t do it with the federal money because the bill that 

passed last year prohibits lawyers from providing legal assistance 

to someone who’s in a foreclosure proceeding. Don’t quite understand that one and I hope we can get a handle on that as we move 

forward because lawyers in this room, we have an army of pro bono 

lawyers, but we can’t avail ourselves of any of the federal money 

to help people because it’s deemed to be in litigation. So that’s one 

more observation I would make. 

Thank you for your time. I apologize for going a minute or two 

over. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:] 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

47 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 101 here 48444A.016
48 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 102 here 48444A.017
49 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 103 here 48444A.018
50 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 104 here 48444A.019
51 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 105 here 48444A.020
52 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 106 here 48444A.021
53 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 107 here 48444A.022
54 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 108 here 48444A.023
55 

Ms. WARREN. Oh, no. Thank you, Secretary Perez. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. We appreciate it. And, finally, Mr. Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP ROBINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CIVIL JUSTICE, INC. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Madam Chair, Members of the Panel, thank you 

for inviting me today. 

My name is Phillip Robinson. I’m the Executive Director of Civil 

Justice, Inc., and we’re a Maryland nonprofit legal services agency, 

and my charge today primarily is to describe to you the foreclosure 

prevention pro bono project that we’re co-leading with the Pro Bono 

Resource Center of Maryland. 

I provided written testimony. I’m not going to read that. It’s got 

a lot of detail in there and background for you. 

You came to Maryland to hear what we’re doing because, frankly, 

when I talk to other consumer advocates around the country, we 

are way ahead of the game. We have a very sophisticated 

multipronged approach to helping homeowners and it starts at the 

very top with Governor O’Malley and Secretary Skinner and Perez 

who are giving an extraordinary amount of time and effort and 

then down to the lower level that you’ve heard from the housing 

counseling agencies and from homeowners. 

You know, just by way of example, Secretary Perez isn’t just here 

to testify, he will actually go to the victims’ houses and meet with 

them for five hours, to interview and find out their story. He’s done 

it. I know he’s done it. They were my clients. He himself has done 

that. Secretary Skinner has been out doing workshops and speaking and doing public relations and I don’t know what kind of grief 

he gets when he gets home, but I’m sure it’s as much as I get. 

The Foreclosure Prevention Pro Bono Project is the largest in the 

United States that I am aware of. There are other similar projects 

that have been launched in New York, in New Jersey and other 

states, but the number of attorneys participating, the level of services that are being provided are significantly less. 

When we started this just last summer, we had no idea where 

we’d be today. The market has changed completely. The types of 

services that need to be provided to homeowners today versus last 

July are different. 

We’ve recruited over 700 attorneys who have volunteered to provide time and resources to help homeowners and my testimony outlines the kinds of things that we’re asking them to do. 

First, we’re asking them to provide brief advice and counsel. The 

Number 1 thing that homeowners say to us when they get to any 

one of the different vehicles to the Maryland system is they don’t 

know what their roadmap is. They don’t know what their options 

are. They’re calling their servicers and can’t get an answer. No one 

is answering the phones. No one is responding to them. 

So we started a series of workshops where we would bring pro 

bono attorneys and housing counselors and homeowners could come 

and they could get free advice. The basic thing is we’re giving them 

a roadmap. This is where you are in the process. We hear about 

your individualized situation and every situation’s a little different 

and we try to give them a roadmap of where we go. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

56 

Now, these events have been quite successful. Just in the last six 

months, we’ve seen over 500 homeowners at these events. Congresswoman Edwards mentioned earlier, Congressman Van Hollen, 

Congressman Cummings, and Majority Leader Hoyer, they’ve all 

sponsored events and essentially used the pulpit of their positions 

to get the servicers and homeowners and pro bono lawyers and 

non-profit-qualified housing counselors to come and provide assistance and get these homeowners some help and try to mitigate their 

damages. 

We’re continuing to do more of those events and for homeowners 

who are here today, there’s a list in the back of upcoming events 

that are happening. They’re free. They cost nothing. 

We also are asking pro bono attorneys to do direct representation. There are not enough housing counselors in the United States 

or in Maryland to meet the need. You heard Ms. McDougal talk 

about the caseload just at her one agency, how it’s tripled in this 

area just in a couple years. 

The state and our project believe that we need to use the pro 

bono attorneys to supplement what’s needed at the counseling 

agencies. In effect, the pro bono attorneys are acting as extensions 

for the counselors. So they will provide direct representation in attempting to negotiate loan modifications and writing letters, making phone calls to those servicers. 

The second aspect of what they will do is they will represent 

homeowners in court and despite what I think is the ridiculous and 

completely unnecessary restriction on the federal money that was 

given last year to provide legal services to homeowners in foreclosure, we are still able to find lawyers who will do this without 

that need of money, but that’s a completely unnecessary restriction 

and it’s an impediment. 

In most cases, if a lawyer is helping a homeowner who is on the 

foreclosure train and the case has been filed, that can be resolved 

with loss mitigation. There is no need for adversarial litigation, but 

it’s not clear why that restriction was in there, it’s not necessary, 

and I know in over half the states that are non-judicial foreclosure 

states or—I’m sorry—half the states that are judicial foreclosure 

states, that money could not be used. That’s my expectation and it 

will come back to Congress and you’ll be wondering, Congress will 

be wondering what happened. 

