Personal

Explore

Lawsuits

Reverse Mortgage Funding
Reverse Mortgage Funding

January 29, 2023

They have no incentive to withdraw the case.

RESPA Lawsuit

I need to research this.

Full Contingency

Linda is the the only plaintiff not me and is filing.

This is a lawsuit at the federal court.

FDCPA

I need to understand this.

January 24, 2023

From Linda

Here are a few developments for you to be aware of in advance of this Friday's mediation and for the case in general.

FIRST, PLAINTIFF IS NO LONGER SERVICER OF THE LOAN. I don't know if they told you this yet, but apparently they switched from Reverse Mortgage Funding to Carrington Mortgage Services at the end of December. They made the switch soon after Reverse Mortgage Funding provided some clearly false responses to our Request for Admissions in mid-December and failed to provide the other outstanding discovery. I don't see any indication in the court record of a Notice of Appearance for Carrington or a request to switch Plaintiffs. [see Uploaded: 2022.12.30 Servicer Transfer Letter]

SECOND, PLAINTIFF DIRECTED A RANDOM THIRD-PARTY COMPANY TO MAKE AN UNAUTHORIZED EARLY PAYMENT OF THE PROPERTY TAXES BEFORE THE SERVICER TRANSFER

Last year, I did not receive an official property tax bill, but didn't think too much of it. When I tried to pay the property taxes online, the system indicated that the property taxes had already been paid by a company called INDUSTRY CONSULTING GROUP. When I contacted the Tax Collector's Office, they told me that INDUSTRY CONSULTING GROUP had requested the bill for the property. The Office said that they had sent them the bill instead of mailing it to the me because the company represented that they were authorized to pay the property taxes early under Florida Law (i.e. that they were our mortgage servicing company AND that we had an escrow account with them with sufficient funds to pay property charges). After I explained that they were not authorized, the Tax Collector Office forwarded me to accounting where I was given a procedure to get this unauthorized charge removed, but haven't done so as of yet. [see Uploaded: 2022 Property Tax Memorandum Notice]

A couple of weeks ago, Carrington Mortgage Services sent an annual reverse mortgage statement. When I took a look at it, I noticed that the exact amount paid by INDSUTRY CONSULTING GROUP had been added to the loan balance on or about 11/23/22. I then realized that Plaintiff was the one who surreptitiously directed INDUSTRY CONSULTING GROUP to request the bill and make the unauthorized early payment on Plaintiff's behalf. The charge was falsely identified as "Payment for Delinquent Taxes". Clearly the property taxes were not delinquent because property taxes do not become delinquent until April 1st following the tax year. [see Uploaded: 2022 Annual Reverse Mortgage Statement]

THIRD, IT APPEARS THAT PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY CHARGED THE ACCOUNT FOR FORCED-PLACE INSURANCE BEFORE THE SERVICER TRANSFER

On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff sent a Notice regarding a lack of property insurance on the property. On July 25th, Plaintiff obtained a forced place policy for the property for $2891. I promptly submitted a personal check in that amount, but Reverse Mortgage Funding rejected it, saying that it had to be in certified funds. Recently, when I looked at the annual reverse mortgage statement submitted by Carrington, although I saw a line item for the aforementioned unauthorized property taxes, I did not see a line item for the Forced Place Insurance Payment, which at the time I believe was authorized. I then pulled the August reverse mortgage statement mailed by Reverse Mortgage Funding last year and saw that the line item was indeed there and had been added to the account on 8/12/22. However, Carrington removed that line item in their annual statement, but kept the actual charges paid for that item. After some investigation, I realized that the likely reason that Carrington removed the line item was because Reverse Mortgage Funding had not complied with Regulation X requirements in order to assess this charge to the account. According to Section 1024.37(d)(1) of Regulation X, before a servicer can charge an account for forced-place insurance, they must place in the mail or deliver to borrower a Second and Final Notice at least 15 days before assessing a charge on the account. Since they assessed the charge on the account on July 25th, they must have placed in the mail or delivered the Second and Final Notice letter no later than July 10th. Although their Second and Final Notice letter is dated July 8th, according to the envelope it came in, they did not place this letter in the mail until July 11th.

Thus, they cannot assess this forced-place insurance charge on the account. It appears that Carrington realized this and surreptitiously removed the line item from their annual statement to hide the nature of the charge, but fraudulently still incorporated the amount of the charge in the current balance due. [see 2022.7.25 Notice of Insurance Requirement; see 2022.7.8 Insurance Second and Final Notice; see 2022.9.6 Reverse Mortgage Statement (August)]

FINALLY, RECENTLY, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES SENT A DEBT VALIDATION LETTER INCORPORATING THE UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES INTO THE LOAN BALANCE

In early January, Carrington sent a debt validation letter demanding full payment of the current balance of the loan. This is the second debt validation letter sent in less than a year - the first was sent by Greenspoon Marder. The amount they claimed was due improperly includes the aforementioned unauthorized charges, which I believe is, at the very least, a FDCPA violation. [2022.1.5 Debt Validation Letter]

WHAT I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IS:

1) How does the service transfer affect our ability to mediate this Friday?

2) I plan on promptly submitting a 2nd RESPA Notice of Error/Request for Information regarding these mistakes and other mistakes including the filing of the Complaint; however, I would like to know what you and your RESPA counsel think of these new developments as well as the claims I presented last year regarding my 1st RESPA Notice of Error/Request for Information

3) I plan on promptly submitting a response to Carrington's Debt Validation Letter; however, I wanted to know what you and your counsel think of these new developments as well as the claims I presented last year regarding the 1st Debt Validation Letter. My understanding is that FDCPA claims have only a 1 year Statute of Limitations and I believe that time will run out on or about March 8th of this year because the first Debt Validation Letter is dated 3/8/22.

February 16, 2023

Scott Griffith, attorney for Reverse Mortgage

Naomi Potash, mediator 414.429.8047

Dion Kala of Celink which is the servicer on the loan

Jonathan Benjamin, our attorney

⁠

Naomi: Can’t discuss with outsiders about what’s discussed in the mediation.

Scott: Can’t modify the loan and can not negotiate on the loan with us. Short Payoff on a reverse mortgage 95% of the current accessed value. $340,600 is the value from Zillow. $218,000 left on the loan. There is equity in the property.

Dion: Carrington is trying to be the Master servicer. Celink would continue as servicer on the loan even if Carrington takes over.

⁠

We went into a breakroom with our attorney.

Short Payoff is what the bank does if the house is underwater. We have a HUD reverse mortgage loan. Jon suggests offering $200,000 and we would have to pay it within 30 days. No loan modification. Our plan is to go into refinance and we’re not ready to do that now. The house does have over $100,00 in equity. [Refinance doesn’t apply to us since we are not on the original loan.]

Rocket Mortgage or Quicken Mortgage [ suggestions from Jon]

If they don’t assign the loan correctly, it’s easier for banks to win due to Miami Dade county tracking with Federal on summary judgements. Broward use to be easier to win, but now it’s harder according to Jon.

Michelle is the council of record.

⁠

We leave our breakout session and resume with the plaintiff’s attorney and servicer.

⁠

They will want to see cancelled checks for payments for the taxes and insurance. If we can produce them to Scott and Michelle, it will reduced what’s owed, but we are still in default due to Mummy’s death. [At least that’s what the plaintiff attorneys are stating.]

⁠

In a phone conversation later with Linda, she talked about her strategy. She wants to fight them and feels our attorney is just steering us to settle.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP