Northern California Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog

Homeowners throughout Northern California are continuing to struggle to keep their homes because of the reduction in values and inability to refinance their loans. Surprisingly, banks are getting headlines for donating homes or demolishing homes in neighborhoods that have been devastated by their foreclosures. The banks are taking these actions and getting positive reviews, but for the most part they continue to do nothing to help prevent foreclosure.

Beginning this month, banks can claim such activities qualify as part of their new commitment to help people stay in their homes pursuant to the 25 billion settlement with the government, although the actions have the opposite effect. The banks are taking advantage of their commitment under the $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement between the government and five major banks announced last month. The settlement promises that of the $25 billion, the banks will give $17 billion "in assistance to borrowers who have the intent and ability to stay in their homes," according to a summary of the settlement. Unfortunately, more than half of that money can be used in ways that will not stop or affect foreclosures. According to the settlement, $2 billion of the settlement can go to donating or demolishing abandoned houses after foreclosure. Almost $1 billion can be used to help families that have defaulted on their loans move out. $1.7 billion can be used to waive "deficiency judgments," the amount a borrower still owes if a house in foreclosure is sold for less than the remaining mortgage debt. According to foreclosure experts, the banks virtually never go after homeowners for that type of debt and waiving deficiency judgments is not direct help for homeowners trying to prevent foreclosure. This means that $4.7 billion of the settlement is going toward expenses that the banks were incurring anyway before the settlement and which do not aid borrowers in foreclosure. There is also a concern that the banks will over estimate the value of this type of relief in getting credit towards the settlement.

According to the settlement, only $10.2 billion of the $25 billion must be used to reduce principal for borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. According to the New York Times, Moodys.com, estimates that 700,000 borrowers, 250,000 for refinancing, and 450,000 for principal reduction would receive relief under the $10.2 billion debt reduction. The estimate is based on the fact that there are many homeowners who owe so much more than their homes are worth that the deal's average aid of $30,000 or so of principal reduction will not make them less likely to default. This is especially true in Northern California where loans tend to be higher than in most parts of the country. There may be a question as to whether or not there will be a significant number of homeowners where principal reduction works in a meaningful way in Northern California or other parts of the country.

The 25 billion settlement is between the government and Ally Financial, Bank of America, Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo after allegations surfaced in 2010 that bank employees were fabricating or failing to review documents used in foreclosure proceedings and refusing to work with borrowers to modify loans. The settlement has attracted criticism that it is too easy on the banks. The state attorneys general, the Justice Department and HUD, have defended the settlement as appropriate. The criticism is that the settlement accomplishes remarkably little in the form of real relief for homeowners and that it gives the banks credit for far too much that they were doing before the settlement.

If you have a loan in Northern California and you have been unable to modify your loan or obtain other relief, Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be able to assist you. You may be able to pay back loan arrears over a 5 year period and catch up on your loan. You may also be able to strip any loans that do not have security because of the significant decrease in market value of homes in Northern California. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Student loans continue to be a drag on the economy in Northern California because it is difficult to get any form of relief from a student loan. This is true even if you are unemployed as a result of the economic recession. Lenders have no incentives to work with borrowers since the debts are generally non-dischargeable in bankruptcy and the federal government has made no effort to help students despite helping financial institutions and homeowners in the economic recovery.

The total outstanding student debt appears to have surpassed $1 trillion late last year, according to officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency created after the financial crisis. Student loans may be dischargeable in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy if you can show that repayment would impose an undue hardship on you and your dependents. Student loans may also be dischargegable after they are no longer collectable.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently reviewed the seven year timing of collectability of a student loan under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A) (1990) in Poynter v. U.S. 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 6168, Case No. 10-56751 (9th Cir. 2012). In the case, Eric Poynter (debtor) filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy and on March 1994, the debtor received a discharge. Following the bankruptcy, the Department of Education continued to attempt to collect on the student loan. On September 2008, the debtor reopened his bankruptcy case for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that his 1985 educational loans were discharged in his bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Court and District Court determined that the loans were not dischargeable. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and focused on whether or not the student loans were due more than seven years before the filing of the bankruptcy petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A) (1990). Under Section 523, if the student loans were due more than seven years before the filing, they would be uncollectible. Here, the critical date was October 27, 1986. The debtor argued that two provisions of the promissory notes caused the loans to become due by October 27, 1986. The debtor argued his grace period had run by September 1986 because he was not carrying at least one-half the normal academic workload because he stopped attending most of his classes. The Ninth Circuit ruled that enrollment, not attendance, was the issue. The debtor next argued that according to the terms of the loan the note would become "immediately due and payable" upon default. The debtor argued the failure to notify the lender of a change in enrollment status constituted a default. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument finding that although such failure could constitute default, the lender had the discretion over when to declare a default, and when to demand repayment. There was no evidence that the lender demanded repayment more than seven years before the debtor filed for bankruptcy.

If you are having a problem paying your student loans, bankruptcy may be able to help you either by discharging other debts to help you afford the student loans or by discharging the debts if repayment would impose an undue hardship or they are no longer collectable. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Many people in Northern California are burdened by the cost of student loans and it continues to create a drag on the economic recovery. While there have been efforts by the federal government to help borrowers with home loans that are upside down, there has been no help for borrowers that are drowning in student debt. According to recent estimates by U.S. officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the amount Americans owe on student loans is far higher than earlier estimates and could lead some consumers to postpone buying homes and making other purchases, potentially slowing the economic recovery.