The third aspect of what we’re asking the pro bono attorneys to 

do and that they are doing is that the long-term solution here is 

to affiliate them with housing counseling agencies. There are approximately 30 or so qualified housing counseling agencies that the 

State of Maryland is supporting. We are recruiting attorneys to volunteer to become an extension on a regular basis. 

In my written testimony you have what is a draft job description 

for that volunteer attorney and details the kind of work that they 

will do, but the long-term solution to this for a sustainable solution 

is to have those pro bono attorneys in our vision affiliated with the 

agencies and working with them on a regular weekly basis. The St. 

Ambrose model times 30. The St. Ambrose is one of the only agencies in the state that has its own inhouse attorneys. 

I provided a series of recommendations that you can see at the 

end of my testimony. Some of those you’ve already heard. Let me 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

57 

just echo what Secretary Perez emphasized. There is absolutely no 

reason to have the kind of restrictions that were passed on the federal money that came to legal service entities. Future federal 

money to support local and state programs like ours do not need 

to put the restrictions that were put in, [1] by Congress that you 

can’t do litigation and use this money for litigation purposes and 

[2] NeighborWorks put in its own restriction and said before the 

lawyers can provide assistance, the homeowner must get housing 

counseling first. 

Now, our model is to do it simultaneously and I would like to encourage any future bills and efforts in this manner to do that. That 

restriction wasn’t necessary and it doesn’t fit the problem of us trying to get rid of the caseloads for the housing counseling agencies. 

I’m happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson follows:] 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

58 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 116 here 48444A.024
59 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 117 here 48444A.025
60 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 118 here 48444A.026
61 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 119 here 48444A.027
62 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 120 here 48444A.028
63 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 121 here 48444A.029
64 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 122 here 48444A.030
65 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 123 here 48444A.031
66 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 124 here 48444A.032
67 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 125 here 48444A.033
68 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 126 here 48444A.034
69 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 127 here 48444A.035
70 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING


Insert offset folio 128 here 48444A.036
71 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I appreciate it. 

We’re going to do a round of questions, a brief round of questions, and I’d like to start. I’d like to start with a question for Ms. 

Norton. 

I was thinking about the numbers we started with, a 124 percent 

inflation adjusted run-up in housing prices, now housing values in 

free-fall, and so I wanted to just ask—I’ll just ask it in a series and 

I think you can link the questions together. 

How many people do you find or do you find that it’s rare, I won’t 

ask you for actual numbers, is it rare or is it a free-fall, that people 

come in who are in trouble on their mortgages who owe substantially more than the current market value of their homes? 

And then a related question because I want you to be able to give 

a very good answer here is that for those people, even if there’s, 

let’s say, a 100 percent loan-to-value ratio financing available, can 

they save their homes using that and, if not, what tools do they 

need? Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I’ll let my colleague answer. 

Ms. WARREN. I was just going to say whoever would like to answer on this, too. I’m glad to hear from both of you. 

Ms. NORTON. And particularly, and you can speak to this in more 

detail than I can, for us for the most part, it depends on geography. 

So homeowners coming from different communities in different jurisdictions in the state typically reflect where that loan-to-value 

ratio is or how underwater they are at the point that they’re seeking assistance. 

There are communities in Baltimore City where property values are still at $75,000. There are, and then we get into the fraud conversation, two blocks away there are properties selling for $1.2 million in which comparables at the time of loan origination for the 

subject property of $75,000 were based on this other neighborhood. 

Baltimore is pretty representative of other urban areas in those 

dramatic changes. 

So there are certainly—for the most part, it depends on geography, different parts of the state, that cause this inflated home 

value. The home values were rising at an artificial rate and also 

in areas where there was increased development. 

Harford County, Maryland, is one where there was sprawling development. It was a Baltimore suburb in which the eight-bedroom, 

six-bath houses were built and just sort of popped up and I think 

in those communities that’s where we are really seeing this, the 

up-ended values at the points that they come in for assistance and 

I know certainly this is an issue with Prince George’s County 

which is why I was advocating for the use of principal reductions 

in loan modifications. 

Do you want to jump in? 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. Well, we are seeing some servicers who are willing to reduce principals and in some cases even interest that’s still 

outstanding on the loan, but we’re not seeing very many, and certainly in Prince George’s County, we don’t have very many clients 

who are not underwater in their homes which is very unfortunate 

because property taxes are going to continue to rise in the county. 

So I would say that it’s probably along the same vein that Anne 

did talk about with regard to the counties surrounding Baltimore. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

72 

Certainly when you look at the lack of affordable housing in the 

first place which led to the inflated prices as a result of the sprawling-out, then we really do see very high incidence of individuals 

that are underwater. 

Ms. WARREN. This is very helpful, and I want to be careful to be 

disciplined about the time, as well. 

I want to include now in this question Mr. Perez. I’m very struck 

by your comment that you can think of two reasons why there are 

no modifications or such a limited number of modifications, one the 

limitations imposed by law, in effect by the purchase and servicing 

agreements, and two, that they don’t have the will. 

