Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I have had personal experience with Wells Fargo treating a refinance as a
new loan: they were requiring my client to get a subordination of an IRS
lien notice to their loan modification. IRS refused, saying that it
doesn't subordinate to a refinance of an existing loan, but Wells Fargo
insisted that the transaction was actually a new loan to record (although
it wouldn't produce the purported new loan documents for signing or
subordination). The experience was so irrational that I fully expect that
Wells Fargo will take the position that a reaffirmation creates personal
liability where it didn't exist before.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates
*818/889-8080*
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:33 AM, cdcbaa wrote:
> **
>
>
> Shannon, et al:
>
> Is a reaff a refinance? I take it you are saying that a purchase money
> loan, when reaffirmed, becomes a personal liability? If none of the terms
> are changed?
> Isn't a reaff just a statement that the debtor continues to agree to pay?
> That seems substantially different than a new loan taking out an old loan.
>
> What are the requirements for losing the purchase money designation?
> There is no new money loaned when the reaff is signed.
>
> I don't know the answer.
>
> Lou, anyone else know?
>
> D
>
> "Anti" is a prefix. Antideficiency
>
> On May 6, 2013, at 10:07 AM, "Shannon Doyle" wrote:
>
>
>
> What if the reaffirmation includes the loan modification? Not just a
> promise of a loan modification but as part of the reaffirmation agreement
> itself. I suspect the banks are using the lack of reaffirmation agreement
> as an excuse for denying the loan mod. In any event, it still violates
> California anti-deficiency laws so even if debtor gets a loan mod as a
> result of reaffirming but still cant pay the mortgage, they are now in a
> position where they have signed personal liability for the loan.****
>
> ** **
>
> Shannon A. Doyle****
>
> Attorney at Law****
>
> ****
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250****
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600****
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555****
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644****
>
> www.blclaw.com ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Havkin Stella
> *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2013 8:13 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> I have helped at the reaffirmation hearings for several years. I can tell
> you that the Valley judges, will not reaffirm mortgages. I only saw two
> in two years and they involved principal reductions. So definitely an
> issue. I will tell the judges this month. See what they say.****
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: May 3, 2013 7:42 PM
> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
>
> Stella:
>
> This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our
> clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
> We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
> dennis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
> > I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several
> years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting
> that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before
> they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to
> happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a
> reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of
> violation under the new program?
> >
> > Stella Havkin
> >
> >
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
I have had personal experience with Wells Fargo treating a refinance as a new loan: they were requiring my client to get a subordination of an IRS lien notice to their loan modification. IRS refused, saying that it doesn't subordinate to a refinance of an existing loan, but Wells Fargo insisted that the transaction was actually a new loan to record (although it wouldn't produce the purported new loan documents for signing or subordination). The experience was so irrational that I fully expect that Wells Fargo will take the position that a reaffirmation creates personal liability where it didn't exist before.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates818/889-8080
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:33 AM, cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Shannon, et al:
Is a reaff a refinance? I take it you are saying that a purchase money loan, when reaffirmed, becomes a personal liability? If none of the terms are changed?
Isn't a reaff just a statement that the debtor continues to agree to pay? That seems substantially different than a new loan taking out an old loan.
What are the requirements for losing the purchase money designation? There is no new money loaned when the reaff is signed.
I don't know the answer.
Lou, anyone else know?
D
"Anti" is a prefix. Antideficiency
On May 6, 2013, at 10:07 AM, "Shannon Doyle" wrote:
> What if the reaffirmation includes the loan modification? Not just a promise of a loan modification but as part of the reaffirmation agreement itself. I suspect the banks are using the lack of reaffirmation agreement as an excuse for denying the loan mod. In any event, it still violates California anti-deficiency laws so even if debtor gets a loan mod as a result of reaffirming but still cant pay the mortgage, they are now in a position where they have signed personal liability for the loan.
>
>
>
> Shannon A. Doyle
>
> Attorney at Law
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.blclaw.com
>
>
>
Havkin Stella
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:13 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
>
>
>
>
>
> I have helped at the reaffirmation hearings for several years. I can tell you that the Valley judges, will not reaffirm mortgages. I only saw two in two years and they involved principal reductions. So definitely an issue. I will tell the judges this month. See what they say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: May 3, 2013 7:42 PM
> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
>
> Stella:
>
> This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
> We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
> dennis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
> > I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program?
> >
> > Stella Havkin
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