If you have student loans that you are unable to afford Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may help you to discharge other debts and give you the ability to repay the student debt or to reorganize your debts. In some cases, if you can show financial hardship, you may be able to discharge the student loan debt in bankruptcy.

The total outstanding student debt appears to have surpassed $1 trillion late last year, according to officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency created after the financial crisis. The CFPB estimate is based on a survey of private lenders, as opposed to other estimates that rely on a sampling of consumer credit reports. According to the CFPB student debt is rising because of the surge in Americans going to college in recent years to escape the weak labor market and tuition increases causing students to take out bigger loans.

In addition, the interest costs on older loans are climbing as borrowers fall behind on payments, reflecting mounting financial strains, according to the CFPB. The New York Fed data shows that as many as one in four student borrowers who have begun repaying their education debts are behind on payments. As more people go to college and assume bigger loans for education, they may take longer than previous generations to buy a house or get married. It could take longer for heavily indebted graduates to save money for a down payment on a home, or it could be harder for them to qualify for mortgages.

Student loans are generally nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless you can show that repayment would impose an undue hardship on you and your dependents. An undue hardship determination is generally based on a three-part test developed by the Courts. A student must show that based on current income and expenses the student cannot maintain a minimal standard of living for the student and the student's dependents if forced to repay the loan. That additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period. The student has made a good faith effort to repay the student loan. The additional circumstances refer to something beyond the mere current inability to pay. The circumstances must be exceptional, but only in the sense that they demonstrate insurmountable barriers to the student's financial recovery and ability to repay the student loan now and for a substantial portion of the loan's repayment period. Examples are serious mental or physical disability of the student or student's dependents that prevents employment or advancement, the student's obligations to care for dependents, lack of, or severely limited education, poor quality of education, lack of usable or marketable job skills, underemployment, maximized income potential in the chosen educational field and no other more lucrative job skills, limited number of years remaining in work life to allow repayment of the loans, age or other factors that prevent retraining or relocation as a means for paying the loan, lack of assets that could be used to repay the loan, potentially increasing expenses that outweigh any potential appreciation in the value of the student's assets and/or likely increases in the student's income. If these conditions apply then you can discharge your student loan in bankruptcy.

If you are worried about filing for bankruptcy and what impact it could have on your ability to obtain a student loan in the future, a governmental unit that operates a student grant or loan program, and any individual, partnership, or corporation engaged in a business that includes making loans guaranteed or insured under a student loan program, may not deny a grant, loan, loan guarantee or loan insurance to a person that is or has been a debtor in a bankruptcy case.

If you are having problems paying a student loan or other debts, bankruptcy may assist you. You should consult with an attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Homeowners throughout Northern California continue to suffer because of the decline of property values and loans that can not be refinanced due to the decline in property values. While some lenders have allowed borrowers to modify their loans, the modifications often do not solve the problems facing the borrower and the modifications often require the borrower to pay back arrears created by the modification process. Lenders generally will not consider a modification unless the borrower is behind in the loan. The lenders then often take months before they provide their decision on the loan. As a result, the loan cannot be modified because of the arrears that have to be paid back in the modification.

If you are having problems with a loan and the loan is not secured because the value of the property has declined, you may be able to obtain relief through bankruptcy. In some cases, a second loan that does not have security can be stripped in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy and the arrears can be paid back over five years. In the alternative, the loan arrears can be discharged if the property is surrendered in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wells Fargo & Co., 12-80087, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating Wells Fargo to evaluate whether or not its sale of almost $60 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities involved fraud. The SEC has been examining how many banks packaged and sold home loans to investors that resulted in the financial crisis. The SEC is looking for evidence that banks failed to disclose underlying credit weaknesses in mortgage pools and delinquencies. In other investigations, the SEC has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) that they may face civil claims.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently asked a federal judge in San Francisco to compel Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. home lender, to deliver documents it agreed to produce under subpoenas dating from September 2011. The SEC in the Commission's San Francisco Regional Office issued several subpoenas to Wells Fargo since September 2011 seeking, among other things, materials related to due diligence and to the bank's underwriting guidelines. According to the SEC, Wells Fargo agreed to produce the documents, and set forth a timetable for doing so, but Wells Fargo has failed to produce many of the materials.

Pursuant to its Application, the Commission is seeking an order from the federal district court compelling Wells Fargo to comply with the SEC's administrative subpoenas and to produce all responsive materials to the staff. The SEC notes that it is continuing to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and has not concluded that anyone has broken the law. The SEC is examining whether Wells Fargo misrepresented or omitted facts in offerings from September 2006 to early 2008, according to the application. While the bank reviewed a sampling of loans and excluded those that failed to meet its standards, Wells Fargo may not have taken steps to address flaws in the remainder of the pool, the SEC claims
.
The SEC's request, if granted, would give Wells Fargo 14 days to hand over 1,365 e-mails and attachments it has withheld from the SEC, according to the court filing. Wells Fargo said in a statement that the enforcement action is unwarranted and that it will defend itself in court.