The question I really want to put to you is we hear the examples 

that mortgage companies end up losing an enormous amount when 

these houses go into foreclosure. We’ve heard different estimates. 

Some estimates around $70,000 per foreclosure. Some say numbers 

suggest they get 40 percent of current market value when they 

take a house all the way through foreclosure. 

Why are they so unwilling to modify? 

Mr. PEREZ. I may be the wrong person to ask that. 

Ms. WARREN. I think you’re the right person to ask. 

Mr. PEREZ. My own hypothesis is we have to go back to—we’re 

talking about 2008, that’s our data, and it was apparent to me that 

I think a lot of the servicers were understanding that there was 

going to be a new administration and were, frankly, waiting to see 

what the Federal Government was going to do and whether they 

were going to share the risk. 

I mean, we saw in the 72-hour period, you know, Bear Stearns 

get bailed out. We saw, you know, all the other activity at a congressional level and my own sense was that they were taking a 

wait-and-see approach. 

Well, the day of reckoning has come and it will be very interesting as we move forward to see what happens, but that—I mean, 

again, I don’t have that—I haven’t been in the board room, but I 

can simply say that, you know, our data—I used to hear that we’ve 

done more modifications than ever before and what we saw was, 

well, they’re not meaningful modifications and that’s really the 

touchstone and as we collect data, another important thing is to 

make sure we’re collecting data on modifications disaggregated by 

race and ethnicity. 

This is a problem that touches every community but it disproportionately touches communities of color. In Maryland, for instance, 

54 percent of African Americans are in subprime loans, 47 percent 

of Latinos, 18 percent of non-minorities. We had problems of discrimination at the origination end. It is not a stretch to suggest 

that there are going to be potential fair housing issues at the modification level. 

So as we move forward, I think we need to be mindful of that. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Perez. My time is up. So I’m going 

to have to yield to Mr. Silvers. 

Mr. SILVERS. Mr. Robinson, did you want to answer? 

Ms. WARREN. Mr. Robinson, let me ask you briefly. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Sure. From our perspective, the biggest problem 

in getting meaningful modifications in the work that we directly do 

helping homeowners and indirectly through the housing counselors 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

73 

has to do with the securitized loans and when you add in the equation of the mortgage-backed security investor not giving the leeway 

and the easy way to the servicer, it adds an extra layer of complexity that’s not needed, and we know from our fraud cases, because I’ve taken four or five depositions of mortgage-backed securities in the last year, they don’t even know what’s in their portfolio. 

If they had even looked at the paperwork, they would have seen 

the loan was toxic and unaffordable and in the fraud case, they 

would have seen it was fraudulent, but they still bought it and 

they’re refusing to sell it back to who originated it to them. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Senator 

Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Ms. McDougal, you’re obviously in a position 

where you’re seeing a very wide variety of homeowners facing different kinds of challenges. 

In the panel that we had previously, Richard Neiman pointed out 

they sort of brought together all of the many problems that we see 

in the system, but for any individual family there may one problem 

that’s greater than all others. 

What’s the most common obstacle that you see for these homeowners? In other words, is there any particular thing, anything 

that gets repeated more often than any other that you would therefore identify as a real priority so that the first thing that you would 

want legislators, policymakers or regulators to try to address? 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. I think that probably the most prevalent problem that we’re seeing is the loss of income, where an individual’s 

hours may have been cut from their job, they obtained the mortgage based on overtime hours that were reduced, there was a divorce or some kind of loss of income in the family that is very hard 

for the borrower to recover from. 

We’ve had lenders or servicers tell us, well, maybe they can rent 

out a room, but I think that it really does go back to making sure 

that if there is some—and the fact that there’s no equity in the 

home makes it a lot more challenging to try to refinance and so I 

would say probably the most important thing is the loss of income. 

Senator SUNUNU. So the practices of the servicers and the lenders obviously complicate matters, make it more challenging to work 

things out, but more often than not, that’s not what drove the problem in the first place. It’s that you had a problem with income, you 

had a problem with the family’s ability to pay and then the system 

wasn’t really well-suited to deal with that and to help them 

through it. 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. Almost. Because I don’t want to back away from 

the responsibility of the servicers in this because I can say that in 

the two years that we’ve really seen the problem escalate, it did 

start with a very large portion of subprime loans where they were 

just not being negotiated at all for whatever reason on the servicing side. 

Senator SUNUNU. Are there servicers or lenders for that matter, 

local perhaps or national, that have operated and worked better 

than others that we might look to as a model for performance? 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. I think I’m going to yield to the Secretary because I know that Maryland does have a group—— 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

74 

Senator SUNUNU. I’ll give the Secretary a chance. But I’m curious 

to know through your opinion, again because you’re dealing with 

them on a personal level as the intermediary between the family 

that really needs the assistance and the lender, the servicer themselves. 

Ms. MCDOUGAL. At one point it was the third-party servicers, the 

smaller servicers that were willing to negotiate. The larger ones, 

the Wells Fargo or some of the very large ones, lenders were not 

just at all and they would a lot of times say it’s based on how the 

loan was written. Some loans are written so that the investor 

would not approve the loan modification. We weren’t finding that 

out until later. We were just being given denials without any kind 

of explanation at all. 

