Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

524(c)(1) requires the reaffirmation to be made before discharge.
524(c)(6) provides that if an attorneydoesn't representa debtor in the reaffirmation of a consumer debt secured by real property then the court doesn't need to approve.
Cliff's approach sounds reasonable for aloan covered by CCP 580, but that approach requires taking time to evaluatetheloan to determine if it qualifiesfor anti-deficiency protection.
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
On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:26 PM, "Clifford Bordeaux cliff@bordeauxlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
I send them the article I wrote on this topic for the CDCBAA newsletter (October, 2013 edition). This lays out the explanation and may give you some credibility in explaining to your client that you are not the only attorney who thinks that reaffs on mortgages are usually a bad idea. I think the downside of reaffirming is that even though the debtor can not be exposed to a deficiency, per 580b, they could still end up wanting to surrender the property if it is underwater (or nearly so). If they reaffirm, then miss payments, allow the property to go to foreclosure, or otherwise default, they are faced with the possibility of ruining their postbankruptcy credit score and jeopardizing the fresh start.
All that said, I am about to sign off on one because: (1) debtor is willing to pay me to review and prepare the reaff, consider the hardship issue and sign off on it; (2) lender is Wells Fargo and they seem to be requiring it as a prerequisite to consideration for a loan mod; and (3) debtor has close to $100K of equity, so risk of the loan going "upside down" is minimal.
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>I believe that this topic has been briefly discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again as it continues to be a frustrating issue for me and some of my clients. Typical chapter 7 case where debtors intend to retain their residence. No reaffirmation is filed (none is received from the mortgage company but none is requested either). Case is discharged and closed.
>
>Months and sometimes years later, Debtor calls me up after having a conversation with their mortgage company. Debtor says various things, ot rebuilding my credit, my mortgage company will not refinance me. Of course, they are all told that they needed to reaffirm the mortgage and it is the fault of their attorney that it wasn>
>I have typically the explained what reaffirming is and that it is not necessary to retain the property and that judges dont like reaffirmations of mortgages because it goes against the bankruptcy policies of a fresh start. I also explain that any reaffirmations that we receive, we contact client and explain pros and cons of reaffirming, but mortgage companies rarely send us reaffirmations (unlike auto finance companies). Also, the case has already been discharged and canbut typically arent happy about the situation.
>
>I typically also tell client that we can try to reopen the case, but it will cost some money and it is a crap shoot of whether judge will allow it.fault) is not great for referral business.
>
>I assume that others have encountered this frustrating situation and I am wondering if anyone has some better ideas on how to handle.
>
>This has also caused me to rethink my position altogether on reaffirming first mortgages. Generally, I have been against it, but maybe it is a good idea to do it. I see very little downside in California, where clients wouldnt be subject to any deficiency on a foreclosed first mortgage (deed of trust) in a standard non-judicial foreclosure. If reaffirming a mortgage helps client rebuild credit after discharge and/or aids in refinancing AND there is little to no downside or risk to the client, why not do it? Am I missing something?
>
>Has anyone had success getting court to reopen cases and approve reaffirmations after discharge? If so, I would appreciate if you can cite a few case numbers or share a sample.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>Frank X. Ruggier
>Price Law Group, APC
>15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
>Encino, CA 91436
>Direct: (818) 205-2406
>Fax: (818) 907-2106
>http://www.pricelawgroup.com/
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I send them the article I wrote on this topic for the CDCBAA newsletter
(October, 2013 edition). This lays out the explanation and may give you
some credibility in explaining to your client that you are not the only
attorney who thinks that reaffs on mortgages are usually a bad idea. I
think the downside of reaffirming is that even though the debtor can not be
exposed to a deficiency, per 580b, they could still end up wanting to
surrender the property if it is underwater (or nearly so). If they
reaffirm, then miss payments, allow the property to go to foreclosure, or
otherwise default, they are faced with the possibility of ruining their
postbankruptcy credit score and jeopardizing the fresh start.
