Ftc Mars Advance Fees on Loan Mods

8/8/2019 Ftc Mars Advance Fees on Loan Mods

1/17

6tweets

retweet

Tuesday 23rd November

HomeRSS feed

HomeNice ThingsIn The Niche ReportIN THE NEWSTrusted AttorneysBumper Stickers

Order ConfirmationSUBSCRIBECONTACT

Home FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule Regulates LoanModifications Nationwide

FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With NewMARS Rule Regulates Loan Modifications

Nationwide

Page 1 of 17FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule Regulates Loan Modificati...

11/23/2010http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/11/ftc-moves-to-protect-homeowners-with-new-...


2/17

Formally, its called Title 16 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 322, for Mortgage Assistance ReliefServices. Informally, its called MARS. And for mortgage brokers engaged in helping homeownersobtain loan modifications, its pretty much the end of the line nationwide.

Attorneys, however, are largely exempted from the new rule.

The Final Rule therefore permits attorneys who provide MARS as part of theirprovision of legal services to collect advance fees if, in compliance with applicable statelaws and licensing regulations, the attorney deposits such payments into a client trustaccount and draws on them as work is performed.

In fact, in California specifically, where there is already a state law governing advance fees, known asSB 94, lawyers will see very little change when the new FTC rule takes effect at the end of thiscalendar year. The new rule allows lawyers to accept an advance fee, but mandates that the amountsbe placed in the attorneys trust account and only withdrawn as earned, and that does represent achange, although I would think, not an insurmountable one.

The California State Bar has interpreted SB 94 to prohibit the use of trust accounts in conjunctionwith the acceptance of advance fees as related to providing loan modification services, and it doesntappear that the FTCs new rule will do anything to preempt that interpretation.

Actually, it gets a bit complicated. The FTCs new rule says the exemption to the rule for attorneys issubject to state laws, and the State Bars interpretation of SB 94 is not actually a law, but with thepenalty for non-compliance being a criminal matter, no one has tested the Bars interpretation in acourt of law. So, for now suffice it to say that attorneys will continue to practice in this area as theyhave been since SB 94 was signed into law on October 12, 2009.

As far as mortgage and real estate brokers in California are concerned, the new FTC rule just makes a

bad situation much worse. There arent many real estate and mortgage professionals offering to assistconsumers with loan modifications, as SB 94 made it illegal to accept payment for services until aloan modification has been obtained, or the homeowner is formally denied by the lender, I suppose,and that can mean not getting paid for an awful lot of work for up to and even beyond a year in somecases.

As you might imagine, thats a pretty effective deterrent to Californias mortgage and real estatebrokers being that business, but the new rule goes even further, and applies to all non-attorneysnationwide, prohibiting payment for services until the homeowner receives a written offer to modify




3/17

his or her loan from the lender or servicer, and the homeowner ACCEPTS the deal. Under the newrule, if the homeowner says no thanks, the mortgage or real estate broker gets nothing.

Im sorry, but its kind of funny when you think about it. Since no one in this country can predictwhat any of the banks are going to do tomorrow, let alone six months or a year from now, and whenyou consider the percentage of homeowners that are likely to be dissatisfied with the banks offer andtherefore say no in the end, and then factor in the percentage of homeowners who wont or cant pay

the bill at the end of the process for whatever reason the only way the business makes any sense isif you were to charge something like $100,000 for the modification and then be ready to file a law suitto collect, and perhaps at best end up with a lien on a property that is, by definition, seriouslyunderwater. Yeah baby sign me up for that on Career Day.

In the summary to the Commissions Final Rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose, it states that itgoverns the practices of for-profit companies that, in exchange for a fee, offer to work on behalf ofconsumers to help them obtain modifications to the terms of mortgage loans or to avoid foreclosureon those loans.

It also states that, among other things, the Final Rule:

Prohibits providers of such mortgage assistance relief services from making false or misleadingclaims;

1.

Mandates that providers disclose certain information about these services;2.Bars the collection of advance fees for these services;3.Prohibits anyone from providing substantial assistance or support to another they know orconsciously avoid knowing is engaged in a violation of the Rule;

4.

