Source: https://fightforeclosure.net/category/pro-se-litigation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:15:17+00:00

Document:
Homeowners often find the need to file for Bankruptcy in order to save their homes. Hopefully, your first bankruptcy filing will be your last, and you’ll be able to start fresh and regain control over your finances. But there are times when people need to file bankruptcy multiple times. For example, a homeowner with serious financial problems may file Bankruptcy not only to save their homes, but equally to protect other assets. Secondly, someone may have a serious medical condition, but can’t get medical insurance. If the medical bills keep piling up, that person may need to file bankruptcy multiple times to get those bills discharged. Homeowners often wonder – how often can we file for bankruptcy?
The Bankruptcy Code does not specify a maximum number of times one can file bankruptcy. Bankruptcy courts are more apt, however, to scrutinize a bankruptcy filing by someone who has already filed previous cases. If the person keeps charging up credit card debt for unnecessary items, the court may dismiss that person’s successive bankruptcy case.
Also, a person may be denied a discharge if he or she received a prior discharge in a previous bankruptcy case. If you file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, the bankruptcy court may deny your discharge if you already received a discharge in a previous Chapter 7 case filed within eight years of your current case. The court will also deny your Chapter 7 discharge if you previously received one in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case that you filed within six years of your current case, unless you paid the majority of your creditors in that prior Chapter 13 case. Finally, if you file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13, you’ll be denied a discharge if you received one in a prior Chapter 7 bankruptcy case that was filed within four years of your current case, or in a Chapter 13 case filed within two years of your current case.
There’s a lesson here – if you file for bankruptcy, make sure you do it right, or you may not be able to do it again for a number of years.
Bankruptcy is a federal legal process that consists, at minimum, of filing a court petition, attending credit counseling classes, and meeting with a bankruptcy trustee. In every consumer bankruptcy case there are three categories of fees: (1) bankruptcy filing fees; (2) credit counseling fees; and (3) attorney fees. Filing a bankruptcy case does not have to be expensive or unaffordable. Below are some tips and tricks to keep costs low.
Because bankruptcy is a federal legal process, court filing fees are the same throughout the country. For a Chapter 7, an erase-your-debts-start-fresh bankruptcy case, the filing fee is $306. For a Chapter 13, a repayment plan, the filing fee is $281. These fees must be paid to the clerk of the court upon filing. However, with the court’s permission individual debtors may pay in installments. The final payment cannot be later than 120 days after you file the petition. In some rare cases the filing fee may be waived altogether for debtors who earn less than 150% of the poverty level. Bankruptcy filing fees are the same whether a debtor files a single or joint husband and wife bankruptcy.
The federal Bankruptcy Code requires each consumer debtor to receive credit counseling from a nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency approved by the United States Trustee within 180 days prior to filing a bankruptcy. This counseling fee is around $50.00 per household and is available in-person, by telephone, or over the internet. After filing, the debtor must complete an “instructional course concerning personal financial management.” This class is also available in-person, by telephone, or over the internet for a fee around $50.00 per filer.
The Bankruptcy Code directs approved providers of the credit counseling and financial management courses to provide services without regard to your ability to pay. If you can’t afford the counseling, the agency may waive the fee or require you to pay a lesser amount.
Attorney fees are negotiated between the debtor and the attorney. Attorney fees are paid up-front in Chapter 7 cases. In Chapter 13 cases, the attorney may elect to receive attorney fees in equal monthly installments. The attorney is paid from the debtor’s monthly payment to the trustee, and makes the entire process more affordable. A few not-for-profit agencies and private attorneys provide free bankruptcy representation to indigent individuals.
If you are in need of debt relief, but are afraid that you cannot afford the bankruptcy fees, speak with an experienced bankruptcy attorney and discuss your options. There are strategies that you and your attorney can employ to make the process fit your budget.
There is no qualifying minimum debt limit for an individual bankruptcy in most States. Debtors who otherwise qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy can file with any amount of secured or unsecured debt. The purpose of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is to provide the debtor a fresh start without the burden of overwhelming debt. In some cases this debt may be objectively very small (perhaps only a few thousand dollars), but it be relatively very large to a person on a fixed income from retirement, disability, or otherwise.
In cases where the amount of dis-chargeable debt is objectively small, both the bankruptcy attorney and the client should take care to consider all of the consequences of filing. First, bankruptcy is not cheap. There is a court filing fee, a credit counseling fee, a personal financial management course fee, and, of course, your attorney’s fees. In some extreme cases some or all of these fees may be waived. Second, a bankruptcy filing can significantly impair the debtor’s ability to borrow money and obtain credit, at least for the short term. Finally, non-exempt property may be at risk. For many poor debtors, these consequences have little, if any, affect. Many poor debtors seek bankruptcy protection simply to rid themselves of the nuisance of debt collection.
While there is no minimum amount of debt required to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy laws set a ceiling on the amount of secured and unsecured debt a person can have in a Chapter 13 case. These limits as of April 1, 2010 are $1,081,400 for secured debt and $360,475 for unsecured debt. The Chapter 13 debt limits adjust every three years. Cases that exceed these limits are ineligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, but may qualify under Chapters 7 or 11. There is currently some confusion in our courts as to how these debt limits apply in a joint husband and wife Chapter 13 case. Some courts will separately consider debt that is individual and not joint, effectively increasing the Chapter 13 limits.
An experienced bankruptcy attorney can evaluate your case and discuss any issues surrounding your case. Whatever the amount of your debt, if you are unable to pay, the federal bankruptcy laws can offer you substantial relief. Speak with an experienced bankruptcy attorney and discover how the federal bankruptcy laws can help you.
If you are experiencing financial difficulty and are considering bankruptcy, discuss your case with an experienced bankruptcy attorney.
If you are a homeowner already in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and needs to proceed with Adversary Proceeding to challenge the validity of Security Interest or Lien on your home, Our Adversary Proceeding package may be just what you need.
Homeowners must do their very best to avoid making mistakes during Bankruptcy Proceedings.
The federal bankruptcy laws promise a fresh financial start for the honest but unfortunate debtor. Bankruptcy balances the interests of the debtor to obtain a fresh start and the interests of the creditor to see that the debtor pays back whatever he or she can afford. But all too often, a debtor makes mistakes in bankruptcy, seriously compromising his or her case before it’s even filed.
The bankruptcy laws attempt to ensure that all creditors receive fair treatment during the bankruptcy process. One concern is that the debtor will pay loans to family or friends before filing bankruptcy, and therefore deprive other creditors from receiving payment.
Family, friends, business partners, and other creditors who have close relationships with the debtor are called “insider creditors,” and transfers to insider creditors can be avoided by the bankruptcy trustee if the transfer occurred within one year before the bankruptcy filing.
For instance, if you gave your mother $1,000 from your income tax refund as payment for a debt, and then filed bankruptcy two months later, the bankruptcy trustee can sue your mother to recover the $1,000. To make matters worse, often the debtor could have protected the cash money during the bankruptcy and paid the debt without difficulty after the case was filed.
Some people decide to charge up credit cards or take payday loans just before filing bankruptcy. If you have decided to file bankruptcy, do not incur additional debt. Taking loans with no intention to repay the creditor could be fraud, which is a crime.
Anytime an individual transfers property for less than full value shortly before a bankruptcy filing, the transfer seems “suspicious.” The bankruptcy trustee scrutinizes all property transfers before bankruptcy, and if a property transfer was not a fair and honest exchange, the trustee may avoid the transfer and get the property back.
One common bankruptcy mistake is transferring property to a friend or family member in an effort to hide it from the bankruptcy court. This is a very bad mistake that can result in: (1) losing the property anyway; (2) denial of your bankruptcy discharge; and/or (3) criminal prosecution for bankruptcy fraud.
If you need to sell or transfer property before your bankruptcy, contact an experienced Bankruptcy Attorney and discuss your options!
If you pay off a loan shortly before filing for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will be very interested in that payment. If you paid a large sum of money to one creditor just before filing, the trustee may ask the creditor to return the money.
Also, paying off an unsecured debt that is otherwise dis-chargeable (like a credit card or payday loan) is like throwing your money away. You need that money to help rebuild your finances after your case is completed.
And even paying off a secured debt can cause you problems. Bankruptcy exemptions commonly apply only up to a certain amount of equity. Your equity in some property is the difference between the fair market value of the property minus any secured loans.
When you pay off a secured loan, you increase your equity in the property. If that causes your equity to exceed the exemption limit, the bankruptcy trustee may ask you for the property or the cash difference between the equity and the exemption amount.
Bottom line: don’t pay off loans before bankruptcy!
Most retirement funds are fully protected from creditors and the bankruptcy trustee. That means if you file bankruptcy, you keep your retirement money. Congress wants you to have money for your retirement.
If you used your retirement funds to pay off an unsecured loan, the bankruptcy trustee may be able to undo those payments. Money paid to creditors before bankruptcy does not improve your financial situation or help you recover from bankruptcy.
In short, always discuss cashing out 401(k) or IRA retirement funds with your attorney prior to your filing bankruptcy.
The federal bankruptcy process is full of traps for the unwary—or the hasty. Most of these problem areas can be avoided with careful planning and a thorough pre-bankruptcy investigation.
When a client needs to file a bankruptcy quickly, the attorney relies heavily on the client to provide complete and accurate financial information. In some cases the client is not able to obtain those important records. To compound the issue, sometimes financial transactions are forgotten or overlooked.
Mistakes like these in hastily-filed bankruptcy cases can lead to big problems. For instance, a debtor who rushes into bankruptcy may forget an employment bonus that was paid or that is owed or underestimate an income tax refund. Under-reporting income can disqualify the debtor from receiving a discharge at the conclusion of his or her case, undermining the entire point of bankruptcy.