So I would say that the smaller servicers were more willing to 

work in the beginning and now—and then a lot of larger ones, especially larger lenders, started going out of business, so it just 

made it a little bit harder. 

Senator SUNUNU. Secretary. 

Mr. PEREZ. I actually agree with that. I mean, again extrapolating from our data, there’s a wide disparity in meaningful modifications between, say, Ocwen and Litton and I’ll note parenthetically when we met with Litton, who did we meet with? We met 

with Larry Litton and I think that was helpful to have, when we 

were negotiating that agreement, the principal at the table. He 

didn’t have to turn around and say I have to run it up the flag 

pole. He was the top of the flag pole and their book of business are 

loans that are all very fraught with problems and so I think they 

saw the need for principal reductions and other more aggressive 

steps earlier. 

Now, are they where we’d like them to be? No, they’re not, but 

I give them credit and I think it’s important to give credit where 

credit is due. I think they’re moving in the right direction faster 

than some of the—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Now they’re servicers and you mentioned 

Countrywide is servicing very large percentage of a couple of different classes, but my last question is about where these troubled 

mortgages came from in the first place, about the originators. 

What portion of the subprime mortgages, for example, in the 

state—you regulate—— 

Ms. WARREN. Senator, you’re out of time. 

Senator SUNUNU. Well, it’s important. 

Ms. WARREN. They’re all important. 

Senator SUNUNU. You regulate the brokers and the state banks 

that initiated—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. 

Senator SUNUNU [continuing]. Many of these. So in Maryland, 

what percentage of the subprime mortgages were originated by entities that you regulate? 

Mr. PEREZ. We regulate both state-chartered banks and nonbank originators. The subprime foreclosure problem, the origination problem that is your question is primarily a non-bank phenomenon. 

Our state-chartered banks, with one or two exceptions, didn’t get 

into this business. The main problem were non-bank originators 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

75 

which is why we’ve really clamped down on brokers and you look 

at—I mean, brokers—— 

Senator SUNUNU. But maybe for the record, could you just identify what percentage of the subprime mortgages in the state were 

originated by those? 

Mr. PEREZ. Oh, by—well, we regulate about 70—actually, it’s 

going down. As of a year ago, we regulated about 60 or 70 percent 

of the residential mortgage loan portfolio at origination. Then when 

Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America, they’re a huge 

book of our business. So we’re now under 50 percent. 

Senator SUNUNU. But about 70 percent of those that were originated, initially originated—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Subject to state regulation because they were originated by brokers. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Silvers. 

Mr. SILVERS. Secretary Perez, in your comments, you seem to be 

unhappy with Wells Fargo and Countrywide which, as you point 

out, is now a subsidiary or part of Bank of America. 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir, that would be a fair statement. 

Mr. SILVERS. My question is going to be to the panel, but I want 

to make this observation. The TARP Program has provided Wells 

Fargo with $25 billion of taxpayer money and has provided Bank 

of America with $45 billion of taxpayer money and a guarantee 

against a $100 billion of Bank of America assets. That is roughly 

somewhere between $700 and $1,000 per household in the United 

States. People in this room on a proportionate basis have given 

those two banks in cash something probably on the order of 

$40,000. 

Now I want to talk about sticks. What kinds of sticks should we 

be applying to those institutions? Let me one give you a menu. 

Stick one is the stick that Franklin Roosevelt applied, a mortgage 

moratorium, a mortgage foreclosure moratorium. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SILVERS. Stick two—by the way, we could make this retroactive to this money. That power is vested in Congress in the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act or we could make it a condition of more money. 

I read in the newspapers that somebody’s coming for more 

money. 

Stick two would be the bankruptcy provisions that are being discussed and that were mentioned by the Congress people that joined 

us earlier. 

Stick three could be every bank-holding company is deeply intertwined with the Federal Government. We could start pulling 

threads. We could start denying them access to various benefits 

they receive from the public—from the government, ranging anywhere from access to the Federal Reserve Window, to access to deposit insurance, if they did not move forward with a structured 

mortgage mitigation program. 

My question to you all is how much of a stick is necessary here? 

Secretary Perez, I heard you describe these two institutions’ behavior six months ago. It sounds like they haven’t changed in the 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

76 

slightest, despite having received all this public money. How much 

of a stick is necessary? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, I don’t think this voluntary compliance model 

has worked and we have the data to demonstrate that it is not 

going to lead to the large-scale reform that we need. 

Bankruptcy reform, in my opinion, is the low-hanging fruit. I will 

put that aside. I think we’ve spoken about that enough. 

A moratorium on foreclosure. We had a de facto moratorium as 

a result of the governor’s bills last year for about six months, but 

if you don’t address the underlying need to modify, a moratorium 

is just postponing the inevitable and so what we really need—when 

the market wanted it, we had what was called ‘‘automated underwriting’’ in the early ’90s. We were able to get you into a home in 

four days. 