Wells Fargo said in its annual report filed February 28, 2012 that it received a notice from the SEC warning the bank that it may face civil claims tied to the sale of mortgage- backed securities. SEC lawyers send the notices when they intend to recommend that the agency take action. Four days before, on February 24, 2012 the SEC told Wells Fargo that it was considering enforcement measures, the SEC said in its court filing. The bank has attempted to use that as an "excuse to avoid complying with the subpoenas," the SEC said in the filing. "There is no basis for Wells Fargo's refusal to comply with the subpoenas because a Wells notice, such as the staff provided, does not terminate the commission's investigative power," the SEC said in its filing. The scope of the SEC's probe "involves not just Wells Fargo's own potential violations of the securities laws, but the roles played by other persons associated with the bank's residential mortgage-backed securities offerings," according to the filing.

If you are having problems with your lender and facing foreclosure, you should seek advice from a bankruptcy attorney to determine what options are available to you. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Home values have fallen significantly in Northern California since 2008 so that many people with mortgages owe more than their properties are worth. Many of the properties are heading for foreclosure. If your property is heading for foreclosure, Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Chapter 13 bankruptcy or Chapter 11 bankruptcy may help you keep the property. Property owners have been requesting loan modifications hoping that their loans will be reduced to the value of the property. Property owners with investment properties have faced resistance from lenders to modify their loans.

The Obama administration created the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to help homeowners modify certain loans that qualify for the program. To qualify for the HAMP, mortgages must meet the following requirements. The mortgage must be a first mortgage encumbering a 1-4 unit residential property that serves as the borrower's current primary residence. The borrower must have had a change in circumstances that causes financial hardship, or be facing a recent or imminent increase in the amount of the borrower's monthly payment that is likely to create a financial hardship. The unpaid principal balance of the mortgage must be no more than $729,750 (this amount increases proportionately for multiple unit properties.) The mortgage can not have been previously modified under the HAMP. The mortgage must have been originated on or before January 1, 2009 (mortgages are eligible to be modified until December 31, 2012).

The original HAMP program did not apply to investment properties. As a result, investors that purchased properties that subsequently lost value have had difficulty refinancing or modifying their loans. The Obama administration has indicated that it will extend mortgage assistance for the first time to investors who bought multiple homes before the market crashed. The HAMP program is being enlarged after less than one million borrowers modified loans through HAMP. The administration's goal in 2009 was to help three to four million homeowners. The program initially focused on owner-occupied houses because the need was high and to help keep homeowners in their homes. In the past, banks have repeatedly rejected property owners for a modification when the properties were not primary residences. The government is now recognizing that vacant properties are a problem no matter how they became vacant and as a result it is extending the HAMP program to owners of investment properties.

Under the new HAMP program, landlords and investors can qualify for up to four federally-subsidized loan modifications starting around May 2012. The program pays banks to reduce monthly payments by cutting interest rates, stretching terms, and forgiving principal. The loans can be modified if the properties are rented or there are plans to rent them. The government has concluded that the need to help to protect neighborhoods from blight and renters from eviction by keeping the current owners in place outweighs concern that taxpayers will end up bailing out real-estate investors. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told homebuilders in Florida recently that the U.S. economic recovery has been frustratingly slow, in part because weak housing markets are holding back consumer spending. As a result, investors are central to the federal government's strategy for reviving real estate with home prices significantly down since 2008 and because foreclosures deplete the number of buyers who can qualify for a mortgage.

At the same time the new HAMP program takes effect, a new Fannie Mae program designed to reduce the number of foreclosed homes is encouraging potential buyers, including private-equity firms, to purchase properties in bulk and convert them to rentals. The government announced last month that it would triple incentives to owners of mortgages that reduce home loan debt and expand eligibility to borrowers struggling under the weight of other liabilities, like medical bills. The extension will apply to all loans, including those held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage financiers.

While the efforts of the federal government to assist borrowers should help to relieve the crisis, the programs do not apply to everyone and there have been problems with implementation of the programs. As a result, if you are an investor, you may want to consider a Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy that would allow you to strip liens that do not have security because of the reduction in value of the properties or surrender the non-productive properties in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You should consult a bankruptcy attorney regarding your options. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Northern California continues to suffer from the effects of the great recession. The Federal Reserve has reported on December 8, 2011 that household wealth in the U.S. fell from July through September for a second straight quarter as the European debt crisis depressed stocks and home values decreased. According to the report, Net worth for households and non-profit groups decreased by $2.45 trillion.

The decline resulted from a fourteen percent slump in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index which is the worst quarter since 2008. This combined with another decrease of real estate values in the third quarter. According to the Federal Reserve, the value of household real estate decreased by $98.3 billion in the third quarter after dropping by $37 billion in the previous three months. Owners' equity as a share of total household real-estate holdings was little changed at 38.7 percent last quarter.

People living in Northern California continue to suffer from the problems identified in the Federal Reserve report. If your income or the value of your property has decreased and you are having financial difficulties, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may assist you. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy can discharge your credit card debts. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy can help you reorganize your debts and pay back arrears on your car and house loans.

According to the Federal Reserve, the volume of outstanding home mortgages was $9.93 trillion at the end of the second quarter. According to separate Federal Reserve data, this is the lowest figure since the end of 2006. This means U.S. mortgage debt, a driver of consumer spending during the real estate boom, may be about to enter its fourth year of decline as foreclosures wipe out home loans and housing purchases fall.

The value of financial assets, including stocks and pension fund holdings, held by American households decreased by $2.78 trillion in the third quarter, according to the Federal Reserve flow of funds data. Other forms of consumer credit, including auto and student loans, increased at a 1.2 percent pace.