This is the worst mistake of all because the bankruptcy laws do not protect a dishonest debtor. Failure to truthfully list all of your assets, debts, income and expenses is grounds for dismissal of your case, or you may have to answer allegations of bankruptcy fraud (a federal crime).
Facing a foreclosure can be daunting prospect for people in trouble with their mortgages, especially when they are unsure of what to do. Across the country, six out of 10 homeowners questioned said they wished they understood their mortgage and its terms better.
When the economy collapsed in 2008, foreclosure became a fact of life for millions of Americans. About 250,000 new families enter into foreclosure every three months, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The same percentage of homeowners also said they were unaware of what mortgage lenders can do to help them through their financial situation.
The first step to working through a possible foreclosure is to understand what a foreclosure means. When someone buys a property, they typically do not have enough money to pay for the purchase outright. So they take out a mortgage loan, which is a contract for purchase money that will be paid back over time.
A foreclosure consists of a lender trying to reclaim the title of a property that had been sold to someone using a loan. The borrower, usually the homeowner living in the house, is unable or unwilling to continue making mortgage payments. When this happens, the lender that provided the loan to the borrower will move to take back the property.
People enter into foreclosure for various reasons, but it typically follows a major change in their financial circumstances. A foreclosure can be the result of losing a job, medical problems that keep you from working, too many debts or a divorce.
Foreclosures often begin when the borrower stops making payments. When this happens, the loan becomes delinquent and the homeowner goes into default. The default status continues for about 90 days. During this time, the lender will get in touch with the borrower to see whether they will be able to pay the balance of the loan.
At this point, if the borrower cannot pay, the lender may file a Notice of Foreclosure, which begins the process. The lender will file foreclosure documents in a local court. This part of the process usually takes 120 days to nine months to complete. If borrowers need extra time, they can challenge the process in court, and that’s where our Foreclosure Defense Package comes in.
How do Foreclosures Relate to Debt?
Some people facing foreclosure find themselves in this position because of mounting debt that made it harder to make their mortgage payments.
A foreclosure can add to your financial problems if your state allows a deficiency judgment, which means the borrower owes the difference between what is owed on the foreclosed property and the amount it eventually sells for at an auction.
Thirty-eight states allow financial institutions to pursue borrowers for this money.
In cases when a lender does not use a deficiency judgment, a foreclosure can relieve some of your financial burden. Although it is a loss when a lender takes the home you partially paid for, it can be a start to rebuild your finances.
It is a good idea to work with a financial adviser or a debt counselor to understand what kind of debt you may incur during a foreclosure.
A foreclosure dramatically affects your credit score. Fair Isaac, the company that created FICO (credit) scores, drops credit scores from 85 points to 160 points after a foreclosure or short sale. The amount of the drop depends on other factors, such as previous credit score.
Get in touch with your lender as soon as you are aware that you are having difficulty making payments. You may be able to avoid foreclosure by negotiating a new repayment plan or refinancing that works better for you.
States have different rules on how foreclosures work. Understand your rights and get a sense of how long you can stay in your home once foreclosure proceedings begin.
The National Mortgage Settlement (the “Settlement”) is an agreement among the federal government, 49 states, and the five largest mortgage servicers and their affiliates (the “Banks”).
The Settlement provides benefits to borrowers, including borrowers in bankruptcy, whose residential mortgage loans are serviced by the Banks.
• What Bank conduct is covered by the Settlement?
• What loans are covered by the Settlement?
• What are the financial provisions of the Settlement?
• How will the Settlement be enforced?
Question 1: What do these FAQs cover?
The United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees, has prepared these FAQs primarily for borrowers in bankruptcy or borrowers who are considering filing bankruptcy, including those who have lost their homes in foreclosure. These FAQs also address questions that trustees who administer bankruptcy cases may have.
These FAQs are provided as a basic resource and should not be considered legal advice. The United States Trustee Program is prohibited from providing legal advice. If you have any questions, you should consult an attorney.
Question 2: What bankruptcy issues did the Settlement address?
• Inflated or inaccurate claims.
Some of the Banks filed inflated or inaccurate documents in bankruptcy courts. When a borrower files for bankruptcy relief, the Bank may file a proof of claim or motion for relief from the automatic stay. These documents tell a bankruptcy court how much the Bank claims the borrower owes the Bank. The proof of claim also governs what a borrower in bankruptcy must pay through a chapter 13 repayment plan, and the motion for relief can determine whether the Bank may seek to commence to foreclose upon a home even if the borrower is in bankruptcy.
The accuracy of these documents is crucial. A number of parties, including the borrower in bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court, the trustee administering the case, the United States Trustee, and other creditors, rely on these documents.
When a Bank inflates or misstates what a borrower in bankruptcy owes in these documents, the consequences can be severe. For example, the Bank may be paid too much and other creditors may not receive amounts they are owed. At worst, the borrower in bankruptcy is unable to propose a repayment plan that can be approved and the bankruptcy case is dismissed, or the Bank improperly obtains relief from the automatic stay and is permitted to foreclose on the borrower’s home. As a result, the borrower in bankruptcy loses the ability to keep the home and obtain a fresh start in bankruptcy.
• Improper accounting of mortgage payments made by borrowers in bankruptcy.
Some of the Banks misapplied payments made by borrowers in bankruptcy. When a Bank does this, it appears on the Bank’s books as if the borrower has failed to make regular monthly payments and the Bank can file a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay to foreclose upon the borrower’s home. This misapplication of payments also results in the Bank improperly asserting that the borrower is behind on mortgage payments and can lead to the Bank imposing loan default fees and other charges.
• Adding improper fees and charges to the mortgage accounts of borrowers in bankruptcy.
Some of the Banks charged borrowers in bankruptcy for services not warranted, or in amounts not allowed. For example, some of the Banks sought to recover escrow payments twice, and conducted unnecessary or excessive property inspections and appraisals.
• Charging “hidden fees” to the mortgage accounts of borrowers in bankruptcy.
Some of the Banks also imposed “hidden fees” – fees that are assessed during the bankruptcy case but are not disclosed until after a borrower in bankruptcy receives a discharge. This can result in borrowers believing they are current on their mortgages, only to have a Bank claim the borrowers owe additional amounts. This deprives borrowers in bankruptcy of the “fresh start” promised by the bankruptcy discharge. These hidden fees also often violate bankruptcy court orders finding that borrowers are current on their mortgages.
• Seeking relief from stay to foreclose while borrowers in bankruptcy have pending applications for loan modifications.
Some of the Banks separated their bankruptcy operations from other aspects of their mortgage servicing business, so they did not have a clear picture of the status of a borrower in bankruptcy’s mortgage.
For example, the Banks sometimes provided borrowers in bankruptcy the opportunity to modify the terms of their home loans. Modification has benefits for both the Bank, which continues to receive payments, and the borrower, who receives a more manageable monthly payment.
However, while applications for loan modifications were being processed by one group of the Bank, its bankruptcy operations might move forward with requests for relief from the automatic stay so the Bank could commence foreclosure.
Question 3: Will the Settlement impact borrowers in bankruptcy?
Yes. The Settlement requires the Banks to collectively dedicate approximately $20 billion toward various forms of financial relief for borrowers including principal reduction, forbearance of principal for unemployed borrowers, short sales and transitional assistance, and specific benefits for service members.
The Banks must also make payments to state and federal authorities exceeding $5 billion. Of this amount, $1.5 billion has been set aside to establish a “Borrower Payment Fund” administered by Rust Consulting LLC (the “Settlement Administrator”).
Much of this relief is available to borrowers in bankruptcy. A borrower should contact the appropriate Bank (see question 4) to determine eligibility for relief. A borrower should contact the Settlement Administrator regarding the Borrower Payment Fund (see question 5).
• Timely disclosure of fees, expenses, and charges incurred after a ` borrower files for chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Question 4: How will borrowers in bankruptcy know if they are eligible for financial assistance under the Settlement?
A borrower should not use these phone numbers for questions concerning payments from the Borrower Payment Fund. See question 5 for information concerning these payments.
Question 5: Who can a borrower contact for information concerning payments from the Borrower Payment Fund?
The Settlement required the Banks to pay $1.5 billion to a “Borrower Payment Fund” that will be used to make payments to borrowers who lost their homes through foreclosure between and including January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. The Settlement Administrator has mailed Notice Letters and Claim Forms to eligible borrowers.
If you believe that you are eligible for relief and have not received a Notice Letter or Claim Form or have other questions concerning the Borrower Payment Fund, please contact the Settlement Administrator at 866-430-8358, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (CT).
Question 6: What if a borrower in bankruptcy already has a claim against a Bank?
The Settlement includes a release of liability by the federal government and the participating states for certain conduct by the Banks that occurred prior to the Settlement. The Settlement does not release claims a borrower, including a borrower in bankruptcy, may have under state or federal law, and a borrower does not need to choose between accepting relief under the Settlement and pursuing those claims.
Question 7: Can borrowers in bankruptcy participate in the Settlement and receive financial assistance from other sources?
Yes. Borrowers, including borrowers in bankruptcy, may participate in the programs offered under the Settlement and other programs. For example, borrowers may be eligible for a separate restitution process administered by the federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”). For more information about the federal banking regulator claims process, please visit www.independentforeclosurereview.com or call 1-888-952-9105.
Question 8: Is there someone at the Banks whom borrowers in bankruptcy can contact with questions concerning their mortgage?