And imposes recordkeeping and compliance requirements.5.

The FTCs Final Rule will go into effect on December 29, 2010, with the exception of 322.5, whichis the section that bars the collection of advance fees, or as described in the text of the new rule:Prohibition on Collection of Advance Fees and Related Disclosures. That aspect of the Final Rule

doesnt take effect until a month later on January 31, 2011.

I read the 180-page document three times see what I go through and as I read, I got theimpression that the rationale behind the advance fee ban not becoming effective until a month afterthe rest of the rule takes effect is to provide companies with a little extra time to comply with thevarious requirements, such as the new disclosure and record keeping requirements. Then towards thevery end, I found this:

The Commission is providing MARS providers an additional month after the effectivedate of the other provisions of the Rule because compliance with the advance fee banmay entail substantial adjustments to many providers operations.

This is hysterical, in terms of its real life impact, because I cannot imagine even a single non-attorneystaying in business under the new rule. As a result, the only impact of the extra month is likely to bean extra month for scammers to rip-off homeowners. But I digress.

Look, Ive met two of the key guys at the FTC related to this issue, Tom Pahl and Joel Winston. InJanuary of 2010, I was a speaker, alongside Tom Pahl of the FTC, on a panel at the American BarAssociations Conference on Consumer Financial Services. And Ive spoken with them on severaloccasions post-conference. Theyre not bad guys. Theyre trying to help prevent homeowners frombeing ripped off primarily by unscrupulous mortgage brokers whom, they would say, as a group haveproven themselves to be oftentimes, shall we say, less-than-trustworthy.




4/17

They dont exactly have a rock solid grasp on exactly whats happening in real life in communitiesthroughout this country, they dont get to see the good guys that are undeniably out there, and theydont have unlimited resources that can be directed at solving the problem. Also, in my view anyway,theyre probably a bit too influenced by the financial industrys influence peddlers but nowadays,who in Washington D.C. isnt?

So, when faced with the problem of creating a rule to protect distressed homeowners from being

ripped off, they did what they could do stopped the ability for non-attorneys to get paid until thehomeowner is happy and all warm and safe, tucked in bed. Its a shame for the legitimate providersof loan modifications services who have without question helped many thousands of homeowners getloans modified. But, at the end of the rule making process, the FTC accepted this loss in favor ofprotecting homeowners from the other kind of loss getting scammed by someone who promises andthen delivers nothing.

And, even though I hate to see the number of legitimate sources that homeowners have to turn to forhelp with loan modifications decrease, I hate the idea of desperate homeowners getting conned out ofthousands of dollars even more.

At least the Final Rule does not apply retroactively, so the advance fee ban doesnt apply to contracts

with homeowners executed prior to the effective date. Californias SB 94 was retroactive and it was ahuge problem for many in the industry.

I couldnt find the penalty for noncompliance with the new rule anywhere in the 180-page document,so I called Julie Greenfield, who is both a close friend of mine, and a highly experienced mortgagebanking compliance attorney who now represents homeowners seeking modification of loans. Inresponse, Julie sent me the following: Under the FTC Act, violations of a final FTC Order canimpose a civil liability of $11,000 per day.

Thats $11,000 a day that you are found to be out of compliance with the new rule that is to say thateach day is considered a separate violation and carries its own $11,000 fine. Out of compliance for a

month thatll be $330,000, thank you very much.

So, what else is in the 180 pages that describing the new Final Rule?

Well, lets see one HUGE thing is that lead generation companies are pretty much cooked too.

Federal courts have held that providing knowing substantial assistance to others whoengaged in unlawful conduct is an unfair practice.

And that means that if you provide leads to a company that you know or should know or haveconsciously avoided knowing is breaking the rule, you can be charged just like if you werebreaking the rule yourself. The rule speaks to this issue extensively, so I would think that its clearly

an area the FTC intends to enforce.

