If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's mortgage mod plan lets banksters reject borrowers and auction their houses without any written notification

Man, I am so glad that we elected a real progressive with the interests of the little guy at heart. Aren't you? McClatchy, of course, has the story:

Ten months after the Obama administration began pressing lenders to do more to prevent foreclosures, many struggling homeowners are holding up their end of the bargain but still find themselves rejected, and some are even having their homes sold out from under them without notice.

Jeebus. There's throwing people under the bus, and then there's throwing people under the bus, eh?

In the fine print of the form homeowners fill out to apply for Obama's program, which lowers monthly payments for three months while the lender decides whether to provide permanent relief, borrowers must waive important notification rights.

This clause allows banks to reject borrowers without any written notification and move straight to auctioning off their homes without any warning.

How could any party that claims to defend the interests of ordinary working families allow a clause like that? Oh, wait....

That's what happened to Evangelina Flores, the owner of a modest 902 square-foot home in Fontana, Calif. She completed a three-month trial modification, and made the last of the agreed upon monthly payments of $1,134.60 on Nov. 1. Her lawyer said that in late November, Central Mortgage Company told her that it would void her adjustable-rate mortgage, which had risen to a monthly sum above $2,000, and replace it with a fixed-rate mortgage.

"The information they had given us is that she had qualified and that she would be getting her notice of modification in the first week of December," said George Bosch, the legal administrator for the law firm of Edward Lopez and Rick Gaxiola, which is handling Flores' case for free.

Flores, 58, a self-employed child care worker, wired her December payment to Central Mortgage Company on Nov. 30, thinking that her prayers had been answered. A day later, there was a loud, aggressive knock on her door.

Thinking a relative was playing a prank, she opened her front door to find two strangers handing her an eviction notice.

"They arrived real demanding, saying that they were the owners," recalled Flores. "I have high blood pressure, and I felt awful."

Court documents show that her house had been sold that very morning to a recently created company, Shark Investments.

"Shark Investments." I like that.

NOTE Is Obama some kind of mole? A Manchurian candidate? Is he trying to make sure that nobody ever trusts the government again? Because now everybody who applied for this program should lawyer up -- with more of the money they already don't have.

UPDATE Picked up by Yves!

No votes yet


Z's picture
Submitted by Z on

... which tells all you need to know about who this administration dutifully serves.

I'm starting to think that maybe mccain might have been better than this scumbag as long someone could have kept his itchy trigger fingers off of the button.


Submitted by gmanedit on

"Is Obama some kind of mole? A Manchurian candidate? Is he trying to make sure that nobody ever trusts the government again?"


Stirling Newberry predicted this several years ago: the impoverishment of Americans to reduce their carbon use. Peak Oil, y'know.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

a borrower's only chance is to go for a "produce the note" strategy.

Obama is a really really really bad actor.

Opossum's picture
Submitted by Opossum on

The "produce the note" tactic is a beautiful benefit of the mortgage meltdown, about the only one that's good for regular folks (the other being actually-affordable housing).

But actually their best option is to walk--it's Christmas, do the jingle-mail bit. Mail in the keys, walk, and stick the bastards with their overpriced crapshack, and just go rent somewhere. Renters can get really good deals now, housing affordability is a major plus of the mortgage meltdown. There are plenty of people taking this route, although there are also plenty of scolders who will whine about "moral hazard" and solemnly inform you that you have a moral obligation to pay these jerkoffs--tell'em to stuff it and read the contract, it says you can pay the mortgage OR give them back the house, and you choose to exercise option B. It's all legal and stuff.

MoveThatBus's picture
Submitted by MoveThatBus on

I remember election day when people in the Chicago area were over-joyed and declaring they would never again have to worry about whether they could make their mortgage payments. I don't think this is what they had in mind.