Yes. Each Bank has a single point of contact for borrowers (a “SPOC”), including borrowers in bankruptcy, who want information or assistance when they fall behind on their mortgage payments. The SPOCs for borrowers in bankruptcy must be knowledgeable about bankruptcy issues. Also, the Banks must have adequate staff to handle the calls.
Question 9: Do the Banks have special contacts that chapter 13 trustees can utilize to address trustee inquiries?
Yes. The Settlement requires that each Bank establish a toll-free hotline staffed by employees trained in bankruptcy to respond to inquiries from chapter 13 trustees.
Trustees should have received information regarding these hotlines. Any chapter 13 trustee who has not received this information should contact their local United States Trustee office.
Question 10: How does the Settlement address the Banks’ filings in bankruptcy courts going forward?
The Settlement imposes new standards on the Banks to ensure the accuracy of information they provide to bankruptcy courts. These standards are designed to ensure that the Banks provide accurate information about the amount that borrowers in bankruptcy owe on their mortgages.
Moreover, under the new servicing standards, the Banks must implement better dispute resolution processes. If a Bank files inaccurate or misleading documents in a bankruptcy case, a borrower can use these new procedures and make a complaint with the Bank.
In addition, with respect to proofs of claim and certain affidavits attached to documents filed in bankruptcy courts, the Banks must correct any significant inaccuracies promptly and also provide notice of the correction to the affected borrower or counsel to the borrower.
Question 11: What kind of information must the Banks provide concerning a mortgage when a borrower files for bankruptcy?
For a borrower in a chapter 13 (repayment) case, if a Bank files a proof of claim, the Bank must include an accurate and clear statement of exactly what the Bank claims the borrower owes. That statement must itemize the principal, interest, fees, expenses, and other charges that the Bank claims is owed as of the filing of the bankruptcy case.
Question 12: How does the Settlement affect how the Banks apply mortgage payments made by borrowers or a trustee in bankruptcy?
The Banks must promptly post payments received from a borrower or trustee while a borrower is in bankruptcy and accurately designate payments between any arrearage owed before the bankruptcy filing and what is owed for regular mortgage payments after the filing. The Banks must also reconcile accounts, including funds held in suspense accounts, at the end of each bankruptcy case and update their records so they are consistent with the account reconciliation.
Question 13: How does the Settlement affect what the Banks charge after a borrower files for bankruptcy?
The Banks must timely disclose fees, expenses, and charges incurred after a borrower files a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. A Bank waives fees, expenses, and charges of which the Bank has not given timely notice to the Borrower. The Banks must also timely give notice to a borrower of any changes in payments the borrower will have to make due to, for example, interest rate adjustments or changes in the escrow amount.
Question 14: Should a trustee administering the case of a borrower in bankruptcy seek to recover funds received by the borrower under the Settlement?
• The applicability of state and federal exemptions.
The United States Trustee Program will not seek to compel a trustee to recover payments that the trustee, in the exercise of discretion, decides not to recover.
Question 15: How does the Settlement affect the trustees’ review of the Banks’ proofs of claim?
Generally, the Settlement will not alter a trustee’s review of claims filed by the Banks. If a trustee concludes, based on a review of a Bank’s bankruptcy filings, that a Bank violated the Settlement, the trustee, usually will contact the United States Trustee’s office in the jurisdiction in which the case was filed.
This post will be helpful to the Debtor when defending against a creditor’s/trustee’s objection to your discharge or the filing of a Complaint for Nondischargeability based upon fraud/conversion; however, this post may also assist the Debtor in bringing an adversary proceeding should one be necessary.
An adversary proceeding is a lawsuit brought within your bankruptcy. This lawsuit normally centers around whether a particular debt or all of your debts are dischargeable (or forgiven) through the act of your filing bankruptcy. These lawsuits usually focus around some alleged improper act on your part, including fraud, misrepresentation, or your failure to abide by the Bankruptcy Code and accompanying Rules.
You are now at the point of the adversary process where you have received, by mail or by personal service, the complaint filed by your creditor which asks the Court to decide whether or not that particular obligation should be part of your bankruptcy discharge or an objection to your overall discharge should be granted.
This section of the adversary proceeding packet is to inform you of what your obligations are in order to prepare for a trial. Note that there are references to the bankruptcy rules: Local Rules of Bankruptcy Practice = LR; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure = Fed.R.Bankr.P. You may also find both types of Rules at the county law library or you may access the Local Rules at the court’s website http://www.uscourts.gov. You should take a look at these rules if you have any questions about the information given in this section.
After you receive a complaint, you must file an answer with the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within 30 days after issuance of the summons. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7012) You must provide a copy of that answer to the creditor’s attorney.
Note that the cover sheet you receive from the Court will set forth a pre-trial conference date in the lower right-hand corner of the Summons. You must attend that hearing. At that time, the Court will set parameters for trial. The Court may also discuss with the parties whether or not any settlement is possible. Prior to this pre-trial conference with the Court, and within thirty (30) days after you have answered the complaint, you are required to meet with the attorney for the creditor to discuss how discovery will be conducted in the case. After you have had this discussion and no later than fourteen (14) days after the meeting with the attorney, the parties are required to submit a discovery plan. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7016 and LR 7016) This plan is a form which the creditor’s counsel will have and will be filled out by both parties. The form will then be submitted to the Court and the Court will then approve, disapprove or modify the discovery plan and enter any other orders that may be appropriate.
After you have gone through the preparation of the discovery plan and have had it approved by the Court, you will then conduct your discovery. Local Rule 7026 will provide you with information as to what the parties may or may not do during the discovery process. You may also want to look at Local Rules 7026 through and including 7036 and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026 through and including 7036 which gives further information regarding some of the discovery tools or requirements.
You may find that throughout the time frame prior to trial that motions are being filed. Motions may be filed by either party. If you are served with a motion in your adversary proceeding, please be advised that you are required to file your opposition or response with the Court and serve your response to the creditor’s attorney not more than fifteen (15) days after you have received the motion and, in no event, not later than five (5) business days prior to the date set for the hearing on the motion. (Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9013 and Local Rule 9014) Make sure that you provide counsel with a copy of your response.
When you get to Court, you are basically going to supplement what is in your opposition or your motion so the Court can make a well-informed analysis of the situation and then deliver an appropriate decision. Please note that when you are in front of the Court, your time is limited. Generally, a motion is limited to approximately five minutes for both sides. It is the feeling of all judges in our district that if all motions and oppositions are well-drafted and timely filed, there is no reason to spend lengthy periods with oral argument. Therefore, you will be expected to come in to court, make a brief presentation and then sit down.
After you have completed all discovery and all motions, you will then be at the point where the parties are ready to proceed with trial. Your trial date will be assigned to you at the pre-trial conference and the Court will generally schedule the trial within 60 and 120 days depending upon the nature of the matter being tried.
Approximately two weeks prior to the trial, you are required to file with the Court a trial statement, a list of witnesses, and a list of exhibits. You must also exchange these documents with the attorney for the creditor. If you and the attorney for the creditor can agree on what the basic issues in trial are going to be, the trial statement may be filed jointly. In other words, one statement will represent the facts and information for both sides to the Court.
The day before the trial, the parties will mark all the exhibits and any supplemental information that needs to be added to the trial statements. Although you are not required to agree with the attorney for the creditor as to what exhibits may be introduced into evidence, it is strongly encouraged that the parties try to agree to all exhibits to be placed before the Court in an effort to have an economical and efficient adjudication of the case.
Certain documents have been included in this packet so that you will have the ability to understand what needs to be filed with the Court prior to trial. However, it is strongly recommended that you access the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov and download a copy of the Local Rules. These will prove very useful to you through the course of the adversary proceeding. You may also wish to check with the county law library for a copy of the Local Rules.
All bankruptcy judges are willing to set up a time to discuss whether or not the case may be settled. Many times, having an impartial third party listening to the problems will allow negotiations to flow freely and hopefully obviate the need for the trial. If a settlement conference is set up, it will not be the judge in front of whom this matter will be heard, so you need not fear that you will be prejudiced in any way if this matter is not settled.
2. Advocacy does not mean we cannot be civil and communicate with the other side.
3. Adversary proceedings are intended to be negotiated if possible.
a. Dress Appropriately- Nice attire such as a suit or slacks is acceptable. Please no hats, shorts, thongs, tank tops, etc.
b. Your statements should be addressed to the court and not to the other side- The only time you should speak to opposing counsel is during breaks or with the Court’s permission after requesting a break.
a. Do not interrupt the other side or the judge when they are speaking.
b. Remember to follow the rules as explained in the attached documents regarding the filing of your trial statement, list of exhibits, witnesses, etc.
1. Understand your responsibilities and respond accordingly. You are held to the same standard as an attorney when presenting your case and arguing the legal issues. You may need to educate yourself on the law at issue by visiting the law library and reading the Bankruptcy Code and cases dealing with those sections of the code involving your case.
2. Sanctions – Remember that if you act disrespectful to the Court or opposing attorney, or if you lie in your court pleadings or under oath at trial, the Court has the power to sanction you by either assessing a fee or ruling for the opposing party.
3. If you have any questions regarding your responsibilities, call the other side’s attorney they will answer procedural questions, but cannot assist you with your legal argument.
4. Know the Local Rules – you can obtain a copy by accessing the court’s website at http://www.uscourts.gov You may also be able to obtain the rules from the county law library or from opposing counsel.