F. Section 322.6: Substantial Assistance or Support

The proposed rule prohibited any person within the FTCs jurisdiction under the FTCAct from providing substantial assistance or support to any MARS provider if theperson knows or consciously avoids knowing that the provider is engaged in any actor practice that violates this rule.




5/17

Several commenters asserted that such a measure would prevent MARS providers fromusing lead generators or mortgage brokers to supply contact information forpotential customers, thus making it more difficult for deceptive MARS providers tooperate. For example, a consumer group explained that such a provision would bevaluable because entities that assist and facilitate fraudulent MARS providers oftenreceive a substantial portion of the funds obtained from consumers for mortgageassistance relief services.367

1. Substantial Assistance

Many MARS providers rely on, or work in conjunction with, other entities to advertisetheir services and operate their businesses. The Final Rule provision applies tosubstantial i.e., more than casual or incidental assistance or support that suchentities provide to MARS providers.

Substantial assistance could include such critical support functions as lead generation,telemarketing and other marketing support, payment processing, back-end handling ofconsumer files, and customer referrals. A common example of those who providesubstantial assistance to MARS providers are so- called lead generators.

Lead generators obtain the contact information of consumers, i.e. leads, who haveindicated interest in MARS by visiting the lead generators website in response toadvertisements disseminated either by the lead generators themselves, or through anetwork of Internet advertisers. Lead generators then sell the consumer information toMARS providers.

The Commission retains the knows or consciously avoids knowing standard in theFinal Rule.

the conscious avoidance standard is intended to capture the situation where actualknowledge cannot be proven, but there are facts and evidence that support an inferenceof deliberate ignorance on the part of a person that [the wrongdoer] is engaged in anact or practice that violates [the Rule].379

If those who provide substantial assistance or support to MARS providers receive orbecome aware of information that reasonably calls into question the legality of theMARS providers practices, they will be liable if they continue to assist and supportthat provider. In general, the determination of whether a person had the requisiteknowledge will depend on a variety of factors such as the persons relationship to theMARS provider, the nature and extent of the persons degree of involvement in theoperations of the MARS provider, and the nature of the providers violations.

2. The Knowledge Standard

Under the proposed rule, those who provided substantial assistance to MARS providerswould be liable if they knew or consciously avoided knowing that the providers wereviolating the rule.

Lead generators themselves often may also qualify as mortgage assistance reliefservice providers and thus be liable for primary violations of the Rule, because manyof these entities arrange for others to provide MARS. For example, if a leadgenerator disseminates advertisements containing misrepresentations to entice




6/17

consumers to provide their contact information, and then passes that information on toanother entity that will provide MARS, the lead generator would likely be in violationof 322.3 of the Final Rule.

Additionally, advertising affiliate network companies may serve as intermediariesbetween advertisers and lead generator websites. Such companies also could be heldliable if they knowingly provide substantial assistance to MARS providers who violate

the Rule.

So, if youre in the business of generating leads for a company offering loan modification services,youd better make sure theyre not breaking the new rule, because just saying I didnt know is notgoing to get you very far in terms of a defense should the fit hit the shan.

And what else?

This may sound terrible, but one positive thing for those that provide loan modification services, Isuppose, is that the FTC declined to place caps on amounts charged for services, saying:

the Commission declines to set caps on the fees MARS providers can receive. While

the FTC concludes that the collection of advance fees by MARS providers is an unfairact or practice, it has made no such determination about the amount of fees charged.In general, the competitive market should establish the prices MARS providerscharge,351 and the Commissions role is to remove obstacles to consumers making theinformed choices that are necessary to a properly functioning market.

I know, some of you may be thinking that placing caps on fees would be a good thing, but Im not atall sure about that. The market is almost always much better at setting the costs of things, and if thecaps didnt allow lawyers to provide the service, they wouldnt and homeowners would be on theirown not a good thing. Also, it costs more to do business in some states and less in others, so capswould have been difficult to establish correctly.