According to the Federal Reserve report, Americans are reducing debt and rebuilding savings to weather an unemployment rate that has averaged 9 percent this year. Payrolls climbed by 120,000 in November and the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent, the lowest level since March 2009, the Labor Department said on Dec. 2.

Total non-financial debt last quarter rose at a 4.3 percent annual pace, led by a 14.1 percent increase by the federal government and a 3.5 percent gain among businesses. State and local government borrowing was little changed.

If you live in Northern California and you are having financial difficulty, you should consult with an attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

In Northern California plummeting home values have caused countless property owners to abandon the properties to the bank. The banks have refused to cooperate with the owners to modify the loans and the properties have gone through foreclosure. The banks have forced the homeowners out of the properties and the abandoned properties have been vulnerable to looting. If you are behind in your loan and you are looking for a strategy to keep your property, bankruptcy may help you. Chapter 13 bankruptcy can help you pay off your arrears over time and remove unsecured loans from your property. Chapter 7 bankruptcy can discharge debt from a property that you need to surrender or that has gone through foreclosure.

60 Minutes is reporting that across America, recession-fueled foreclosures and plummeting home values have left countless properties abandoned and vulnerable to looting. The problem has gotten so bad in some communities that county officials have been forced to demolish homes rather than let the blight spread and render nearby homes worthless. So there are two impacts from the property owner losing the property. The first impact is the loss of the property and the money invested in the property. The second is that the owner's neighbor's property values are degraded by the foreclosure and abandonment of the property. The homeowners in the neighborhood may not have indulged in the real estate bubble, but the neighbors have been trapped with the impact of the steady decline in home values. According to 60 Minutes, home values have dropped so far, so fast, that nearly 25 percent of mortgage holders today owe more than their house is worth.

With unemployment so high, so long, many face foreclosure. The new threat from the great recession is the sudden surge in the number of abandoned houses. Vacant homes have become ruinous to neighborhoods throughout America. The owners walked away because they couldn't or wouldn't keep paying on a mortgage debt that was twice the value of the home. After the home is abandoned foreclosure scavengers remove anything of value from the home. The scavengers find out about the properties because they are listed on line. When there are a number of abandoned homes in the neighborhood the remaining houses aren't worth a percentage less, they are just worthless.

In theory there shouldn't be any abandoned houses. When homeowners walk away, the bank is supposed to take responsibility. But one little known feature of the great recession is that after refusing to work with their customers to keep them in their homes, many banks are walking away too, unwilling to maintain a house whose value has crashed. Very often a bank will take a property to the point of foreclosure, but won't go to the sheriff's sale, because in the end they don't want the property. They don't want the responsibility of maintaining the property or paying the expense that comes with tearing the house down.

According to 60 Minutes, the banks could stop the wrecking crews if they would only reduce the loan balances on underwater mortgages. "You're gonna have to write down principle balances. Because if you don't write down the principle to something that's more realistic, it just guarantees that more people will walk away and more people will default. " "Aren't you better off let's say on a $150,000 mortgage preserving $75,000 in value, as opposed to letting that house go vacant, possibly seeing the house vandalized and dropping to a value well below that? I mean, they helped to cause this mess. And it's not going to fix itself without their cooperation." Cuyahoga County Ohio is tearing down 20,000 homes in the next year at a cost of $150 million dollars.

If you are having financial problems and or problems affording your loan. You should consult with an attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

In Northern California a large number of homeowners are suffering because of loans obtained before the recession with high interest rates that could not be refinanced, declining property values and loans with negative amortization. For the most part, there have been no legal consequences for the lenders or their executives that were involved in the crisis resulting from subprime loans. The SEC and the Justice Department have been facing criticism for not doing anything to hold companies and executives accountable for any wrongdoing related to the financial crisis.

Today, the SEC charged six former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with securities fraud claiming they misled the public about the companies' exposure to subprime loans during the onset of the mortgage meltdown. Fannie and Freddie provide funding for mortgage lenders and play a central role in housing finance. The companies were taken over by the federal government in 2008 and have received billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep operating. The SEC said that it was not prosecuting the companies because Fannie and Freddie are now part of the government.

According to SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was. These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. The SEC said it is trying to force the Fannie and Freddie executives to pay fines and give up "ill-gotten gains" and to bar them from serving as officers or directors of public companies. The SEC alleged that in 2007, when Fannie Mae began reporting its exposure for subprime loans, or loans made to borrowers with weaker credit histories, it disclosed less than one-tenth of the total loans that met that description. At the time, Fannie's executives were trying to expand the company's market share by buying up more subprime and Alt-A loans. Alt-A loans often required no documentation of the borrower's income.

At Freddie Mac, the executives claimed that Freddie's single-family business had no subprime exposure, according to the SEC. At the time, Freddie was at risk for about $141 billion in loans that were described internally as "subprime" or "subprime like," accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio. That figure grew to about $244 billion, which was 14 percent of the portfolio, by mid-2008, according to the SEC. When the government seized the companies in September 2008, it wiped out all shareholders who owed stock in the companies. The Treasury Department received a 79.9 percent ownership stake in the firms.

The executives charged in the civil suits include Daniel H. Mudd, former chairman and chief executive of Fannie Mae, Richard F. Syron, former chairman and chief executive at Freddie Mac, Enrico Dallevecchia, Fannie's former chief risk officer; Thomas A. Lund, former executive vice president of Fannie's single-family mortgage business; Patricia L. Cook, former chief business officer of Freddie Mac; and Donald J. Bisenius, former executive vice president for Freddie's single family guarantee business.