Very few people fully appreciate the powerful and flexible remedy offered by an injunction. Injunctions are extraordinary, both in terms of their timing and their effectiveness. Certain injunctions are issued with a rapidity otherwise unknown in the American legal system. Injunctions frequently have consequences so sweeping that they effectively shut down operating businesses or otherwise affect dramatically the rights of the parties involved in an irreversible manner – even when the requested injunction is refused. Two illustrative examples of the power of injunctions which have recently been seared into the American consciousness are the injunction against further ballot counting in Florida following the 2001 presidential election and the injunction ordering Napster, the Internet music swapping service, to cease and desist from operating.
Simply put, injunction proceedings are high stakes poker. If a party plays its first hand wrong, the game may be over before another hand is dealt. This article will explore the remedies available in an injunction proceeding, the timing implications involved in either seeking or defending an injunction, and the particular hallmarks incident to various kinds of injunctions.
The only limitation on remedies available through an injunction is the creativity of counsel or of the judge hearing the case. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of relief available through an injunction: prohibitory and mandatory. A prohibitory injunction is the most common form of injunction, and directs a party to refrain from acting in a certain manner. Examples of a prohibitory injunction are cease and desist orders (entered against Napster), or an order stopping a bulldozer prior to the razing of an historic building. Injunctions can also be mandatory, however, in which case the court directs a party to take affirmative action. Examples of this kind of injunction were seen in the school integration and busing cases prevalent several decades ago. Whether prohibitory or mandatory, the only limit on the power of the trial judge (other than the role of appeals courts) is that the remedy selected be reasonably suited to abate the threatened harm and that the court be in a position to enforce its own order and assess a party’s compliance.
Similar to the type of remedy, courts and parties have significant flexibility regarding timing, so long as the party seeking an injunction is not guilty of unreasonable delay in requesting the court’s assistance. What constitutes “unreasonable” delay will vary from case to case. There are three kinds of injunction requests, which vary by the timing of the request. The first is called an ex parte injunction (also sometimes popularly known as a temporary restraining order, or TRO. The technical name for such an injunction in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is “special relief”). The other two kinds of injunctions are preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions.
Ex parte injunctions are appropriate only when the threatened harm is so immediate and so severe that even giving the other party notice of the application for the injunction and an opportunity to be heard in opposition is not practical. Ex parte literally means one-sided. A party seeking the entry of an ex parte order (without the involvement of or even notification to the other party most directly affected) has an exceedingly heavy burden in convincing a judge the emergency warrants such extreme action. By definition, there will not be even minimal due process afforded to the affected party; therefore, the courts’ rules require certain safeguards to protect it. For example, in state court in Pennsylvania, an interim order granted on an ex parte basis may not remain in effect for more than five days without the commencement of a hearing. Furthermore, the party seeking such an injunction also has the obligation to post a monetary bond which the judge deems sufficient to compensate the affected party if it is later determined that the ex parte injunction should not have been granted.
During an ex parte injunction hearing, there is frequently no actual hearing. Although a judge is free to insist upon a full evidentiary presentation, he or she usually permits these applications to be presented in chambers. The presentation of such an application represents one of the only instances in our legal system where one party’s attorney has the opportunity to sit down with the judge and render an entirely one-sided version of the matter before the court. Although the lawyer is acting as an advocate for his client, he or she must be scrupulously honest and avoid exaggerating the circumstances. Engaging in any form of overreach throughout this onesided process can have disastrous effects on both counsel and client, once the adversely-affected party is represented and has an opportunity to tell its side of the story. For obvious reasons, judges react very poorly to being sandbagged.
There is no requirement that a party seeking injunctive relief make a request for ex parte relief. Instead, because judges are very reluctant to grant such requests, and given the heavy burden involved in all actions for injunctions, it’s wise for a client not to risk its credibility before the court by asking for ex parte injunctive relief unless it is truly necessary. Counsel will advise requesting ex parte relief only where circumstances are very favorable.
A preliminary injunction represents the most common form of injunctive relief requested. A preliminary injunction differs from an ex parte injunction in that the affected party is given notice that the application has been filed and has an opportunity to appear and be heard at a formal hearing where both parties may present evidence. Unlike ex parte injunction practice, a preliminary injunction almost always involves an evidentiary presentation in open court. Although not a full-blown trial, these hearings are critically important and set the stage for any litigation to come. In many cases, these hearings – and the judge’s reaction to them – constitute the entirety of the litigation.
More often than not, preliminary injunction hearings are conducted without the benefit of a significant amount of time to prepare and without the benefit of discovery, through which documents and testimony from the other side and its witnesses can be obtained prior to the hearing. Therefore, unless the party seeking the injunction is certain it fully understands the case and is completely prepared to present its case at hearing, it is a good idea to attempt to secure a court order to allow for limited discovery in preparation for the hearing to be conducted on an expedited basis, sometimes the very day before the hearing.
At the hearing, the party seeking the injunction has the burden of convincing the judge of a number of things. (Injunction requests are presented to a judge sitting without a jury. Therefore, the more counsel knows about the judge, including his or her political and ideological leanings, the better). Among the elements which must be proven by the party seeking the injunction are: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.
Although these are somewhat flexible – even vague – standards, the judge must be satisfied that all of these elements have been satisfactorily proven prior to granting an injunction. Needless to say, it is easier for the defendant to argue that one or more of these five elements has not been satisfactorily proven than it is for the moving party’s lawyer to argue that all five have been proven. The law sets such exacting standards because the consequences of an injunction can be so dramatic.
The purpose of the injunction bond is to protect the party against whom the injunction has been entered in the event it is later determined that the injunction should not have been granted. Assuming the judge is persuaded by the proof at the hearing and is willing to grant an injunction, a determination as to the appropriate amount for the injunction bond must be made. The party seeking the injunction will predictably argue that its proof has been so strong that only a nominal bond should be required. Conversely, the adversary will argue that only a significant bond will be adequate to protect his or her client. The judge must balance these competing arguments. Particularly in the event that the judge had any reservation regarding the strength of the moving party’s case, the setting of the bond is another manner in which he or she may protect the interests of the party to be enjoined. There are circumstances where the bond is so sizable that the moving party, which has successfully demonstrated its entitlement to an injunction, will not or cannot satisfy the bonding requirement. In such a case the injunction will not become effective: No bond, no injunction. Thus, it is possible that a party can lose on the merits at the hearing, but never actually be enjoined due to its adversary’s failure to post the required bond.
Most court orders are not subject to an appeal until the case is over in all respects. Orders affecting injunctions, however, are exceptions to this rule. A party dissatisfied with a judge’s decision regarding an injunction – whether that decision grants, denies, modifies, dissolves or otherwise affects an injunction – has an immediate right to appeal that judge’s ruling in both the state or the federal court systems. However, although an appeal is available, it will usually prove extremely difficult to overturn the trial judge’s decision because of the manner in which appellate courts review decisions concerning injunctions. Furthermore, in all but the rarest of occasions, the injunction will remain in place throughout the appeal process, which can itself be lengthy.
Essentially, the court system recognizes that decisions involving injunctions are necessarily made in a somewhat subjective manner and are also made under sometimes severe time constraints. Appellate courts therefore defer to trial judges’ findings and generally believe that the judge who heard the evidence first-hand is in the best position to evaluate the case. As a result, the standard on appeal is very narrow: The trial judge’s decision will be upheld if there is any evidence in the record to support the decision. It doesn’t matter whether the appellate judges would have reached the same decision or not. The thinking is that the trial court should exercise its discretion in the first instance and, if there is more than one plausible interpretation of the evidence, the trial court’s acceptance of any particular interpretation cannot be an abuse of that discretion.
There is no requirement that a party seeking permanent injunctive relief first request either ex parte or preliminary relief. A permanent injunction may be sought as part of the full trial on the merits in an action, regardless of the outcome of prior proceedings in the case. In reality, however, many injunction cases do not proceed this far because, as previously indicated, the earlier proceedings (the granting or refusal of an ex parte or preliminary injunction) frequently alter the landscape so significantly that further proceedings are never pursued.
Sometimes, however, a permanent injunction is sought following previous proceedings. A permanent injunction may be sought, for example, where a party has been dissatisfied with the outcome of a preliminary injunction proceeding, but remains adamant about securing its rights. With the chances of a successful appeal so low, either the winner or the loser at the preliminary injunction level may elect to press on with discovery and attempt to convince the trial judge to change his or her decision after hearing all of the evidence. (Naturally, the judge’s first impression is always hard to overcome.) As with any order affecting an injunction, a dissatisfied party may appeal from any order entered in consideration of a request for permanent injunction. With a fully developed trial record, the appellate court will be somewhat less deferential to the trial court’s conclusion, yet a successful appeal remains difficult.
Injunctions are particularly powerful and flexible tools, which can have dramatic consequences to the parties involved. Homeowners can use injunction to delay moving out of the property while wrongful foreclosure Appeal is pending. A Homeowner seeking an injunction or attempting to defend against one should be well versed how these procedures works, if you are litigating Pro Se, or Secure counsel familiar with the intricacies of injunction practice.
Trying cases is one of the most exciting things a litigator does during his or her career but it is also certainly one of the most stressful.
While over 90% of the cases never make it to trial before settlement, if your case is one of the 10% or less that made it to trial, as a Pro Se litigator, there are few things to bear in mind.
A study conducted few years back shows that About 97 percent of civil cases are settled or dismissed without a trial. The number tried in court fell from 22,451 in 1992 to 11,908 in 2001, according to the study. Plaintiffs won 55 percent of the cases and received $4.4 billion in damages.
Homeowners litigating their wrongful foreclosure cases Pro Se are not Attorneys by profession, however, this post is designed to help Homeowners perfect and win their wrongful foreclosure Appeals.