Theres also a whole lot about how the FTC reached the conclusions they did what the argumentswere, for and against the various points, but Im not going to bother going into all that mostly becauseI just dont see the point. I mean, why should I bother describing the new record keepingrequirements for non-attorneys when I cant envision any non-attorneys even being in the businessafter this coming New Years Day. And attorneys are exempted from those new record keepingrequirements anyway.

What I will do is offer what I considered to be a few of the most important paragraphs from the 180-page document, and provide a link so you can read it for yourself, if you are so inclined.

So, here are some of the paragraphs you might want to read and youll find Title 16 Code of

Federal Regulations, Part 322, for Mortgage Assistance Relief Services in its entirety by clicking onthat blue type.

And here are some of the highlights, or lowlights, as the case may be:

The Final Rule, however, requires that payment be contingent upon consumer acceptance of resultsthe provider presents.337

# # #




7/17

As discussed in Section I.A, the Dodd-Frank Act will transfer rulemaking authority with respect tothis Rule to a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, effective as of the transfer date, Dodd-Frank Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, which is currently designated as July 21, 2011.

# # #

Regardless of how the result the provider delivers compares to what it promoted or promised at the

time the consumer agreed to use its service, the provider still must secure a written agreementbetween the consumer and his or her lender or servicer accepting the results delivered beforecollecting any fees. The Commission has adopted an approach different from that in the proposed rulebecause it concludes that the new approach strikes a better balance between protecting consumersand ensuring that MARS providers can collect fees for beneficial results they achieve.

At the same time, the Final Rule permits providers to collect fees if they deliver results that, althoughdifferent from what they promised to consumers, are ultimately acceptable to consumers. It avoidsdisputes over what the provider actually promised, and allows consumers to make the decision aboutwhether the offered mortgage relief is satisfactory to them. It also ensures that the consumer receivesa result that he or she determines to be beneficial for example, a loan modification with a particularreduction in monthly payments338 or lasting a specific duration. This approach is similar to the one

taken in the TSRs advance fee ban for debt relief services.339

# # #

The Commission warns that securing consumer acceptance to an offer will not immunize a providerfrom other violations of the Rule. Providers cannot misrepresent the results consumers will receive ifthey use MARS. For example, if a provider represents to a consumer that it will obtain a reduction inthe amount of interest, principal balance, or monthly payments, but only obtains a forbearanceagreement, then, regardless of whether the consumer accepts the forbearance agreement, thatprovider has made a misrepresentation in violation of 322.3(b) of the Final Rule. In order to complywith 322.3(b), the provider should qualify its claims sufficiently so that a reasonable consumer

would understand that he or she may not receive a reduction in the amount of interest, principalbalance, or monthly payments.

# # #

The Commission cautions that providers not attempt to evade the requirements of 322.5(a) byentering a contract with consumers signed at the outset specifying the consumers preapproval, forexample, that any offer that involves a certain type of concession from the lender or servicer will bedeemed acceptable. Moreover, the provider may not rely on authority obtained through a power ofattorney at the time or before the time of contracting to execute an agreement incorporating the offerof mortgage relief from the lender or servicer on the consumers behalf, because the Commissionwould not regard the consumer as having accepted the offer as required under 322.5(a). The

Commission further cautions that providers not use deceptive or unfair practices to convinceconsumers to accept concessions to which they would not otherwise agree, as doing so may constitutea violation of 322.5(a) and other provisions of the Rule, including 322.3(b)(12).

# # #

Further, as described above, 322.5(b) of the Final Rule requires providers to inform consumers: (a)that they do not have to pay any fees to the MARS provider unless and until they accept the result thatthe provider has delivered, and (b) the total amount in fees consumers will have to pay the provider ifthey accept that result.




8/17

Section 322.5(d) also specifies that in cases where the mortgage relief offer obtained from the lenderor servicer is a trial loan modification, the notice from the lender or servicer that the provider mustfurnish to the consumer with the offer of mortgage assistance must include: (1) that the consumer maynot qualify for a permanent modification, and (2) if the consumer does not qualify, the likely amountof the scheduled periodic payments that he will have to pay and any arrearages or fees that mayaccumulate.