The lawsuits were filed in federal court in Manhattan, where a judge recently refused to accept a settlement between the SEC and Citigroup and challenged the SEC's standard practice of settling cases without admissions or denials of wrongdoing.

If you are having problems with a loan in Northern California, bankruptcy may help you pay off arrearages or remove an unsecured loan allowing you to keep your house. If you are in foreclosure, you should consult with an attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Northern California continues to be in the midst of an unprecedented foreclosure crisis. Since housing prices began their precipitous decline in early 2007, thousands of homes have gone into foreclosure, and thousands more remain in distress. The crisis has devastated families and communities all over Northern California. Although foreclosures are increasingly driven by high and persistent unemployment, the crisis has its origins in the subprime mortgage market. While subprime loans were initially marketed as "niche" products, during the latter half of the 1990s and early 2000s, subprime lending exploded to become a major driver of the U.S. housing market.

From 1996 to 2006, the size of the subprime mortgage market grew from $97 billion to $640 billion. At the peak of the subprime market in 2006, 27 percent of all loan originations were subprime. During this time period the subprime market became increasingly dominated by "non-traditional" loans, including interest-only loans, loans with limited or no documentation of income or assets, and loans with low teaser rates that adjusted to much higher rates. These loans were often made on the basis of weak underwriting and without regard for borrowers' ability to repay them. If you have lost your job, or if your loan has adjusted to a rate that is unaffordable, or the value of your home has decreased, you may be able to solve your financial problems by filing a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. If you are unable to afford you loan and the house has lost value you can surrender your home in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and discharge your debts. If you have fallen behind on your loan but want to keep it, Chapter 13 bankruptcy can help you catch up on the arrearages and strip off unsecured loans on the property.

A recent report from the Center for Responsible Lending, "Lost Ground, 2011," finds that at least 2.7 million mortgages loaned from 2004 through 2008, or about 6 percent, have ended in foreclosure and that nearly 4 million more home loans (roughly 8 percent) from the same period remain at serious risk. According to the report, the nation is not even halfway through the foreclosure crisis. The report analyzed 27 million mortgages made over the five years. Across the country, low- and moderate-income neighborhoods have been hit especially hard, the report found.

The report found that certain types of loans have much higher rates of completed foreclosures and serious delinquencies. They include loans originated by brokers; hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages, option ARMs, loans with prepayment penalties and loans with high interest rates (subprime). Accompanying the report is an online map showing foreclosures and delinquencies by state.

If you have a loan that falls into one of the high risks categories and you have lost your job or are unable to continue to pay your loan, you may be facing a foreclosure. You should consult with an attorney since there may be options that could help you. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Bank of America and other banks including Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo have been targeted by federal and state attorneys general investigators as the biggest violators of borrower's rights in the current mortgage crisis. Many borrowers in Northern California are suffering from a reduction in the value of their property, loans that far exceed their property value, spiraling loan costs and foreclosures. While borrowers have filed for assistance with Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Chase and other banks, the banks have often been unresponsive, requesting paperwork to be sent multiple times, delaying the process and then declining the modification and foreclosing on the loan based on the arrears created by the modification process. If you are having problems with your loan bankruptcy may help you. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy you can discharge any recourse debt from a property you intend to surrender because you can no longer afford it. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy you can strip unsecured loans from the property and obtain a payment plan to repay any arrears on the property. You can also get assistance in paying back taxes.

Bank of America's, Wells Fargo's and Chase's practices along with other banks have been the subject of negotiations with various state and federal agencies. Attorneys general from all 50 states began investigating the practices last year. State and federal officials investigating mortgage practices have worked on settlements including proposals for banks to fund principal writedowns for homeowners. The five largest banks have previously proposed paying $5 billion to settle the probe. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has consistently indicated that her state will not sign on to any settlement of a nationwide foreclosure probe that includes liability releases for banks.

The banks in the settlement talks with state and federal officials have been seeking broad releases to protect them from legal claims. The banks want releases that go beyond servicing to include lending and securitization of loans. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has said that she won't support an agreement that includes releases for securitization of mortgages and conduct related to a database of mortgages known as MERS.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit on December 1, 2011 against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and Ally Financial Inc., in state court in Boston. The case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bank of America N.A., 11-4363, Suffolk County Superior Court (Boston). She accused the banks of engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of state law for allegedly conducting unlawful foreclosures and deceiving homeowners. Coakley blamed the banks for failure to reach a deal, saying they hadn't offered "meaningful and enforceable relief" to homeowners for harm they have caused. With a settlement still out of reach more than a year after all 50 states announced their investigation into bank practices, Coakley said, she decided to file her lawsuit. "They have had more than a year to show they've understood their role and the need to show their accountability for this economic mess, and they failed to do so," she said.

Coakley said at a press conference in Boston, "the stakes could not be higher at this stage of the game." "The foreclosure crisis continues to be at the root of the economic mess that we find ourselves in and our inability to turn it around." Coakley said the banks moved to seize Massachusetts homes when they had no legal authority do so because they didn't hold the mortgage on the properties. Failure to obtain valid mortgage assignments before foreclosure has affected titles to "hundreds, if not thousands, of properties" in the state, she said. The banks also deceived and misled homeowners about loan modifications, the attorney general said in a statement. The servicers "often strung along borrowers for months" in trial modifications before rejecting their attempts to modify loans, according to Coakley. Banks are also accused of engaging in "robosigning," in which foreclosure paperwork is signed without verification of the information in the documents. The practice was also used in the transfer of mortgages, Coakley said. "If we do not do this, we are stuck in this downward spiral of more foreclosures in a way that is totally counterproductive to the economy," she said at the press conference.