Your case on appeal can be greatly improved by focusing on potential appellate issues and the record on appeal from the start of a case until the finish.
While in the trenches during trial, many litigators understandably focus all of their energies on winning the case at hand. But a good litigator knows that trial is often not the last say in the outcome of a case. The final outcome often rests at the appellate level, where a successful trial outcome can be affirmed, reversed, or something in between. The likelihood of success many times hinges on the substance of the record on appeal. The below discusses a variety of issues that Pro Se trial litigators should keep in mind as they prepare and present their case so they position themselves in the best possible way for any appeals that follow.
Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions regarding preserving an adequate record on appeal is when a Pro Se litigant should start considering what should be in the record. In short, the answer is from the moment the complaint is filed. At that time, Pro Se Litigants should begin to think carefully about the elements of each asserted cause of action, potential defenses and their required elements, and the burden of proof for each. Every pleading should be drafted carefully to ensure that no arguments are waived in the event they are needed for an appeal. For instance, a complaint should allege with specificity all the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a claim, while an answer should include any and all applicable affirmative defenses to avoid waiver. See, e.g., Travellers Int’l, A.G. v. Trans World Airlines, 41 F.3d 1570, 1580 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The general rule in federal courts is that a failure to plead an affirmative defense results in a waiver.”).
necessary evidence that both a trial court and appellate court would need to find in your favor.
Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the pre-trial order establishes the boundaries of trial. See Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 206 (5th Cir.1998) (“It is a well-settled rule that a joint pre-trial order signed by both parties supersedes all pleadings and governs the issues and evidence to be presented at trial.”). If the pre-trial order does not contain the pertinent claims, defenses or arguments that you wish to present at trial, you are likely also going to be out of luck on appeal.
whether amending or supplementing the pleadings or other court submissions are necessary to make the record as accurate as possible. Most states follow the federal practice of allowing liberal amendments. However, these can be contested, particularly late in the process, closer to trial. While appellate review is often for abuse of discretion, formulating a strong motion in favor of or in opposition to an amendment can preserve the issue.
anything presented to the court prior to trial that you want to be part of the record is transcribed.
Otherwise, there will be an insufficient record on appeal. This is particularly so when it comes to discovery disputes. Although they are common in present day litigation, judges hate discovery disputes. To preserve discovery issues for appeal, be sure to get a ruling, and make sure it is reflected in writing. Moreover, carefully review every pre-trial court order or other judicial communication, including court minutes, to ensure accuracy. Attempting to make corrections during the appellate process may not be possible.
Another significant area for appellate issues is the failure to timely identify experts. This is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review, so it is important that one builds a record on the issue, particularly regarding any prejudice suffered by the untimely disclosure.
make. Although motions in limine are not strictly necessary, they are helpful in identifying evidentiary issues for the judge and litigant and increase the chances of a substantive objection, sidebar, and ruling when the issue arises at trial. One potential pitfall – some jurisdictions require a party to renew an objection at trial after a motion in limine has been denied, so make sure to do so if necessary. See, e.g., State ex. Rel Missouri Highway and Transp. Com’n v. Vitt, 785 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1990) (“A motion in limine preserves nothing for review. Following denial of a motion in limine, a party must object at trial to preserve for appellate review the point at issue.”) (internal citation omitted). Also, if the Court delivers its ruling on a motion in limine orally, make sure it is transcribed properly by the court reporter.
Leave no doubt that you have raised (and obtained a ruling on) an issue.
every objection should be more than just reciting labels, and should provide sufficient information for the trial judge to decide the issue. The goal is not to be coy with the trial judge and hope for a lucky break, but to be prepared to make an argument to win the issue at trial or, alternatively, on appeal. In addition, if you are the party proffering the evidence, make sure the proffer is on the record and that you expressly state why the evidence is being offered. This may require pressing on the judge to get the full objection on the record. If you fail to do so, you risk the appellate court not reviewing the claim on appeal. See, e.g., National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 290 Kan. 247, 274-75 (2010) (observing “purpose of a proffer is to make an adequate record of the evidence to be introduced … [and] preserves the issue for appeal and provides the appellate court an adequate record to review when determining whether the trial court erred in excluding the evidence.”). Also, always be careful of waiving any issues for appeal by agreeing to a judge’s proposed compromise on evidentiary issues.
An important but often overlooked consideration is the courtroom layout and dynamics. Well-thought and timely objections will be for naught if they are not transcribed. Sometimes the courtroom layout can make record preservation difficult. For example, if objections are made at sidebar conferences where the court reporter is not present, those objections may not make their way into the appellate record or be dependent on the after the fact recollections of others. See, e.g., Ohio App. R. 9(c) (describing procedures for preparing statement of evidence where transcript of proceedings is unavailable and providing trial court with final authority for settlement and approval). This should be avoided whenever possible.
Beyond objections, make sure all the evidence you need for your appeal is properly admitted by the trial court before the close of your case. All exhibits that were used at trial should be formally moved into evidence if there is any doubt as to whether they will be needed on appeal. If you had previously moved for summary judgment and lost, make sure you take the necessary steps at trial to preserve those summary judgment issues, especially in jurisdictions that do not allow interlocutory appeals.
Another important aspect of the trial is the jury instructions. Jury instructions should always be complete. Remember that the instructions you propose can be denied without error if any aspect of them is not accurate, so break them into small bites so that the judge can at least accept some parts. Specifically object to any jury instructions as necessary before the jury begins its deliberations. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c). Failure to do so will waive the right to have the instruction considered on appeal. See, e.g., ChooseCo, LLC v. Lean Forward Media, LLC, 364 Fed. Appx. 670, 672 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that defendant’s objection to jury instructions and verdict form during jury deliberations did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c) and noting that the “[f]ailure to object to a jury instruction or the form of an interrogatory prior to the jury retiring results in a waiver of that objection.”).
Additionally, when you lodge your objections, make sure you explain why the jury charge is in error since general objections are insufficient. See, e.g., Victory Outreach Center v. Meslo, 281 Fed. Appx. 136, 139 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that general objection to the court’s jury instructions and proposed alternative instructions, “were insufficient to preserve on appeal all potential challenges to the instructions” and were not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1)). If possible, have a set of written objections to the other side’s jury charges, and get the judge to rule on that, since judges like to hold such conferences off the record.
Also, do not overlook the verdict form. Know that when you agree to a particular form (general or special), that will mean that you are probably taking certain risks and waiving certain arguments one way or the other. Give this thought, and make sure that you know the rules of your jurisdiction on verdict forms so you can object if necessary. See, e.g., Palm Bay Intern., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo S.P.A., 796 F.Supp. 2d 396, 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (objection to verdict sheet should be made before jury retires); Saridakis v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 2010 WL 2274955, at *8 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51(c)(2)(B) states that an objection is timely if “a party objects promptly after learning that the instruction or request will be … given or refused” and that the Eleventh Circuit “require[s] a party to object to a … jury verdict form prior to jury deliberations” or the party “waives its right to raise the issue on appeal.”). (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Finally, pay careful attention to the closing argument. This can be an area where winning at trial by convincing a jury may be at odds with preserving the issue on appeal. On the flip side, many litigators are loath to interrupt a closing argument to object. If you need to object to preserve an issue, do so.
First, determine whether certain arguments must be made post-judgment to preserve those arguments for appeal. Some arguments (such as those attacking the sufficiency of the evidence) must be made at that time or they are waived. See, e.g., Webster v. Bass Enterprises Production Co., 114 Fed.Appx. 604, 605 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that failure to challenge back pay award in post-judgment motion waived the issue on appeal absent exceptional circumstances that did not exist). Written motions post-judgment should include all relevant references to trial transcripts and evidence to make as complete and clean a factual record as possible.
Second, when the appellate record is being compiled, carefully double check the record to ensure its accuracy. Many times the trial court clerk or court reporter accidentally omits portions of the record. If this is not caught and corrected in a timely manner, you may be stuck with a bad record. Most jurisdictions have procedures in place for supplementing and correcting the record but understand them well in advance so there is adequate time to address any discrepancies before the appellate briefing is due.
Too often even seasoned trial lawyers get tripped up on appeal by not having an orderly and complete record. As a Pro Se litigator, you must never lose sight of the factual and legal issues in a case and what an appellate court will need to consider in making the desired determinations. As demonstrated above, a winning record requires thought at all stages of the litigation, not just when the notice of appeal is filed. With proper preparation, attention to detail, and forethought, one can ensure that the proper record on appeal is never in doubt.
Residential mortgage lenders have long been required to disclose to their borrowers (i) the cost of credit to the consumer and (ii) the cost to the consumer of closing the loan transaction. These regulatory disclosure requirements arise from two statutes – the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) and the Truth In Lending Act (TILA). The regulations were designed to protect consumers by disclosing to them the costs of a mortgage loan (TILA) and the cost of closing a loan transaction (RESPA). These disclosures have in the past been enforced by multiple federal agencies (the Federal Reserve Board, Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the National Credit Union Administration) and provided to consumers on multiple forms with sometimes overlapping information (the Truth in Lending disclosures, the Good Faith Estimate, and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement).
In 2010, the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd Frank Act) created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), consolidated the consumer protection functions of the above-federal agencies in the CFPB, transferred rulemaking authority under the statutes to the CFPB, and amended section 4(a) of RESPA and section 105(b) of TILA requiring CFPB to issue an integrated disclosure rule, including the disclosure requirements under TILA and sections 4 and 5 of RESPA. The purpose of the integration was to streamline the process and ensure that the disclosures are easy to read and comprehend so that consumers can “understand the costs, benefits, and risks” associated with mortgage loan transactions, in light of the “facts and circumstances.” 12 U.S.C. 5532(a).