Some commenters recommended that the proposed rule be changed to prohibit providers fromcollecting fees for obtaining a trial modification, because most consumers who receive trialmodifications do not receive permanent modifications that would substantially reduce the amountthey pay on their loans.340

The Commission has determined that, in light of the changes in the Final Rule, including the advancefee ban and related disclosures, such a prohibition is unnecessary. As noted above, 322.5 willensure that consumers are told that they are being offered a trial modification and ensure that theyhave the opportunity to reject the offer.

# # #

b. Prohibition on Advance Fees for Piecemeal Services

As detailed above, NAAG and several other commenters strongly supported the proposed rulesprohibition on the practice of collecting advance fees for piecemeal services.342

The Commission agrees that without such a prohibition, many MARS providers would attempt tocollect fees for discrete tasks that fall short of, and often may never lead to, the result promised. Theseindividual tasks might include: conducting an initial consultation with the consumer; reviewing orauditing the consumers mortgage loan documents; gathering financial or other information from theborrower; sending an application or other request to the lender or servicer; facilitatingcommunications between the borrower and the lender or servicer; or responding on behalf of theconsumer to requests from the lender or servicer. The record demonstrates that many MARSproviders currently charge discrete fees for these types of tasks, in some instances to evade stateadvance fee bans.344

Section 322.5 of the Final Rule, although modified, still prohibits MARS providers from collectingfees for piecemeal services. Section 322.5(a) requires the provider to secure the consumers writtenagreement to accepting the mortgage relief it has obtained; thus, providers will be unable to charge afee for intermediate services unless and until the consumer accepts the result the MARS providerobtains from the consumers lender or servicer.

# # #

b. Use of Dedicated Accounts

In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether, in the event the Rule bans advancefees, MARS providers should be allowed to request or require that consumers place any such fees in adedicated bank account.352

The Final Rule does not permit MARS providers, other than attorneys, to request or requireconsumers to pay fees into any type of account prior to completing their services.353




9/17

The overwhelming weight of comments opposed allowing the use of such accounts, because, amongother things, some unscrupulous MARS providers might misuse funds held in dedicated accounts, andpermitting dedicated accounts would place undue burdens on consumers to recover money they paidinto the accounts if providers do not deliver the results consumers finds acceptable.356

There is nothing in the record indicating that non-attorney MARS providers currently use dedicatedaccounts with any frequency to deposit advance fees or that an infrastructure to support such

accounts exists. Without more information as to how MARS providers would use dedicated accountsand whether consumers would be adequately protected, and in light of widespread deceptive andunfair acts and practices by MARS providers, the Commission declines to permit providers to requestor require that consumers place advance fees for MARS in such accounts.357

# # #

The Commission declines to include a right to cancel provision in the Final Rule. Under 322.5 ofthe Final Rule, even if a consumer enters into an agreement to use a MARS provider in circumstancesundermining his or her ability to make a well-informed decision, the consumer has no obligation topay any money to the MARS provider until he or she accepts an offered result. The consumer is free toreject offers that he or she believes are unsatisfactory. If the consumer never accepts an offer, he or

she is never obligated to pay the provider. Thus, a right to cancel would provide little additionalbenefit to consumers.363

# # #

FOR ATTORNEYS:

3. The Attorney Exemption in the Final Rule

In the Final Rule, the Commission has broadened the attorney exemption. An attorney is exempt fromthe Rule, except the advance fee ban, if he or she: (1) provides MARS as part of the practice of law;(2) is licensed to practice law in the state where the client or the clients dwelling is located; and (3)complies with applicable state laws and regulations relating to the same general types of conduct theRule addresses, namely, the competent and diligent provision of legal services, communication withclients, charging and receipt of fees, promotion of services, and not engaging in fraudulent ordeceitful conduct. In addition, an attorney that meets these criteria is exempt from the advance feeban if the attorney deposits any advance fees in a client trust account and complies with all state lawsand licensing regulations relating to the use of those accounts. The attorney exemption in the FinalRule strikes a balance between allowing consumers to continue to have access to bona fide legalassistance,436 while at the same time preventing or deterring unfair or deceptive practices byattorneys.437

d. Exemption from the Advance Fee Ban

The practices of attorneys who meet the conditions listed in 322.7(a) are entitled to a generalexemption from the Final Rule. The one exception relates to the prohibition on advance fees. Under 322.7(b) of the Final Rule, attorneys are exempt from the advance fee ban only if they: (1) meet all ofthe conditions required for the general exemption; (2) deposit any advance fees they receive into aclient trust account; and (3) comply with all state laws and licensing regulations governing the use ofsuch accounts.