Why don’t we have automated modification that’s automated and 

meaningful and why can’t we tie some of this money to benchmarks and having said that, it’s important to understand that not 

everybody should be eligible for a modification. For some people, regrettably, the solution is going to be a short sale and so I don’t 

come in here with pie in the sky expectations. That is a reality in 

Maryland, but I think we need those benchmarks and we really 

need to tie the productivity in meaningful modifications and by 

that, I mean principal reductions. 

To answer your question from before, people are upside down in 

this state. In Prince George’s County, where I live in Montgomery 

County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City, all sorts of people who 

are upside down, interest rate freezes aren’t going to work and so 

that to me would be some of the things I’d be looking at. 

I’d also add a couple more sticks, which is the Fair Housing Act. 

The City of Baltimore has sued Wells Fargo for violations of the 

Fair Housing Act. We need to look at those civil rights tools. The 

FTC has jurisdiction over servicers that is very useful, and, you 

know, to me a more systemic reform that has to be on the table 

is when we’re looking at the Treasury Department, as we look longterm here, the voices of consumers and the voices of civil rights 

protection need to move away from the kid table to the front table 

because I would observe that that is a systems problem that has 

been in place for way too long and if we don’t address that systems 

problem at Treasury and at the Fed and tell them that, yes, Reg. 

B is not an impediment to collecting data in this area, you can do 

it, we need those voices internally, and so those are, I think, an 

amalgam of reforms that I think could help us move forward. 

Professor WARREN. Thank you. Mr. Silvers, you’re out of time. 

That was a good question. 

Mr. Neiman. 

Mr. NEIMAN. I just want thank you for highlighting the efforts 

at the state level, in progressive states like Maryland, like New 

York. But as we all know, states can only do so much. 

These are policies and financial funding and incentives have to 

come at the national level, and that’s why we also have to deal 

with issues around federal preemption. 

Senator Sununu rightfully highlighted that many of these 

subprime mortgages were originated by non-depository institutions 

regulated at the state level, but it was the federal regulators that 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

77 

really thwarted the actions of states as far back as 2000 to bring 

actions against institutions, particularly the national banks, that 

participated in funding those non-depository institutions in 

securitizing. 

So I agree, we have to address issues around federal preemption 

which contributed to the creation of the problem. Federal preemption is also inhibiting the solution. As you pointed out, the inability 

to collect data from institutions like Wells Fargo is totally unacceptable. We need, all need to assess the mitigation efforts of every 

institution, notwithstanding charter-type. 

My question, if I have still some time left, is to the follow-on to 

the issues of obstacles to mitigation efforts by the servicers I think 

this is really at the heart of the question because each obstacle is 

going to require a different legislative remedy. 

Is it the capacity; is it the restrictive pooling agreements, the 

pooling service agreements, which I think have been overstated; is 

it the fear of litigation, or that may require safe harbor that’s truly 

a fear; or is it that they’re just waiting to see if the government 

is going to share in re-defaults? I’d be interested in your thought 

as to the critical obstacles that need to be addressed and that we 

should be recommending to Congress. 

Ms. NORTON. I think there are several, and I wish I could give 

you one particular answer. Unfortunately from our observations, 

that’s not the case. 

There is, and from my colleagues that are in the servicing side, 

the lending side, there really is the threat of litigation, but from 

my review of the pooling and servicing agreements, there tends to 

be broad language in which servicers do have that, you know, option to engage in loss mitigation when it’s going to prevent losses, 

and I think the example that we’ve given, if they’re going to take 

a $70,000 loss at a foreclosure sale, why is it you can’t knock 

$20,000 off of principal? 

So that brings in a fear or a reluctance and the reluctance, I 

think, does go somewhat to the capacity issue, but there are solutions. We’ve mentioned technology before and servicers do use automated models. I’ve seen two demonstrations of two different software models which, if they were made available, whether to housing counselors or to their borrowers, you could log in, enter your 

information, enter your budget information, the reason for your 

hardship, and have an answer on the spot. 

We’ve seen 30 seconds of this because the pooling and servicing 

agreements are entered into these systems. They’re not used in my 

office and SEED and others around the state of Maryland still have 

to go through this three-to-five-month process of obtaining the answer that could be provided within a matter of minutes. 

So that’s one of the fear frustrations, and I think that is a capacity issue in terms of perhaps they do not have the manpower, but 

at the same time, I think technology, like in the origination model, 

has supplemented that. They already have it available. Many have 

already adopted these systems. They just are not providing those, 

whether it is to the borrowers or to the housing counseling agencies, pro bono attorneys, whomever. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

78 

You can do online banking but you can’t do online loss mitigation. It should be one and the same. If you have an account, you 

have an account. 

I know the bankruptcy issue we have discussed at length, but I 

think that is a fine line, I think I called it perverse incentive in 

my testimony, in that that is the final say to the investor if you’ve 

already provided this discretion through your servicers to engage 

in meaningful loss mitigation and loan modifications and principal 

reductions where it is going to provide a savings which in fact it 

does or it mitigates the losses that will be realized. So now the alternative is we’ll let a bankruptcy judge cram down the value to 

the recurrent principal market rate and I think that’s—unfortunately, something like that is going to be the tool needed to really 

source these technological advances that they can have access to 

really implement those and put those into practice. 