The CFPB issued a propose rule in July, 2012. The final TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure (TRID) rule was published in late 2013, amended in February, 2015, and went into effect on October 3, 2015. More than simply streamlining the existing process, the TRID rule replaced the entire disclosure structure, changing the form, timing, and content of the disclosures.
Scope – The TRID rule applies to most closed-end consumer mortgages, but not to home equity loans, reverse mortgages, or mortgages secured by anything other than real property (dwellings, mobile homes, etc). It does not apply to lenders who make five or less mortgage loans a year. It does, however, apply to most construction loans that are closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property, but not to those that are open-end or commercial loans.
Forms – The TRID rule replaced the forms that had been used for closing mortgage loans with two new, mandatory forms. The Loan Estimate or H-24 form (attached as Exhibit 1) replaces the former Good Faith Estimate and the early TILA disclosure form. The Closing Disclosure or H-25 form (attached as Exhibit 2) replaces the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and the final TILA disclosure form.
Content – Among other information, the three page Loan Estimate must contain (i) the loan terms, (ii) the projected payments, (iii) the itemized loan costs, (iv) any adjustable payments or interest rates, (v) the closing costs, and (vi) the amount of cash to close. If actual amounts are not available, lenders must estimate. Among other information, the Closing Disclosure must contain (i) loan terms, (ii) projected payments, (iii) loan costs, (iv) closing costs, (v) cash to close, and (vi) adjustable payments and adjustable rates as applicable. The required forms are rigid and require the disclosure of this information in a detailed and precise format.
Timing – The TRID rule requires a creditor (or mortgage broker) to deliver (in person, mail or email) a Loan Estimate (together with a copy of the CFPB’s Home Loan Toolkit booklet) within three business days of receipt of a consumer’s loan application and no later than seven business days before consummation of the transaction. A loan application consists of six pieces of information from the consumer: (i) name, (ii) income, (iii) social security number, (iv) property address, (v) estimated value of property, and (vi) amount of mortgage loan sought. 12 C.F.R. §1026.2 (a) (3)(ii). After receiving an application, a creditor may not ask for any additional information or impose any fees (other than a reasonable fee needed to obtain the consumer’s credit score) until it has delivered the Loan Estimate.
The TRID rule also requires a creditor (or settlement agent) to deliver (in person, mail or email) a Closing Disclosure to the consumer no later than three business days before the consummation of the loan transaction. The Closing Disclosure must contain the actual terms of the loan and actual cost of the transaction. Creditors are required to act in good faith and use due diligence in obtaining this information. Although creditors may rely on third-parties such as settlement agents for the information disclosed on the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, the TRID rule makes creditors ultimately responsible for the accuracy of that information.
Tolerance and Redisclosure – If a charge ultimately imposed on the consumer is equal to or less than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, it is generally deemed to be in good faith. If a charge ultimately imposed on the consumer is greater than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, the disclosure is generally deemed not in good faith, subject to certain tolerance limitations. For example, there is zero tolerance for (i) any fee paid to the creditor, broker, or affiliate, and (ii) any fee paid to a third-party if the creditor did not allow the consumer to shop for the service. Creditors may charge more than the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate for third-party service fees as long as the charge is not paid to an affiliate of the creditor, the consumer had is permitted to shop for the service, and the increase does not exceed 10 percent of the sum of all such third-party fees. Finally, creditors may charge an amount in excess of the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate, without any limitation, for amounts relating to (i) prepaid interest, (ii) property insurance premiums, (iii) escrow amounts, (iv) third-party service providers selected by the consumer and not on the creditor’s list of providers or services not required by the creditor, (iv) and transfer taxes.1 If the fees and charges imposed on the consumer at closing exceed the fees and charges disclosed on the Loan Estimate, subject to the tolerance levels, the creditor is required to refund the consumer within 60 days of consummation of the loan.
If the information disclosed on the Closing Disclosure changes prior to closing, the creditor is required to provide a corrected Closing Disclosure. An additional three-day waiting period is required with a corrected Closing Disclosure if there is an increase in the interest rate of more than 1/8 of a percent for fixed rate loans or 1/4 of a percent for adjustable rate loans, a change in loan product, or a prepayment penalty is added to the loan. For all other changes, the corrected Closing Disclosure must be provided prior to consummation. If a change to a fee occurs after consummation, then a corrected Closing Disclosure must be delivered to the consumer within 30 calendar days of receiving information of the change. If a clerical error is identified, then a corrected Closing Disclosure must be delivered to the consumer within 60 calendar days of consummation.
The implementation of the TRID rule has also apparently begun to cause delays in closing consumer mortgage loan transactions, with closing times up month over month and year over year since October. Loan originators are also reporting decreases in earnings and attributing some of that decrease to implementation of the TRID rule. Moreover, Moody’s has reported that, because some third-party due diligence companies have been strictly applying their own interpretations of the TRID rule in reviewing loan transactions for “technical” violations (i.e., inconsistent spelling conventions and failure to include a hyphen), these firms have found that up to 90% of reviewed loan transactions did not fully comply with the TRID rule requirements. The fact that most of these compliance issues appear to be technical and non- material has not dampened concerns.
Indeed, these concerns were set forth by President and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association David Stevens in a letter to CFPB Director Richard Codray on December 21, 2015 (letter attached as Exhibit 3). In the letter, Stevens identified the problem, proposed a possible interim solution, and asked for ongoing guidance. The problem, according to Stevens, is that certain due diligence companies have adopted an “extremely conservative interpretation” of the TRID rule, resulting in up to a 90% non-compliance rate. This could put loan originators in the position of being unable to move loans to the secondary market or having to sell them at substantial discounts, and could ultimately lead to significant liquidity problems. It is also unknown how the government sponsored entities (GSEs) will interpret the TRID rule, and whether they too will adopt such conservative interpretations and ultimately demand loans be repurchased and seek indemnification for the lack of technical compliance. Stevens proposed written clarification on a lender’s ability to correct a variety of these technical errors, but also noted a significant need for ongoing guidance and additional written clarifications.
(i) there is no general assignee liability unless the violation is apparent on the face of the disclosure documents and the assignment is voluntary. 15 U.S.C. §1641(e).
(ii) By statute, TILA limits statutory damages for mortgage disclosures, in both individual and class actions to failure to provide a closed-set of disclosures. 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).
(iii) Formatting errors and the like are unlikely to give rise to private liability unless the formatting interferes with the clear and conspicuous disclosure of one of the TILA disclosures listed as giving rise to statutory and class action damages in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a).
(iv) The listed disclosures in 15 U.S.C. §1640(a) that give rise to statutory and class action damages do not include either the RESPA disclosures or the new Dodd-Frank Act disclosures, including the Total Cash to Close and Total Interest Percentage.
Cordray concluded his letter by noting that “the risk of private liability to investors is negligible for good-faith formatting errors and the like” and that “if investors were to reject loans on the basis of formatting and other minor errors . . . they would be rejecting loans for reasons unrelated to potential liability” associated with the disclosures required by the TRID rule.
While the promise of a good faith implementation period and the assurance that TRID does not expand TILA liability to RESPA disclosures offers some comfort to creditors, Cordray’s letter is not a compliance bulletin or supervisory memo, was not published in the Federal Register, and does not appear to be an official interpretation of the TRID rule that would bind the CFPB or any court. Moreover, his comments focus primarily on statutory damages and do not take into consideration potential liability for actual damages and, importantly, attorney’s fees.
Despite these assurances, creditors still must concern themselves with potential liability for TRID violations. The following is list of the main sources of potential liability for TRID violations.
(A) First tier – For any violation of a law, rule, or final order or condition imposed in writing by the Bureau, a civil penalty may not exceed $5,000 for each day during which such violation or failure to pay continues.
(B) Second tier – Notwithstanding paragraph (A), for any person that recklessly engages in a violation of a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $25,000 for each day during which such violation continues.
(C) Third tier – Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), for any person that knowingly violates a Federal consumer financial law, a civil penalty may not exceed $1,000,000 for each day during which such violation continues.
Other Governmental Liability – Creditors could also face potential additional claims pursuant to the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
Consumer Actions – While statutory damages may be limited under TILA to $4,000 in individual suits and the lesser of 1% of company value or $1 million in class actions, that does not account for potential liability for actual damages and attorney’s fees.
The problem with the TRID rule is that, like the legendary metal bed of the Attic bandit Procrustes, it is a one size fits all regulation and industry participants are going to get stretched or lopped in the process of attempting to fit every transaction into the regulation’s apparently inflexible requirements. Time may well bring additional CFPB guidance, either in the form of the CFPB’s formal, binding interpretations of the rule or in the form of regulatory decisions. Such guidance may then give industry participants a better understanding of how to make and close mortgage loans and avoid liability in process. In the meantime, we can expect further delays, disagreements, and, ultimately, enforcement and litigation.
1 There had been disagreement on whether transfer taxes (property taxes, HOA dues, condominium or cooperative fees) were subject to tolerances or not. On February 10, 2016, in a rare instance, the CFPB issued an amendment to the supplementary information to the TRID rule to correct a “typographical error” and clarify this issue, amending a sentence that had read that these charges “are subject to tolerances” to read that such charges “are not subject to tolerances” (emphasis added).