Given the frequency with which attorneys, and those affiliated with attorneys, have engaged in unfairand deceptive practices in connection with MARS, the Commission believes that a blanket exemption




10/17

from the advance fee ban for attorneys is unwarranted and would not adequately protect consumers.At the same time, the Commission is mindful of the possible adverse consequences from imposingunnecessary fee restrictions on attorneys that would reduce the availability of beneficial legalservices. On balance, the Commission has concluded that a modified, broader attorney exemptionwith regard to the advance fee ban is appropriate.

The Final Rule therefore permits attorneys who provide MARS as part of their provision of legal

services to collect advance fees if, in compliance with applicable state laws and licensing regulations,the attorney deposits such payments into a client trust account475 and draws on them as work isperformed.

Unlike other MARS providers, attorneys commonly deposit advance fees in client trust accounts and,in some jurisdictions, are legally required to do so.476 State laws and licensing regulations strictlylimit attorneys use of funds in these accounts.477

For example, state laws and licensing regulations mandate that attorneys keep fees deposited in theclient trust accounts separate from their own funds,478 only withdraw funds as fees are earned orexpenses are incurred,479 maintain complete records as to transactions,480 notify clients of anywithdrawals,481 and keep the clients funds separate from other clients funds if a dispute as to

ownership of the funds is pending.482

In some cases, attorneys also are prohibited from front-loading fees to expedite their withdrawal offunds from client trust accounts.483 In addition, as discussed above, in the event attorneysmisappropriate funds, state court systems and bars can take, and have taken, disciplinary action,including license revocation. Finally, state bars typically maintain client- security funds, which arecapitalized by licensing fees that attorneys pay, for the purpose of compensating injured clients.484

To qualify for the exemption from the requirements of the advance fee ban, the Commission concludesthat attorneys not only must deposit advance fees in a client trust account, but also must comply withall state laws and licensing regulations governing their use of client trust accounts for these funds.485

The Rule does not restrict attorneys as to the type of fees they charge clients, including flat fees,contingency fees, or hourly fees, but requires that they withdraw their fees from the client trustaccounts consistent with state laws and licensing regulations. These conditions are appropriate forensuring that such attorneys do not collect and handle fees in a manner harmful to consumers.Attorneys who do not comply with all of these state requirements must comply with the advance feeban in the Final Rule.486

# # #

B. Recordkeeping Requirements

The Rule also imposes several recordkeeping requirements. Several commenters argued generallythat the proposed recordkeeping requirements were burdensome, in particular for attorneyproviders. To address those concerns, the Final Rule exempts attorney providers from therecordkeeping provision.

# # #

In other instances, the Rule requires MARS providers to create as well as retain documentsdemonstrating their compliance with specific Rule requirements. These include the requirement thatproviders document the following activities: (1) the mortgage relief obtained by the provider from the

Page 10 of 17FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule Regulates Loan Modific...



11/17

lender or servicer before seeking payment from a consumer; (2) monitoring of sales presentations byrecording and testing of oral representations if they engage in the telemarketing of their services; (3)establishing a procedure for receiving and responding to consumer complaints; (4) ascertaining, insome instances, the number and nature of consumer complaints; and (5) taking corrective action ifsales persons fail to comply with the Rule, including training and disciplining sales persons. To lessenthe burden of providers who do not telemarket their services, the Commission streamlined thecompliance requirements by limiting the need to record communications to providers who telemarket

their services.