In September, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said she was withdrawing from the national talks, saying a proposed settlement was "inadequate" and would allow too few California homeowners to stay in their homes, but she has not taken any action since making the statement. The action taken by Massachusetts may provoke California to take similiar action.

If you are having problems with a loan, you should consult with an attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

There are a number of homeowners living in Northern California that have loans with Citigroup on properties that have lost value and the homeowners are unable to pay the loans. Many of these loans were financed with no down payments and high interest. The loans were then sold to investors. If you have a loan you were unable to pay in Northern California, and you are in foreclosure, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may assist you.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been investigating whether or not Citigroup misled investors in a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation linked to subprime residential mortgage securities. The SEC filed a complaint against Citigroup alleging the misconduct. The case is U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 11-cv-7387, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). In its complaint against Citigroup, the SEC said the bank misled investors in a $1 billion fund that included assets the bank had projected would lose money. At the same time it was selling the fund to investors, Citigroup took a short position in many of the underlying assets, according to the SEC. Investors lost about $700 million, according to the SEC. The case is scheduled for trial on July 16, 2012.

The SEC agreed to a $285 million settlement of the case where Citigroup was relieved of any further liability or responsibility without any admission or explanation of the allegations in the complaint brought by the SEC. Citigroup has an interest in settling the case without formally admitting liability because of the bad publicity that would follow and because an admission would give a powerful tool to investors suing the bank. A trial could establish conclusions that investors could use against Citigroup, as could a settlement that includes admissions by the bank.

The $285 million settlement proposal was submitted to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan for approval. The $285 million settlement was rejected by Judge Rakoff who said he hadn't been given enough facts to approve it. Judge Rakoff criticized the SEC's practice of letting financial institutions such as Citigroup settle cases without admitting or denying liability. Judge Rakoff asked whether the public interest doesn't require determining whether Citigroup did what the SEC claimed in the complaint. In rejecting the settlement, Judge Rakoff wrote, "In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth." The proposed settlement is "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest." "If the allegations of the complaint are true, this is a very good deal for Citigroup." "Even if they are untrue, it is a mild and modest cost of doing business." Rakoff said he can't endorse the proposed settlement based only on the unproved allegations in the SEC's complaint. "The court has not been provided with any proven or admitted facts upon which to exercise even a modest degree of independent judgment," he said. He rejected the SEC argument that he should defer to the agency's determination that the settlement is fair, particularly as it asked him to issue an order requiring Citigroup not to violate the securities laws in the future. Calling Citigroup "a recidivist," Judge Rakoff said the SEC hasn't tried to enforce such an order against a financial institution in the past 10 years.

Citigroup has indicated to the press that the proposed settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution to the SEC's allegation and that the settlement fully complies with long established legal standards. In the event the case is tried, Citigroup claims it would present substantial factual and legal defenses to the charges.

According to the SEC the proposed $285 million settlement was fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest, and reasonably reflects the scope of relief that would be obtained after a successful trial.

Judge Rakoff previously criticized another SEC settlement, in a case involving Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS). In that case he stated, "[h]ere an agency of the U.S. is saying, in effect, 'although we claim that these defendants have done terrible things, they refuse to admit it and we do not propose to prove it, but will simply resort to gagging their right to deny it."

Judge Rakoff's opinion is a blow to the SEC and Citibank and the SEC's approach to these high profile cases. There may be a settlement to follow, but it will need to meet Judge Rakoff's standard of disclosure.

If you have a loan with Citibank or any other lender that you are unable to pay or that you have been unable to modify, bankruptcy may assist you. You should consult with an attorney. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy will relieve you of the debt if you decide you no longer want to keep the property and you have a recourse loan. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy can help you keep the property by stripping unsecured loans and obtaining a payment plan to pay back arrears that you may owe on the loan along with other unsecured debts. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Homeowners in Northern California have questioned the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in foreclosure proceedings. If you are facing a foreclosure, you may be able to keep the property by filing for bankruptcy. You should consult with an attorney regarding your legal options.

After news reports in mid-2010 began to describe the dubious practices, like the routine filing of false pleadings in bankruptcy courts, Fannie Mae's overseer started to scrutinize the conduct of its attorneys. The inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency severely criticized the FHFA's oversight of Fannie Mae and the practices of its foreclosure attorneys in a report issued Tuesday. "American homeowners have been struggling with the effects of the housing finance crisis for several years, and they shouldn't have to worry whether they will be victims of foreclosure abuse," Inspector General Steve Linick told the New York Times. "Increased oversight by F.H.F.A. could help to prevent these abuses."

According to the New York Times, the report is the second in two weeks in which the inspector general has outlined lapses at both the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the companies it oversees Federal National Mortgage Assn (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac). The agency has acted as conservator for the companies since they were taken over by the government in 2008. Its duty is to ensure that their operations do not pose additional risk to the taxpayers who now own them. The companies have tapped the taxpayers to cover mortgage losses totaling about $160 billion. The new report from the inspector general tracks Fannie Mae's dealings with the law firms handling its foreclosures from 1997, when the company created its so-called retained attorney network. At the time, Fannie Mae was a highly profitable and powerful institution, and it devised the legal network to ensure that borrower defaults would be resolved with efficiency and speed.