2 In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both issued similar letters on October 6, 2015 advising that “until further notice” they would “not conduct routine post-purchase loan file reviews for technical compliance with TRID,” as long as creditors are using the correct forms and exercising good faith efforts to comply with the rule. In these letters, the GSEs further agreed not to “exercise contractual remedies, including repurchase” for non-compliance except where the required form is not used or if a practice impairs enforcement of the loan or creates assignee liability and a court, regulator, or other body determines that the practice violates TRID. Similarly, the Federal Housing Administration issued a letter that “expires” April 16, 2016, agreeing “not to include technical TRID compliance as an element of its routine quality control reviews,” but noting that it does expect creditors to use the required forms and use good faith efforts to comply with TRID.
During the peak of the housing boom in Las Vegas, Russell, a mortgage loan processor for a large bank, reviewed a mortgage application. Everything appeared to be in order: this particular type of mortgage loan required no income verification because the buyer had excellent credit and the home would be an owner-occupied property. Russell approved the loan for the bank.
Unbeknownst to Russell and the bank, the applicant was actually a “straw buyer,” using his name and credit to buy the house at the insistence of his business partner, but not actually intending to live in the house. All the applicant had to do was sign a few documents and both the applicant and his business partner would profit from exploding housing prices. The applicant’s credit would allow the pair to purchase a single-family residence for $295,000, and then, before the first mortgage payment came due, they would flip the property, that is, immediately sell the home, and profit from the home’s extraordinary short-term appreciation. The applicant never planned on living in the house nor making any mortgage payments, despite his execution of loan documents to the contrary.
Unfortunately, housing prices did not continue their fantastic escalation and the pair were unable to sell the home. Not surprisingly, neither the applicant nor his business partner made any mortgage payments and the home went into foreclosure. At the time of the home’s foreclosure, the house had a fair market value of $265,000. However, the bank that relied on the applicant’s information had too many similarly situated properties at the time of the foreclosure and decided to keep the home in inventory until it could sell the home at a later date.
Meanwhile, the financial institution became suspicious of the applicant and realized he never even moved into the house, despite claiming on his Uniform Residential Loan Application that this would be an “owner-occupied” property.
Concerned with an increase in mortgage fraud, the lender tipped off authorities, who subsequently investigated and arrested the straw buyer and his business partner. Almost a year later, the partners pled guilty and were sentenced, inter alia, to pay restitution to the financial institution. At the time of sentencing, the home had a fair market value of $145,000.
But, if the bank had not sold the home by that date, that fair market value would be based on the county’s assessed value of the property. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is situated, the Assessor’s Office updates property values annually and, depending on the specific time frame in this hypothetical, the assessment value can range from a lagging property assessment valuing the home at $280,000 to a more current assessment valuing the home at $125,000.
Which measure of restitution and subsequent calculation is best? That is, which value most adequately compensates the injured victim without unfairly burdening the defendants? The Ninth Circuit would side with the defendants in this case, having previously held that the value of the home on the date the bank gains control is the proper measure of restitution. Accordingly, the defendants in this case would be ordered to pay only $30,000 in restitution. On the other hand, the Seventh Circuit would hold that the “property” stolen was the money used to finance the home purchase, and not the actual home.
house and gets the entire amount it loaned to the defendants back. For that reason, if the bank sold the home by the sentencing date for $145,000, the defendants would be ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution. And if a judge considered the US Sentencing Guidelines, she would look to the local assessor’s office to determine the correct value. Thus, the amount of restitution a defendant pays depends on where the mortgage fraud takes place and whether the presiding judge considers the US Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, mortgage fraud restitution is not uniform throughout the United States.
This note discusses the circuit split in applying the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 to mortgage fraud crimes—specifically, the difference in the mortgage fraud restitution formula. In Part I, I provide an introduction to mortgage fraud. In Part II, I provide background on the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which established a directive to courts to order restitution to identifiable victims. Further, the Act indicated, albeit imprecisely, that the restitution amount is based on the property’s value on the sentencing date, less the property’s “value” on the date the property is returned. Regrettably, the Act does not provide a definition of the word property,” which has resulted in a circuit split. Three circuit courts calculate the mandatory restitution as the property’s “value” based on the date the property is returned—that is, the property’s fair market value on that date. On the other hand, four circuits insist that the “value” of the property can only be determined when the bank actually sells that property. In Part III, I will discuss the circuit split where courts disagree on the “appropriate” restitution calculation.
In an effort to provide a uniform calculation, last year the US Sentencing Commission proposed changes to the US Sentencing Guidelines. While the Guidelines are only advisory and not mandatory, these recent amendments result in a third possible calculation that I discuss in Part IV.
A. What is Mortgage Fraud?
In the hypothetical above, the partners executed mortgage fraud by using the applicant’s name and credit as a “straw buyer.” That is, a person who allows his name to be used in the loan process but has no intention of actually making any mortgage loan payments. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms. For example, a person commits loan origination fraud when he misrepresents or omits information on a loan application upon which an underwriter ultimately relies to write a loan. Mortgage fraud can also occur with illicit programs aimed at current homeowners who are having trouble with their payments. Lately, this type of foreclosure rescue fraud is increasing. These types of scams focus on homeowners on the verge of foreclosure. Criminals promise to “stop or delay the foreclosure process,” and, in return, homeowners sign over their property to the criminals.
Mortgage fraud can also include “flopping.” Flopping occurs when a bank agrees to a short sale with the homeowner who then attempts to get the lowest price possible by purposefully damaging the soon-to-be-sold house. The house is then bought by an accomplice, cleaned up, and immediately flipped for a profit of upwards of 30 percent. In 2011, Nevada ranked second to Florida in the Mortgage Fraud Index (MFI), a ranking of states based on reported fraud and misrepresentation investigations. The FBI investigates mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by financial institutions.
The number of mortgage fraud SARs filed in 2011 was 93,508. To put this in perspective, in 2003 the number of reports filed was less than 7,000. However, mortgage fraud may be decreasing: 2012 SARs are down 25 percent compared to the previous year.
B. Why Does Mortgage Fraud Matter?
Mortgage fraud is a “significant contributor” to our economic crisis. Mortgage fraud has contributed to an increasing number of home foreclosures, decreasing home prices, and tightening of credit because of investor losses attributable to mortgage-backed securities. Further, “[t]he discovery of mortgage fraud via the mortgage industry loan review processes, quality control measures, regulatory and industry referrals, and consumer complaints lags behind economic indicators—often up to two years or more, with the impacts [of the fraud] felt far beyond these years.” Undeniably, reports of mortgage fraud persist and are continually emphasized in the news.
Moreover, in fiscal year 2012, 70,291 SARs were filed with losses of $2.69 billion. And while the number of mortgage fraud instances has decreased, the dollar amounts involved in instances of fraud has increased.
Until the early 1980s, courts did not habitually consider restitution as part of sentencing guidelines. In fact, if a court ordered restitution, it was usually based on the defendant’s ability to pay. The passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) in 1982, its subsequent revision in 1986, and later the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) in 1996 empowered federal judges to order restitution to victims of certain crimes without consideration of the defendant’s ability to pay. Unfortunately, victims receive only a fraction of the costs from crimes through restitution, as not all defendants have the resources to pay the restitution and their income potential diminishes significantly once they are in jail. However, as courts consider both the MVRA and the frequently cited public policy argument for restitution (making the victim whole), courts consequently order restitution awards to mortgage fraud victims. Indeed, “[v]ictims in mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution.
When a court convicts a defendant of mortgage fraud, and the defendant’s return of the property alone is not enough to fully restore the identified victim, the court will try to offset this deficiency in one of two ways. The Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits determine restitution based on the property’s fair market value the day the victim receives title to the property. The Third, Eighth, Tenth, and, most recently, Seventh Circuits hold the shortage is calculated based on the actual sale of the collateral real estate. Thus, the value of the property is unknown until the property has been sold and the lender receives the net proceeds. Consequently, this split “sets up a potential case for the U.S.
Congress first enacted legislation in support of victims’ rights with the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA). The act included a broad provision for victim restitution. In considering the bill, the Committee on the Judiciary indicated that [t]he principle of restitution is an integral part of virtually every formal system of criminal justice, of every culture and every time. It holds that, whatever else the sanctioning power of society does to punish its wrongdoers, it should also insure that the wrongdoer is required to the degree possible to restore the victim to his or her prior state of well-being.
criminal statutes with one consistent procedure.
. . . return the property to the owner of the property . . . or . . . if return of the property . . . is impossible, impractical, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to the greater of . . . the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction, or . . . the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned . . . .
Accordingly, when the return of the property is inadequate restitution, the MVRA states that the offset value must be determined as of the date the property is returned. However, the statute is silent as exactly how to measure the value of the property on that date. Consequently, in the absence of clear guidelines, three possible formulas have arisen.
property the defendants took from the victim.
A bank would say a restitution calculation can only be determined when the property is sold, but a defendant would argue that if a bank holds on to the property in a declining market, it is unfair for the defendant to pay more in restitution than what the property was worth when the victim regained control of it. The Ninth Circuit method considers the fairness of a bank refraining from selling a property immediately, and ultimately agrees with the defendant’s argument.
date and the higher value when defendant actually stole the timber. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the District Court and held that the defendant should not have an increased restitution when the victim decides to retain the property. The court reasoned that the defendant’s conduct did not cause the subsequent loss the government experienced and therefore restitution was properly calculated as the property’s value on the date the victim regained control of the timber.
Relatedly, in United States v. Boccagna, the Second Circuit performed an extensive analysis of how property value should be measured, ultimately agreeing with the Ninth and Fifth Circuits. The Boccagna court noted that the MVRA does not define how to determine the value of property. Instead, the court stated, the “law appears to contemplate the exercise of discretion by sentencing courts in determining the measure of value appropriate to restitution calculation in a given case.” The court found the property’s sale price was lower than the fair market value and remanded the case to determine this value as part of the restitution calculation.
occurred resulted in the defendant paying less restitution than he would have if the fair market value had been used. The condominium in Himler sold for significantly more than its presumed value when title was transferred, due to favorable market conditions.
value can be a flexible concept, and a court with discretionary powers should keep in mind the purpose of restitution—to make the victim whole. The court concluded, therefore, that the foreclosure sale price in that case reflected a more accurate measure of the victim’s loss. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit, in United States v. Statman, used the foreclosure sale price of a fraudulently purchased bakery business in calculating the restitution award to a state’s small business-funding agency. While the defendant wanted the court to consider the appraised value of the bakery, the court cited James and determined that a foreclosure sale price was a permissible calculation method. The court also agreed with the Tenth Circuit; its decision aligns with the public policy concerns, which justify the existence of restitution in the first place—the need to make victims whole for the actual loss. While this case involved financial fraud, and not mortgage fraud per se, the chosen calculation method aligns this circuit with the sale-price camp.
Most recently, in United States v. Robers, the Seventh Circuit joined the Third, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits concluding “it is proper to determine the offset value [of property that is returned] based on the eventual amount recouped by the victim following sale of the collateral real estate.” The court observed that because the victim loaned cash to the defendants to purchase the property, the cash was therefore the “property” taken, not a home. Basing its opinion on the plain language of the MVRA, the Seventh Circuit decided that “ ‘property’ must mean the property originally taken from the victim,” the value can only be determined by the amount of cash returned to the victim from a sale.
loss by any credit the victim has already received. In general, the rule deducts the fair market value of the property returned to the victim from the amount of restitution the defendant is required to pay. In other words, the restitution is offset by the collateral’s fair market value. The Commission specifically addressed the situation that the circuit courts have wrestled with—when the victim gets the collateral back but has not disposed of the property, resulting in a problematic value calculation. The Commission noted this and, in an attempt to provide uniform guidelines, it proposed two changes. The first change established a specific date of the fair. market value determination: “the date on which the guilt of the defendant has been established.” The second change “establishes a rebuttable presumption that the most recent tax assessment value of the collateral is a reasonable estimate of the fair market value.” The Commission suggests that a court may consider the accuracy of this measure by examining factors such as how current the assessment is and the jurisdiction’s calculation process. In sum, a court ordering restitution following these Guidelines would establish the value of the property based on the official date of the defendant’s guilt. In addition, if the property has been returned to the victim but remains unsold, a court will use the local tax assessor’s value of the property to determine the property’s value.
The absence of a definition for the term “property” in the MVRA is the root of the different applications of the statute throughout the country. “When the court defines ‘property,’ the question is whether the statute refers to the property stolen or the property returned. They are not necessarily equivalent, particularly in the context of complex financial instruments . . . .” However, as stated previously, the Act’s purpose is to make the victim whole, and no matter which formula is used, each calculation has the potential to not achieve this goal.
many properties in inventory to immediately put a particular property up for sale. Or a victim may be making a calculated business decision to retain the property for a certain period of time for accounting purposes. No matter the purpose behind the retention, it is unfair to place the additional penalty that coincides with declining real estate prices on the defendant who had no control or even influence over the property’s sale.
Second, this specific date requires no guesswork when attempting to calculate the amount of restitution, which results in better efficiency. On the date the bank gets the property back, an appraisal can determine the property’s fair market value. The court can immediately calculate the restitution amount with this figure. Waiting until the property actually sells could result in a delay of months or years to determine how much the actual proceeds from the sale are. As a result, the court has an almost immediate figure to apply to the calculation and can order the restitution award right away. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit calculation method has some considerable weaknesses. First, real estate is an illiquid asset, and determining fair market value of an illiquid asset is difficult. An appraisal only suggests what the house could sell for, not what the house actually will sell for. In addition, appraisals are based on historical data of home sales, and during sharp market increases or decreases an appraisal will not reflect the most up-to-date real estate prices.
home (for example, carrying costs or realtor commissions), the lender cannot make a sale magically happen, especially if the home is situated in a market flooded with other foreclosure sales. Thus, when the lender eventually sells the home, it can potentially face a greater loss, an inequity beyond its control.
As discussed in Part II, the Seventh Circuit, along with three other circuits, requires a sale of the property in order to establish the net proceeds offsetting a restitution award. These circuits distinguish that the property fraudulently obtained was the cash proceeds to finance a real estate purchase, not the actual home. Thus, this method recognizes the illiquidity of real estate and instead requires cash proceeds from a property’s sale; therefore, no return of the property for restitution purposes occurs with just the transfer of title or “control” over the property.
In addition, this method provides a more exact amount to the restitution calculation. With an appraisal, a court only has an approximation of what the house is worth. With an actual sale, the court knows specifically what the home sold for, and also has information on the true net proceeds to the lender.
Finally, this method also provides a buffer of protection for a victim trying to sell a property in a declining housing market. If the victim is unable to sell the property immediately, and home prices continue to plummet, the victim will not be financially punished by an ensuing lower sales price of the property. Thus, by treating the property as cash proceeds and not calculating the restitution award until there is a sale of the property, this allows the victim to come closer to achieving full restitution because the funds returned are the original amount that was taken.
the defendant should absorb the risk.
Further, it is possible in a booming housing market that a defendant will owe no restitution. For example, if the defendant fraudulently obtained a home loan for $200,000 and the victim lender subsequently sold the property for $205,000, the defendant will be absolved from restitution. However, if part of the goal of restitution is to make the victim whole, the victim is more than compensated in a booming housing market.
Finally, the loan in question in these circumstances is for a collateralized asset. The actual home provided security to the lender. As such, the lender bore the risk when it made the loan; however, the lender also understood it could foreclose on the home in case of default. Thus, this cost of doing business is already accounted for and a victim lender understands this type of risk when providing mortgage loans.
As discussed in Part IV, the US Sentencing Guidelines establish the date of valuation as the conviction date of the defendant. In addition, if the property has not sold by that date, the local property tax assessor’s value of the home is the value of the property for restitution calculation purposes. There are several advantages to this approach. First, if every circuit applied this approach, these guidelines would result in a uniform application throughout the country and would eliminate the conflicting restitution awards. In addition, this approach sets a number that can be calculated and independently verified. An individual could easily confirm the tax assessor’s value of the property and calculate the restitution.
Moreover, the Guidelines allow flexibility. For example, if a court determines that an assessed value is too divergent from a property’s fair market value, the court has discretion to address these differences and assign a fair market value.
noted, the assessed value may not be near the fair market value of the property, and a battle of experts may ensue as both the defendant and the victim claim otherwise. In addition, this discrepancy may afford too much discretion to judges when the goal of the Guidelines is to set a uniform policy.
In addition, this approach disregards the Seventh Circuit method recognizing that the property taken was the actual cash for the home loan. Instead, by relying on a tax assessor’s value if the home remains unsold, the Commission determined that the “property” is the tangible real estate, and not the cash that was lent. Again, if the victim were unable to sell the home in a declining housing market, the restitution award would fail to compensate the victim for its true loss.
The problematic issue of fair market assessment is not unique to restitution.
Some states maintain that a foreclosure sale price determines the value of the home when calculating a deficiency judgment. In other words, these states determine that a property’s value is only determined at the time of the property’s sale. Therefore, this calculation is similar to the Seventh Circuit method whereby a property’s value can only be determined following a sale of the real estate.
Other states consider the fair market value of the property when considering a deficiency judgment. States that consider the fair market value at the time the property is returned coincide with the Ninth Circuit calculation method. Notably, some of these states are states that have had a high number of foreclosures and are within the Ninth Circuit: for example, Arizona and California. Other states provide that the courts have discretion to determine the appropriate value of the property. This discretion is analogous to the alternative offered by US Sentencing Guidelines. This alternative is available when a court deems the property’s assessed value is inappropriate and provides that a court has authority to consider other evidence in its determination of a property’s value.
Thus, just as there is a lack of uniformity in the restitution calculation depending on which state you live in, there is a corresponding lack of uniformity regarding deficiency judgments. While most states follow the foreclosure sale approach recognizing the property’s value can only be determined with an actual sale, this approach does not account for the amount of time a financial institution can choose to hold onto the property. It further fails to account for the lack of control a mortgagor has over the sale process. On the other hand, while the fair market approach recognizes the importance of the control aspect, this approach does not consider a mortgagee’s potential inability to sell in a down economy.
Restitution is founded primarily on the idea that the victim should be made whole for his property loss. The actual property that was defrauded from a victim in mortgage fraud is the money lent as part of the real estate transaction.
can be converted back to the form of the original property (cash). However, with the current definition of property, it is unclear if that conversion is even required.
The definition of property should state that “property” is defined as the specific or particular type of asset (such as cash) that the defendant secured from the victim. This way, the “property” returned to the victim (money) will be the same type of property stolen (money used to purchase the home). In addition, similar to many state statutes prohibiting insurance companies from operating in bad faith, the Act should prohibit victim-lenders from operating in bad faith.
Defendants, like the partners in the fictional story in the introduction, could face varied restitution awards depending on which state they commit the mortgage fraud in. This lack of a uniform approach results in inadequate restitution to victims. If the goal of the MVRA is to make victims whole, a more standardized and consistent calculation of restitution is required. Providing a definition of property in the MVRA would provide this uniformity. Further, requiring victims to act in good faith as they attempt to convert property back to the type of asset they were deprived of will help ensure defendants aren’t unfairly punished.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1026
 §1641
 §1640
 §1640
 §1640
 v. 
 v. 
 v.