Mr. NEIMAN. Thank you very much. Very solid. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your time. 

Ms. WARREN. I want to thank this panel not only for coming here 

today and exchanging your ideas with us but also for the work you 

are doing day-in and day-out in a time of real crisis. Very much 

appreciate it. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. And now we’re going to have a brief opportunity 

for open mics at the two mics. If you’ll just line up, we’ll go back 

and forth, one at a time, and I’m going to ask our timekeeper just 

because I want to give everybody a chance, better that we hear a 

little bit from more people than a long story from just one or two. 

I’m going to ask him to stand up where you can see him and he’s 

going to hold it up the whole time. We’ll have one minute and I’m 

going to ask you to stop when it goes to zero. 

So if you would identify yourself for the record, please? Ma’am, 

could I start with you? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. Certainly. My name is Mosey Harrington. I’m 

the Executive Director of Housing Initiative Partnership. We counsel approximately a thousand people a year in the county. 

One, we were very worried about a second wave of foreclosures 

when the five-year work-outs which some lenders are insisting on 

expire. HomeQ is one that that’s particularly true of. We’re often 

taking them because it keeps somebody in their house but it’s a 

lousy deal. 

We feel that the government needs to mandate some wholesale 

resets. The arguments that they can’t because the loans were 

securitized is spurious. Governments can take over banks. They 

can nationalize fuel industries and they can go to these investors 

and say I’m sorry, we know you thought you were getting nine percent but you’re going to get a nice fair five percent return on your 

investment which I wish I were getting on my retirement right 

now. 

The new work-out scams have to be reined in. They’re often operating just within the law so the law needs to move and that’s exactly what was going on with the subprime. Most of those were operating just within the law. The law has got to move. 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

79 

The reporting requirements that are imposed on the counseling 

agencies are onerous and are getting in the way of our obtaining 

work-outs for counselors. A campaign to urge people that are behind on their mortgages to save partial payments so that the lenders—when the lenders refuse to take the whole payment—what I’m 

saying is they come to us with nothing, even though they haven’t 

made a mortgage payment for five months. So we have nothing to 

work with. They’ve used the money to pay other bills. we need to 

campaign to do that. 

The Latino population particularly needs to be reached out to as 

they’re very isolated and were particularly badly hit in this. 

We were heartened by the press account of the sheriff in the 

Midwest who was refusing to do foreclosure evictions because it 

was a TARP bank that hadn’t offered a real work-out. We’d love 

to see that institutionalized. Why not? 

The 50 percent—we’d just like to point out that the 50 percent 

of the work-outs, we keep hearing this number, the 50 percent of 

these work-outs that go into default again and I would like to point 

out that those work-outs are coming from the kinds of repayment 

plans that Secretary Perez was talking about. They’re lousy deals. 

We’re increasing people’s payments. Of course they’re going to be 

going into default. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEAN. My name is Samuel Dean. I’m a member of the Prince 

George’s County Council. 

The elephant in the room here for Prince George’s County is that 

this is a majority African American community and what we have 

been faced with is predatory lending. 

As an example, Bank of America would give interest-only loans 

and tell folks in two years, you can roll it over into a 30-year loan 

and that was done quite often for homeowners. So you put people 

in a bind going in. 

One of the problems that we have with foreclosures here in 

Prince George’s County is that the lifeblood of this county to serve 

its people is predicated upon receiving taxes from property taxes, 

transfer taxes, recordation taxes. When you don’t sell property, 

your community is in a crisis and we are in a crisis at this moment. 

So there’s other issues relative to foreclosure and there’s other 

issues relative to making sure that people stay in their homes. We 

have a glut. We’re ground zero and we’re ground zero because of 

people who look like me and the banks and lending institutions 

have taken advantage of us. We’re no different than what used to 

occur with redlining. 

So I think that there has to be some other things that you have 

to deal with relative to just dealing with foreclosures. You have to 

put in legislation and some guidelines that banks, and I’m talking 

Bank of America—when you use Bank of America, you think that’s 

a legitimate institution that offers a loan that they know is going 

to have an impact if this bubble bursts. 

In the Upper Marlboro area that they talked about, these folks 

bought into homes that were running $700 thousand to a million 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

80 

dollars and they’re in upside down market and so you all need to 

do more than just say how are you going to rectify the foreclosure. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dean. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GOLDSBY. Good morning. My name is Terri Goldsby. I’m a 

resident of Upper Marlboro, and I want to thank Mr. Silvers, is 

that your name, for talking about sticks. 

I listened to the three options and I want to preface my stick 

with the fact that I listen to C–SPAN a lot and I hear a lot of the 

congressional debates going on. 

My stick has to do with activity. I understand that the Commonwealth of Virginia prosecuted successfully and convicted three sets 

of fraudulent individuals or companies in the whole real estate 

chain back in 2008 and the chain involved loan originators, appraisers, real estate agents and lending institutions. According to 

the article that I read in the Post, the fact set was that there was 

a concerted intentional effort to go into neighborhoods, inflate the 

value of the home through the appraisal, get the loan, and then resell it and continue the process, so that our neighborhoods were 

being inflated for X number of reasons. 

I suggest that a way to counterbalance the 124 percent inflation 

is to roll back the value of homes back to 2001, before these nationwide all across the board and when those values are set, they won’t 

be at rock-bottom prices. They will be at 2001 prices. Buyers will 

be induced into buying. The mitigators will have a set place where 

they can go in—they’re going to lose but they’re not going to lose 

as bad as foreigners coming in and buying it at rock-bottom prices. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. I just want to remind you all that you 

can also e-mail us, so we can hear from you at cop.senate.gov. If 

you don’t want to stand up or if you don’t have enough time to say 

all you want to say, I encourage you to do that. 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Good morning. Is it still morning, that is? 

Ms. WARREN. For a few more minutes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. My name is April Richardson, and I’m from the 

Prince George’s County States Attorney’s Office, and I’ve prepared 

brief notes. 

This is not just a loan modification issue. This is not only about 

hearing the stories of desperate homeowners in need of a solution. 

It’s about cleaning up the industry by holding scammers accountable for victimizing our residents in foreclosure distress. 

As mentioned before, Prince George’s County is ground zero for 

foreclosures in Maryland and as a result, we are ground zero for 

mortgage, real estate, and foreclosure fraud. We are at the heart 

of equity-stripping schemes. We are at the heart of fake buy-outs. 

We are the heart of fraudulent deeds. 

Our seniors, they’re being scammed by reverse mortgage schemes 

designed to take their homes and to take their equity. There is a 

great need to hold unscrupulous lenders, loan officers, attorneys, 

appraisers, criminally accountable for the vulnerable positions that 

they have put this county in. 

When you have an opportunity to review your reports and findings from hearings such as this, think about the need for local 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

81 

funding of law enforcement agencies such as my own to send a 

message and that message is as it pertains to real estate and foreclosure fraud, the game is over and they will serve jail time. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KAGMAN. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the 

Panel. My name is Billy Kagman. I’m a housing counselor here in 

Prince George’s County, former Executive Director for Cairos Development Corporation. 

One thing I want to bring to the panel’s attention and to the audience is we always talk about the loan servicers and, first and 

foremost, we need to understand what their primary role is—that 

is, debt collection. They are not equipped to do loss mitigation and 

some the other things. So we’re looking at an organizational culture that needs to be restructured. That’s my first comment. 

Secondly, as far as loss mitigation actions within itself, I feel 

that the best process is not to have it at the federal level or the 

technology as Anne and some of the others mentioned, but move 

it at the state level. The state’s Department of Housing and Community Development should have the apparatus to make this technology work so that they can monitor what the servicing communities are doing and then interact with the housing counseling 

agencies. 

As far as the housing counseling agencies are concerned, we need 

more money. There’s always been talk about capacity. Our capacity 

is stretched. Funding is urgently needed. We are the people on the 

ground. We’re here. We hear the cries. It was very heartening to 

hear some of the comments from the first panel, but we hear that 

all the time and we would just ask that you all take everything 

that you hear today and understand that this is not related to 

Prince George’s only. You can probably replicate this throughout 

the United States. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kagman. 

Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. TUCKER-ROSS. Good morning. My name is Catherine TuckerRoss. I’m a resident of Prince George’s County, residing in Clinton, 

Maryland. 

I want to thank the panel for holding this oversight hearing. I 

want to echo the sentiments of the U.S. Attorney in arresting these 

people. As a former law enforcement officer, I think it’s criminal 

what has occurred to us here in Prince George’s County. 

I want to thank Senator Sununu for asking about the brokerage 

with Mr. Perez. I do think that Prince George’s County and the 

State of Maryland was fertile ground for people to come in and 

offer subprime loans and do what they did to the citizens here, and 

I do believe that the U.S. Attorney stated that they should be arrested or somebody should be held accountable for this. 

I’m sitting at my kitchen table working out my budget and when 

I look at my budget, I look at the 30-year fixed Federal Housing 

Act. What I’m asking for is that you consider extending that Act 

beyond 30 years. Car dealers are doing it. They’re extending loans 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

82 

36, 72 months, whatever the case may be. Look at that for caseby-case basis. 

Along with that, bring my property value back to its market 

value. 

With that, I’m looking at my FICO score. How can I modify my 

loan, receive modification, if you tell me my credit score’s 400? I’m 

still not getting anywhere. So we also need to look at the FICO 

score, the market value, as well as the FHA Act. 

I don’t live on main street. I never went to Wall Street. I live on 

my street and my community and I’m asking you to keep these 

people’s hands out of my pocket and out of my mailbox because 

that’s what’s occurring and whatever you need to legislate to do 

that, please do so because even today, I am constantly receiving 

modification loans, requests to refinance, we’ll give you, you can 

have, you’re pre-approved. So whatever you need to do, get them 

out of our pockets and shut them down. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. WALAMU. Good morning. It’s still morning or early afternoon. 

I want to thank you—— 

Ms. WARREN. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? 

Mr. WALAMU. Yes. I’m Shahaali Walamu. I live in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and I’m the President of the African-American 

Democratic Club of Prince George’s County. 