The law firms in the network agreed to a flat-rate fee structure and pricing model based on the volume of foreclosures they completed. The companies that serviced the loans for Fannie Mae, were supposed to monitor the law firms' performance and practices, the report noted

After receiving information from a shareholder in 2003 about foreclosure abuses by its law firms, Fannie Mae assigned its outside counsel to investigate, according to the report. That law firm concluded in a 2006 analysis that "foreclosure attorneys in Florida are routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits," and that the practice could be occurring elsewhere. "It is axiomatic that the practice is improper and should be stopped," the law firm said.

The inspector general's report said that it could not be determined whether Fannie Mae had alerted its regulator, then the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, to the legal improprieties identified by its internal investigation.

The inspector general said that both Fannie Mae and its regulator appear to have ignored other signs of problems in their foreclosure operations. For example, the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not respond to borrower complaints about improper actions taken by law firms in foreclosures received as early as August 2009, even though foreclosure abuse poses operational and financial risks to Fannie Mae.

The report cited a media report from early 2008 detailing foreclosure abuses by law firms doing work for Fannie Mae. Nevertheless, a few months later and just before its takeover by the government, Fannie Mae began requiring the banks that serviced its loans to use only those law firms that were in its network. By then, 140 law firms in 31 jurisdictions were in the group. Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms' practices,.

Finally last fall, after an outcry over apparently forged foreclosure documents and other improprieties, the Federal Housing Finance Agency began investigating the company's process. In a report issued early this year, it determined that Fannie Mae's management of its network of lawyers did not meet safety and soundness standards. Among the reasons: the company's controls to prevent or detect foreclosure abuses were inadequate, as was the company's monitoring of the law firms. "If a law firm self-reported no issues as it processed cases," the inspector general said, "then Fannie Mae presumed the firm was doing a good job." The agency is still deciding how to handle the lawyer network, the inspector general said.

Officials at the housing agency have agreed with the recommendations in the inspector general's report. Corinne Russell, a spokeswoman for F.H.F.A. said the agency was concluding its supervisory work in this area and would direct Fannie Mae to take necessary action when the work was completed.

In a response, the agency said that by Sept. 29, 2012, it would review its existing supervisory practices and act to resolve "deficiencies in the management of risks associated with default-related legal services vendors."

If you are having problems with a loan or foreclosure, we provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

Many people in Northern California are having problems with loans on properties that have lost value. Many of the loans contain unfavorable terms. The lending practices of the various lenders has come under increasing scrutiny by the 50 State Attorneys General and the Depatment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies. If you have a loan that you cannot afford, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy may help you keep the property. You should consult with a bankuptcy attorney regarding your options.

According to a news article in Bloomberg Businessweek , a Sept. 30 report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's inspector general. Kelly Anderson, a HUD regional inspector general, recommended the agency pursue legal remedies against Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America. Anderson wrote in the audit, "Countrywide did not properly verify, analyze, or support borrowers' employment and income, source of funds to close, liabilities and credit information. This noncompliance occurred because Countrywide's underwriters did not exercise due diligence in underwriting the loans."

According to the report, half of 14 loans reviewed had "material underwriting deficiencies" concerning borrowers that resulted in more than $720,000 in losses. The lender should perform a review of all mortgages that defaulted within the first six months of their creation, implement a quality-control program, and repay the government for the $720,000 in losses, according to the HUD report.

The Federal Housing Administration, run by HUD, insures mortgages on loans to borrowers who can't find traditional financing, such as those with low incomes. Lenders can ask the FHA to cover losses if borrowers default. The agency has stepped up scrutiny of those claims, and denials could be the next wave of expenses tied to faulty mortgages for lenders including Bank of America, FBR Capital Markets Corp. according to the FHA.

Bank of America Corp. should face fraud proceedings after its Countrywide unit submitted faulty data to back up claims for reimbursement on federally insured mortgages, according to an audit by a U.S. watchdog.

According to Paul Miller, FBR's banking analyst, "These loans were put together really sloppy. There were problems with the loans and the servicing. They can go after these banks as much as they want. The issue is, how deep do they want to go?"

Bank of America, which bought Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2008, may be among the biggest losers if its claims are rejected, according to Miller. HUD's inspector general identified 4,050 Countrywide loans originated between July 1, 2008, and May 26, 2009, that were at least 60 days overdue within their first six mortgage payments.
CitiMortgage, a unit of Citigroup Inc., was faulted in a separate inspector general's report. A review of 68 loans showed the firm, led by Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit, 54, improperly submitted claims of almost $5 million, which should be returned to HUD, according to the audit, which covered 2010.

That case stems from an FHA program that let borrowers in default sell their homes to satisfy mortgage debts to New York- based Citigroup, even if the proceeds were less than the total owed. The FHA compensated the bank for the difference between the sale price and the debt, according to the report.

"Citi did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that it properly determined borrower eligibility to participate in the program," according to the report.