All that said, I am about to sign off on one because: (1) debtor is
willing to pay me to review and prepare the reaff, consider the hardship
issue and sign off on it; (2) lender is Wells Fargo and they seem to be
requiring it as a prerequisite to consideration for a loan mod; and (3)
debtor has close to $100K of equity, so risk of the loan going "upside
down" is minimal.
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90010
T: 323-762-5529
T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820
E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I believe that this topic has been briefly discussed before, but I wanted
> to bring it up again as it continues to be a frustrating issue for me and
> some of my clients. Typical chapter 7 case where debtors intend to retain
> their residence. No reaffirmation is filed (none is received from the
> mortgage company but none is requested either). Case is discharged and
> closed.
>
>
>
> Months and sometimes years later, Debtor calls me up after having a
> conversation with their mortgage company. Debtor says various things, > am not getting any credit for the payments I am making, > company isnt reporting my payments and I am not rebuilding my credit, my
> mortgage company will not refinance me. Of course, they are all told that
> they needed to reaffirm the mortgage and it is the fault of their attorney
> that it wasnt done.
>
>
>
> I have typically the explained what reaffirming is and that it is not
> necessary to retain the property and that judges dont like reaffirmations
> of mortgages because it goes against the bankruptcy policies of a > start. I also explain that any reaffirmations that we receive, we contact
> client and explain pros and cons of reaffirming, but mortgage companies
> rarely send us reaffirmations (unlike auto finance companies). Also, the
> case has already been discharged and cant file reaffirmation now, etc.
> The clients somewhat understand but typically arent happy about the
> situation.
>
>
>
> I typically also tell client that we can try to reopen the case, but it
> will cost some money and it is a crap shoot of whether judge will allow
> it. Almost most decide not to do it but still arent happy. Having
> clients with unhappy experiences (even if it isnt your fault) is not great
> for referral business.
>
>
>
> I assume that others have encountered this frustrating situation and I am
> wondering if anyone has some better ideas on how to handle.
>
>
>
> This has also caused me to rethink my position altogether on reaffirming
> first mortgages. Generally, I have been against it, but maybe it is a good
> idea to do it. I see very little downside in California, where clients
> wouldnt be subject to any deficiency on a foreclosed first mortgage (deed
> of trust) in a standard non-judicial foreclosure. If reaffirming a
> mortgage helps client rebuild credit after discharge and/or aids in
> refinancing AND there is little to no downside or risk to the client, why
> not do it? Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> Has anyone had success getting court to reopen cases and approve
> reaffirmations after discharge? If so, I would appreciate if you can cite
> a few case numbers or share a sample.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank X. Ruggier
> Price Law Group, APC
> 15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
> Encino, CA 91436
> Direct: (818) 205-2406
> Fax: (818) 907-2106
> www.pricelawgroup.com
>
>
>
>
>
I send them the article I wrote on this topic for the CDCBAA newsletter (October, 2013 edition). This lays out the explanation and may give you some credibility in explaining to your client that you are not the only attorney who thinks that reaffs on mortgages are usually a bad idea. I think the downside of reaffirming is that even though the debtor can not be exposed to a deficiency, per 580b, they could still end up wanting to surrender the property if it is underwater (or nearly so). osure, or otherwise default, they are faced with the possibility of ruining their postbankruptcy credit score and jeopardizing the fresh start.
All that said, I am about to sign off on one because: (1) debtor is willing to pay me to review and prepare the reaff, consider the hardship issue and sign off on it; (2) lender is Wells Fargo and they seem to be requiring it as a prerequisite to consideration for a loan mod; and (3) debtor has close to $100K of equity, so risk of the loan going "upside down" is minimal.
Clifford BordeauxBordeaux Law, P.C.3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600Los Angeles, CA 90010T: 323-762-5529T: 626-405-2345
F: 626-628-1820E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Frank Ruggier frank@pricelawgroup.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I believe that this topic has been briefly discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again as it continues to be a frustrating issue for me and some of my clients. Typical chapter 7 case where debtors intend to retain their residence. No reaffirmation is filed (none is received from the mortgage company but none is requested either). Case is discharged and closed.