# # #

b. Mortgage Refinancing Services

The proposed rule covered mortgage brokers who offer loan origination or refinancing services, butonly if those services are represented, expressly or impliedly, to help consumers avoid delinquency orforeclosure. The Final Rule is unchanged on this point. Thus, the Final Rule does not cover mortgagebrokers who offer services that are advertised or marketed for other purposes. To obtain a new loanor refinance an existing loan, consumers can work either with the lender directly or with a mortgagebroker.

# # #

The End.

Mandelman out.

A VERY SPECIAL, LIMITED TIME OFFER

If you do want a more detailed analysis of the new rule, authored by yours truly along withcompliance attorney Julie Greenfield, we are offering for a limited time our Special Report

and invitation-only Webinar at a cost of $250.

Just send an email to [email protected] and well be happy to send you our report, andinvite you a special invitation only Webcast on the new rules impact. Payment can be made viaPay Pal or by check. Our report and Webcast not only offers expert legal analysis of the FTCsrule, but also presents opportunities that remain for those who chose not to operate under thenew rule.

Tagged with: advance fee rule attorney exemption to new FTC rule foreclosure crisis FTC new

rule loan mod advance fee rule loan modification national rule mandelmanmatters MARS MARS rule martin andelman ml-implode mortgage brokers and loanmodifications SB 94 SB94

Comments

SolutionsNow says at Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:25 am1.




12/17

Compliments on a very thorough examination of the FTC Rule.

I found it refreshing that, for once, someone gave some creditto Ethical Loan Modification companies...usually all anybody wantsto do is Automatically lump Every company into the Scammer mold.

I find many of these laws...even this FTC law, to use the "Scam"

scare tactics as just more Bank Propaganda!

There are badly run companies in EVERY industry (thus the BBB)and bad employees in just about every business...

It's the BANKS that want everyone to Fear for their "Scam" andin doing so, have gotten the States (and the FTC) to write laws thatjust about makes it Impossible to do a Modification if it's not throughthe Banks!

So, your problem is with the banks...but you have to go To the Banks

for Help? And...no other Advocate can represent you because they can'tguarantee they can get paid...

Banks have finessed this into a Modification Monopoly!They have manipulated Legislation so there ARE NO COMPETITORS!And a bunch of ignorant Consumer Agencies have "bought into this"B.S. under this "Modification Scam" scenario as if it were Orson Wellstelling you Martians just landed in Jersey!

The Real Scam is the Bank Modification...look at the Stats!Phony Trial Mods leading Homeowners into ForeclosurePhony accounting and Phony promises....it's all over the News!

What about Bank of America (and others) insisting Homeownerswreck their credit and stop making payments Before they will Modify.This type of manipulation should be a violation of FCRA and TILA.

It's the BANKS that have created Modification Fraud on a MASSIVE scale.

Banks have manipulated the TreasuryBanks have manipulated the FTCand now, they want to manipulate Capital Hill next, to have all the IllegalActivities under the MERS mess simply Pardoned and have all the

Fraud and Forgery...the lawsuits and investigations...just "Go Away!"

Banks have ruined the Economy and are openly Raping Americansfor their homes (please include Servicers as a part of Banks).

What will America do about it?

Comment on this post! (Requiresfree membership in the Implode-Explode forums!)




13/17

The Author

This post was written by Mandelman on Saturday, November 20, 2010, 6:53. Mandelman has

written 359 posts on this blog.

Information

Posted in LATEST ARTICLES

Foreclosure Moms Rap

Listen to Podcasts

Search Mandelman Matters

Search for: Search

Contribute to the Cause

Bumper Stickers

Well, Somebody Has to Say It....

NEW BUMPER STICKERS from Mandelman!

Only $5.95 each! (Plus Shipping & Handling)Car bumper stickers make lovely holiday gifts!Click Now to Order




14/17

A Hundred Thousand Homeowners

Voices of Hope & Change

A Hundred Thousand Homeowners is a documentary that will deliver a cacophony of outrageover the way our government has addressed the foreclosure crisis. It will make loud the voices

of a hundred thousand homeowners.