If you are having problems with a loan and your bank is threatening foreclosure, you should consult with a bankruptcy attorney. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

If you live in Northern California and you are having a problem with your lender, Chapter 13 bankruptcy may help you keep the property. A Chapter 13 bankruptcy can create a payment plan to pay loan arrearages and to strip second and third loans that are unsecured. A number of homeowners have been challenging foreclosures nationally based on their bank's use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). MERS is a private electronic database, operated by MERS-CORP, Inc., that tracks the transfer of the "beneficial interest" in home loans, as well as any changes in loan servicers. After a borrower takes out a home loan, the original lender may sell all or a portion of its beneficial interest in the loan and change loan servicers. The owner of the beneficial interest is entitled to repayment of the loan.

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled on a case where the plaintiffs questioned the legal right to foreclose a loan that is transfered in the MERS system. The case is CERVANTES v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 2011 DJDAR 13682. This is a putative class action case challenging origination and foreclosure procedures for home loans maintained within MERS. The plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged conspiracies by their lenders and others to use MERS to commit fraud. They also alleged that their lenders violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522, and committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by targeting the plaintiffs for loans they could not repay. The plaintiffs were denied leave to file their proposed Second Amended Complaint, and to add a new claim for wrongful foreclosure based upon the operation of the MERS system.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the sufficiency of some of their claims, but primarily contended that they could cure any pleading deficiencies with a newly amended complaint, which would include a claim for wrongful foreclosure. The Ninth Circuit was unpersuaded that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to support their claims. Although the plaintiffs alleged that aspects of the MERS system were fraudulent, they could not establish that they were misinformed about the MERS system, relied on any misinformation in entering into their home loans, or were injured as a result of the misinformation. If anything, the allegations suggested that the plaintiffs were informed of the exact aspects of the MERS system that they complained about when they agreed to enter into their home loans. Further, although the plaintiffs contended that they could state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, Arizona state law does not currently recognize this cause of action, and their claim was, in any case, without a basis. The plaintiffs' claim depended upon the conclusion that any home loan within the MERS system is unenforceable through a foreclosure sale, but the Court determined that conclusion was unsupported by the facts and law on which they relied. Because the plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible basis for relief on these and their other claims raised on appeal, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend.

If you are having problems with your lender and you are facing a foreclosure in Northern California you should seek advice from legal counsel. We provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.

In Northern California a number of homeowners are suffering from declining home values and loans that are not affordable. If you have a loan that is going into foreclosure, bankruptcy may help you keep your loan. You should consult with a bankruptcy attorney.

According to the Washington Post, a whistleblower lawsuit alleges some of the nation's biggest banks and mortgage companies have defrauded veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by disguising illegal fees in veterans' home refinancing loans.

The lawsuit was recently unsealed in federal court in Atlanta. The lawsuit accuses the companies, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage, of engaging in "a brazen scheme to defraud both our nation's veterans and the United States treasury" of millions of dollars in connection with home loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The lawsuit was filed under the False Claims Act by two mortgage brokers in Georgia, and has been under federal seal since it was filed in 2006 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Cases brought under the act often remain under seal for years while they are investigated. Victor E. Bibby, one of the plaintiffs, is president and chief executive of U.S. Financial Services, a Georgia-based corporation that provides mortgage services in seven states. As brokers, Bibby and the company's vice president of operations, Brian J. Donnelly, helped veterans choose lenders and complete the application forms. Since 2001, their company has helped set up thousands of the veterans' refinancing loans, according to the suit.

In 2005, Donnelly said he read the rules in a VA handbook governing the fees that could be charged for the transactions, which are known as Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans, or IRRRL loans. Donnelly, who served three years in the Army, did further research and said became convinced that the charges were fraudulent. "We knew it was wrong," he said."We started putting two and two together," They're hiding it intentionally. Bibby and Donnelly said they approached the lenders, who insisted they were doing nothing wrong. The brokers reported their allegations to the U.S. government, providing copies of hundreds of "fradulent transactions." Upon filing the whistleblower lawsuit, the court ordered the case sealed.

The whistleblower suit, which was unsealed Monday, seeks to recover damages and civil penalties on behalf of the U.S. government. "This is a massive fraud on the American taxpayers and American veterans," James E. Butler Jr., one of the lawyers bringing the suit, told the Washington Post on Tuesday. Tens of thousands of the VA loans have gone into default or resulted in foreclosures, resulting in "massive damages" to the U.S. government, the suit alleges. The faulty loans will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, with the costs rising as more VA loans go into default, according to the suit.

Under VA rules, lenders can charge veterans for recording fees and taxes, credit reports and other customary fees, but they are not allowed to charge attorney's fees or settlement closing fees. "It was gut-wrenching to us, seeing the brazenness" of the lenders, broker Victor E. Bibby told the Washington Post.

The case involves refinanced loans that are available to retired or active-duty veterans on homes they already own. The program is aimed at giving veterans the opportunity to lower their interest rates or shorten the terms of existing home mortgages.
The Justice Department has notified the U.S. District Court that it is not taking over the case but is reserving the right to intervene at a later date, according to court papers.

Other companies named as defendants include CitiMortgage, Washington Mutual Bank, PNC Bank (which acquired National City Mortgage), Countrywide Home Loans, Mortgage Investors, First Tennessee Bank (which acquired First Horizon Home Loan), Irwin Mortgage and New Freedom Mortgage.

If you have concerns about your loan, are facing foreclosure and considering a bankruptcy, we provide free legal consultations for bankruptcy in San Francisco County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Marin County, Solano County and throughout Northern California. Contact us for a free legal consultation today.