.jpg)
Reaffermations
My office typically provides conduit services between the creditors and my clients, but I don't sign the agreement itself.
We track the agreements to make sure that they get back to the creditors and that the creditor files them with the court. We make sure the clients know when and where to go for the hearing - several reminders as usual for client hearings.
We send the agreement to my clients with my very detailed letter reiterating what I previously explained before filing their cases - why they should go through processing the agreement and appearing at the hearing.
The biggest problem I've experienced is being ordered to personally appear with my client in Riverside at 8:30am for a hearing on a creditor's motion for approval of the agreement, despite having not signed the agreement or agreeing to represent the client in that matter.
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 Monday, March 4, 2019, 2:49:07 PM PST, easky1@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
I got a signal from one of our judges that the courts may be trying to standardize how lawyers are to be handling reaffirmations:
Can we get a conssensus?
How many don't due reaffs?
How many do them for each client?
How many just do reaffs if the bank send over a reaff?
What are the problems, from a lawyers point of view, with reaffs?
I find that mortgages are the worst. They send over a stupid letter instead of any agreement one can forward to a client, then refuse to refi a balloon if a reaff was not done. I advise clients not to reaffirm and to apply for a new loan at another bank if there is a balloon, but often get blowback from clients. e.g. "The bank said you should have negotiated a reaf".
Please respond by March 20, 2019
The post was migrated from Yahoo.