One of the things that I want to do is thank you for holding this 

important hearing here in Prince George’s County where our neighbors and communities are on fire with foreclosures. 

First, I would like to say that if they automate the process of mediation when people go into foreclosure they can very easily save 

time, save expenses, and provide some emotional support to people 

who have to face foreclosure, and I would like to remind each of 

us that spent a lot of time trying to buy a house and when they 

go into foreclosure, it seems like it takes forever and ever and ever 

and the process never goes away in 10 years. We need help. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you, sir. 

Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. LARAMIE. Hi. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Laramie. 

I am with the Pro Bono Resource Center, and I’m the Project Manager of the Foreclosure Prevention Pro Bono Project, the project 

that Phillip Robinson spoke of this morning. 

I just wanted the opportunity to introduce myself and to thank 

you for the work that you’re doing and just to expand on a couple 

of Phillip’s comments about the project. 

I did want to reiterate that we do have a Resource Guide on the 

back table for any homeowners that want to pick one up on their 

way out. That guide will have our upcoming workshops where 

we’re bringing pro bono attorneys to provide free one-on-one legal 

advice to homeowners who bring their loan documents and information about their monthly budget. 

There is a way to pre-register for those workshops on the Resource Guide that will guarantee you a free legal consult if you 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

83 

come to that particular workshop. So please do take advantage of 

that information. 

I also just wanted to reiterate the importance of the Maryland 

HOPE Hotline to our project. That’s 1–877–462–7555. That is the 

line that homeowners can call to be determined whether they are 

eligible for referral to a pro bono attorney to actually represent 

them in negotiations with their lender to modify their loan. So I 

encourage homeowners to call that hotline and I encourage everyone in this room to spread the word about that because that is the 

way to be matched with one of our pro bono attorneys. 

We did submit some written testimony from the Pro Bono Resource Center, so hopefully you have that in your materials. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. WILSON. Hi. My name is Cynthia Wilson, and I’m a resident 

of Prince George’s County, and I do realize it is now lunch time, 

so I will be brief in my comments. 

I really just want to underscore the importance of the impact of 

the declining property values in Prince George’s County. We’ve 

touched on it. Many of the panel members spoke of it, but there 

are a majority, I would say, I don’t know the exact statistic, but 

a majority of Prince George’s County homeowners are underwater 

and for those of us who may still be current on our mortgages, we 

are not able to refinance our loans because of the declining property values. 

Now, I’m encouraged by the preliminary Affordability and Stability Plan put out by the Administration that will attempt to address this group of homeowners, but my concern, as a Bank of 

America customer, is that the bank will not be incentivized to actually do anything for us until we become delinquent on our mortgages. 

So in my case, for example, your statistic said that there was a 

124 percent run-up between 2000 and 2007. I bought my home in 

2007. So you can imagine where that places me. So I have an interest-only loan. 

So if Bank of America won’t talk to me because I’ve tried to ask 

them for a streamlined refi, something to that effect, they won’t do 

it. If they won’t talk to me until I’m delinquent and I’m already significantly underwater and last year I paid $22,000 of mortgage interest alone, what would you do if you were me? 

That’s all I have to say. Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. 

Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. GRAY. Hi. Good afternoon. I want to thank the panel. I’m the 

President of the Brandywine Neighborhood Coalition, and I just 

wanted to add another piece to what—oh, Camita Gray. I just 

wanted to add another piece to everything that everybody has said 

as to predatory lending as to loans, but the main thing that I see 

is the service providers not willing to remodify the loans and also 

they’re doing it for two to three years and I think there needs to 

be some regulation there. 

The other thing is with the RESPA. Some of the homeowners are 

not—the loss of income or loss of job is not the main reason for 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING

84 

them losing the house. The other part is the RESPA, the escrow 

increasing every year and they’re not able to make that payment, 

and I think that needs to be looked at. 

A couple of people have lost their houses because of the loan— 

the service provider can ask for that 1⁄16 when it’s not needed. So 

I think that needs to be looked at and I will submit some written 

comments. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WARREN. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to 

speak? 

[No response.] 

Ms. WARREN. Then I will bring this hearing to a conclusion by 

thanking you all for coming here. 

I want to thank all of those who spoke. I want to thank all of 

those who came just to listen. 

It is important that we hear this from the ground. This is not 

just a bunch of abstract numbers and statistics. We need to hear 

it. We need to see faces. We need to hear voices and what you bring 

to us makes its way into our reports and what we take back to 

Congress as part of our description and our recommendations for 

what happens as we try to work together for economic recovery. 

But I want to make one last plea and that is, I appreciate your 

coming today, but this crisis is not over and the fight to resolve it 

is not over. Indeed, the fight is just beginning. The voices of those 

who helped bring us this crisis and who have profited handsomely 

from it are well heard in the halls of Washington. They are well 

heard in our state legislatures and they are still active. We must 

fight back. 

So thank you for coming here today, but please don’t regard this 

job as finished. Please continue to show up, to be heard, to speak 

out, to reach out in every possible way you can. Our country needs 

you. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the panel was adjourned.] 

Æ 

wwoods2 on PROD1PC60 with HEARING