The finished documentary will be distributed using the power of the Internet, but also on DVD,wrapped in high-impact A Hundred Thousand Homeowners packaging. It will land on thedesks of every single elected representative in the House of Representatives and the U.S.Senate. It will be sent to the governors of all 50 states to every single banking industryCEO... to every major media outlet... and of course, to the Oval Office. It will be seen, thevoices it represents will be heard, and the story will finally be told.

We need everyones help to make this happen, and its far too important to be allowed to fail.People ask me all the time how they can help. Well, heres how. Together we can be heardtogether we will make a difference.

Everyone can join this virtual march on Washington but there is a minimum cost to participate:$1.00. Thats one dollar, just so everyones clear.

Click the "Donate" button above and join "A Hundred Thousand Homeowners" today.

Click Here to Read Article

Recent Posts

Mandelman U. Presents: Theres Credit Default Swaps & then theres Credit Default

Swaps

FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule Regulates LoanModifications Nationwide

ITS BACK & ITS HERE: Mandelmans Monthly Museletter Version 9.0Foreclosure Moms RapWhere Are Our Religious Leaders?QE2 Leaves Port, Bernanke Takes Leave of SensesWell, Would You Look at That: Elizabeth Warren Might Be Replaced by a BankLobbyist

Chief Judge Gonzalez calls WaMus Conduct Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive,Unscrupulous or Substantially Injurious to Consumers (You go, Your Honor.)

What Shall We Tell Our Children, Mr. President?Why Servicers Foreclose When They Should Modify YAWN.




15/17

Mandelman in the Niche Report

Send me a complimentary, autographed copy!

@Mandelman on Twitter

Martin Andelman

mandelman

Join the conversation

mandelman RT @mandelman

Mandelman U. Presents: Theres CreditDefault Swaps & then theres Credit

Default Sw.. http://bit.ly/fQT0dM5 hours ago

mandelman RT @mandelman FTCMoves to Protect Homeowners With New

MARS Rule Regulates LoanModifications Na.. http://bit.ly/akWMRN3 days ago

mandelman RT @mandelman ITS BACK

& ITS HERE: Mandelmans Monthly

Museletter Version 9.0 - MandelmanMatt.. http://bit.ly/c4jB874 days ago

mandelman @dylankramer ... Thank

you... the person. One of the bestpersons there ever was. One that this

world just couldn't afford to lose.4 days ago




16/17

Become a fan of Mandelman on Facebook!

Tom Abdullah Niki Brenda Gianni

Andrew Rommeth Richard Sean Alan

Mandelman Matters on Facebook

1,105 people like Mandelman Matters

Like

Mandelman Matters

FTC Moves to Protect

Homeowners With New MARSRule Regulates Loan

Modifications Nationwide

...

Saturday at 8:21am

Mandelman Matters

ITS BACK & ITS HERE:Mandelmans Monthly Museletter Version 9.0

...

November 19 at 4:44pm

Mandelman Matters

Foreclosure Moms Rap

Mandelman Matters on Facebook

Meta

Log inEntries RSSComments RSS

WordPress.org

Archives

November 2010October 2010September 2010August 2010July 2010




17/17

June 2010May 2010April 2010March 2010February 2010January 2010December 2009

November 2009October 2009September 2009August 2009July 2009June 2009May 2009April 2009March 2009February 2009

This blog is for entertainment and informational purposes only. The blog expresses MartinAndelman's opinions, with absolutely no express or implied warranty or guarantee of any kind. Ifyou act based on information contained herein, you are on your own. Neither Martin Andelmannor IEHI, Inc. vouch for comments posted by here by third party users. Comments may not befiltered or moderated and should be understood to only express the opinions of their authors, andmay even contain blatant untruths.

Copyright 2009 Mandelman Matters, Martin Andelman in concert with IEHI, Inc.

Credits: Matteo Turchetto | Andreas Viklund

The content of this site is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.


Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	julio-cesar-navas
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Ftc Mars Advance Fees on Loan Mods

Documents