There is probably a very good reason why not..... but couldn't we have
client offer reaffirmation to the extent they are willing to accept
modification of the loan? This way if they do not object to the
reaffirmation as proposed, then despite the fact that you are technically
not allowed to modify the rights of primary residence first lienholder,
their acceptance of the reaffirmation could hold some meaning that a
contract continues to be in play which has not been rejected but the terms
are disputed?
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and
confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If
you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute,
store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
> **
>
>
> Stella:
>
> This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put
> our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
> We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
> dennis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
>
>
> I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several
> years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting
> that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before
> they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to
> happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a
> reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of
> violation under the new program?
>
> Stella Havkin
>
>
>
There is probably a very good reason why not..... but couldn't we have client offer reaffirmation to the extent they are willing to accept modification of the loan? This way if they do not object to the reaffirmation as proposed, then despite the fact that you are technically not allowed to modify the rights of primary residence first lienholder, their acceptance of the reaffirmation could hold some meaning that a contract continues to be in play which has not been rejected but the terms are disputed?
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.OFF: (818) 734-7223CEL: (818) 554-9922NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This message contains privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute, store, print, copy or deliver this message. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:42 PM, cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
I am astonished that Wells Fargo of all banks (HQ in San Ffan) doesn't
know that for one's residence, there is no personal liability on a 1st
TD ever under the one form of action rule.
If it's a first TD and WF forecloses, there's no personal liability
anyway, and if they read Spangler v Memel, they would know that they
can't transmute lead into gold.
Gerry
McNally Bus Card Smaller
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended
recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by
law. If you received this email in error, and review, use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly
prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email
and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this
message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S.
tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
charset="US-ASCII"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

At least where attorney doesn't represent the debtor during the course of negotiating the reaffirmation agreement.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
524(c)(6)(B)provides that there is norequirementof court approvalfor reaffirmation of a consumer debt secured by real property.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310)
391-2462
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
Good luck trying to get any of our judges to approve the reaffirmation.Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
(310) 792-5864 MitnickLaw@aol.com
Communications and attachments may be confidential and attorney-client privileged.
On May 3, 2013, at 7:42 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
>Stella:
>
>
>This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
>
>We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
>
>dennis
>
>Sent from my iPad
>On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
>>I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program? Stella Havkin

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

524(c)(6)(B)provides that there is norequirementof court approvalfor reaffirmation of a consumer debt secured by real property.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2013 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
Good luck trying to get any of our judges to approve the reaffirmation.Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
(310) 792-5864 MitnickLaw@aol.com
Communications and attachments may be confidential and attorney-client privileged.
On May 3, 2013, at 7:42 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
>Stella:
>
>
>This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
>
>We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
>
>dennis
>
>Sent from my iPad
>On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
>>I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program?
>>
>>Stella Havkin
>>
>>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}I have helped at the reaffirmation hearings for several years. I can tell you that the Valley judges, will not reaffirm mortgages. I only saw two in two years and they involved principal reductions. So definitely an issue. I will tell the judges this month. See what they say.-----Original Message-----
Sent: May 3, 2013 7:42 PM
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Wells Fargo Home Reaffirmation
Stella:This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.dennisSent from my iPadOn May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:> I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program?> > Stella Havkin > >
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Good luck trying to get any of our judges to approve the reaffirmation.
Sent from my iPhone
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
(310) 792-5864 MitnickLaw@aol.com
Communications and attachments may be confidential and attorney-client privileged.
On May 3, 2013, at 7:42 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
> Stella:
>
> This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
>
> We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
>
> dennis
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
>
>>
>> I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program?
>>
>> Stella Havkin
>>
>
>
Good luck trying to get any of our judges to approve the reaffirmation. Sent from my iPhoneLaw Office of Eric Alan Mitnick (310) 792-5864
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Stella:
This is an interesting problem for us. When we do not reaffirm, we put our clients in the position that they do not have any contract to modify.
We need to rethink if we are going to tell people to reaffirm mortgages.
dennis
Sent from my iPad
On May 3, 2013, at 1:18 PM, "Stella" wrote:
> I am getting calls from clients who were dischraged in Chapter 7 several years back and who are trying to modify their home loans. WF is insisting that they reopen their bankrupties and get a reaffirmation approved before they modify their loans. I keep telling my clients that it is not going to happen, but WF is insisting and will not modify the loans without a reffirmation. Is anyone experiencing the same thing? Is this some sort of violation under the new program?
>
> Stella Havkin
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.