Months and sometimes years later, Debtor calls me up after having a conversation with their mortgage company. Debtor says various things, I am not getting any credit for the payments I am making, my mortgage company isnt reporting my payments and I am not rebuilding my credit, my mortgage company will not refinance methe mortgage and it is the fault of their attorney that it wasnt done.
I have typically the explained what reaffirming is and that it is not necessary to retain the property and that judges dont like reaffirmations of mortgages because it goes against the bankruptcy policies of a at we receive, we contact client and explain pros and cons of reaffirming, but mortgage companies rarely send us reaffirmations (unlike auto finance companies). Also, the case has already been discharged and can typically arent happy about the situation.
I typically also tell client that we can try to reopen the case, but it will cost some money and it is a crap shoot of whether judge will allow it. Almost most decide not to do it but still arent happy. Having clients with unhappy experiences (even if it isnt your fault) is not great for referral business.
I assume that others have encountered this frustrating situation and I am wondering if anyone has some better ideas on how to handle.
This has also caused me to rethink my position altogether on reaffirming first mortgages. Generally, I have been against it, but maybe it is a good idea to do it. I see very little downside in California, where clients wouldnt be subject to any deficiency on a foreclosed first mortgage (deed of trust) in a standard non-judicial foreclosure. If reaffirming a mortgage helps client rebuild credit after discharge and/or aids in refinancing AND there is little to no downside or risk to the client, why not do it? Am I missing something?
Has anyone had success getting court to reopen cases and approve reaffirmations after discharge? If so, I would appreciate if you can cite a few case numbers or share a sample.
Thanks,Frank
Frank X. RuggierPrice Law Group, APC15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100Encino, CA 91436Direct:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I believe that this topic has been briefly discussed before, but I wanted to bring it up again as it continues to be a frustrating issue for me and some of my clients. Typical chapter 7 case where debtors intend to retain their residence. No reaffirmation is filed (none is received from the mortgage company but none is requested either). Case is discharged and closed.
Months and sometimes years later, Debtor calls me up after having a conversation with their mortgage company. Debtor says various things, "I am not getting any credit for the payments I am making", "my mortgage company isn't reporting my payments and I am not rebuilding my credit", "my mortgage company will not refinance me". Of course, they are all told that they needed to reaffirm the mortgage and it is the fault of their attorney that it wasn't done.
I have typically the explained what reaffirming is and that it is not necessary to retain the property and that judges don't like reaffirmations of mortgages because it goes against the bankruptcy policies of a "fresh start". I also explain that any reaffirmations that we receive, we contact client and explain pros and cons of reaffirming, but mortgage companies rarely send us reaffirmations (unlike auto finance companies). Also, the case has already been discharged and can't file reaffirmation now, etc. The clients somewhat understand but typically aren't happy about the situation.
I typically also tell client that we can try to reopen the case, but it will cost some money and it is a crap shoot of whether judge will allow it. Almost most decide not to do it but still aren't happy. Having clients with unhappy experiences (even if it isn't your fault) is not great for referral business.
I assume that others have encountered this frustrating situation and I am wondering if anyone has some better ideas on how to handle.
This has also caused me to rethink my position altogether on reaffirming first mortgages. Generally, I have been against it, but maybe it is a good idea to do it. I see very little downside in California, where clients wouldn't be subject to any deficiency on a foreclosed first mortgage (deed of trust) in a standard non-judicial foreclosure. If reaffirming a mortgage helps client rebuild credit after discharge and/or aids in refinancing AND there is little to no downside or risk to the client, why not do it? Am I missing something?
Has anyone had success getting court to reopen cases and approve reaffirmations after discharge? If so, I would appreciate if you can cite a few case numbers or share a sample.
Thanks,
Frank
Frank X. Ruggier
Price Law Group, APC
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1100
Encino, CA 91436
Direct: (818) 205-2406
Fax: (818) 907-2106
www.pricelawgroup.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.