Profile:
wpacello

This is wpacello's Profile page. Use it to view wpacello's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments wpacello has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

September 10, 2012 7:32 pm

My comment about email is a more a general one, that it should be a required form of communication due to the prolific use of email at this time. Not sure of the cost but I imagine that most correspondence is boiler plate. Sending an email is less expensive than postal mail. I think our laws lag in this area due to the alleged strain it would put on customer service departments. In my opinion most organizations have divested in this area and consumers experience huge gaps in this area. One of the pitfalls for us with “too big to fail” organizations.

September 7, 2012 8:19 am

Although some of these regulations are burdensome, email notification and communication is paramount in this age. My servicer does not allow me to communicate via email which makes record keeping difficult for me – unilateral for them since the conversations are recorded.

September 8, 2012 3:21 pm

Hi wpacello and welcome to Regulation Room. Under the proposed regulations, servers wouldn’t need to make borrowers aware of loss mitigation options via email. Do you think servicers should be required to send an email notice in lieu of, or in addition to an written notice? Can any commenters provide insight into what email notifications would cost servicers?

August 14, 2012 11:32 am

This option does not take into account the fraud perpetrated by many lenders. While they manipulated LIBOR rates and charged outrageous interest, lying to homebuyers about the loans and ignoring phone calls and pleas for workouts until it was too late to fix the problem.

The lenders were required to write modifications by our government, however it was not legally enforceable so they played games with borrowers by dragging out the modification process until the borrower missed a payment or became dismally discouraged or lost a job.

Many of these lenders are still playing games with the homebuyers and not working with them, but foreclosing with impunity.

I think that lenders should be forced to include principle write-downs as part of their “workout” to prevent foreclosure.

“The… more »

…most elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created”. See, Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 US 251 – Supreme Court (1946), See Package Closure Corp. v. Sealright Co., 141 F.2d 972, 979. That principle is an ancient one, Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505

The amount of information that is publicly available regarding the fraud that brought us into this place should be enough evidence that the homebuyer should not have to bear this burden alone.

It is time to get some real relief for the homebuyers – currently their are more foreclosed homes than families without homes, and no sign of letting up. The consumer cannot continue to carry this fraud alone – we did not initiate it. « less

August 18, 2012 5:06 pm

Dear Moderator,

As you may know, it has been the common public practice of bank regulators to listen to complaints from foreclosure fraud victims and respond by attempts at misdirection. Like children’s birthday party magicians regulators halfheartedly attempt to distract their audience with a shiny object in one hand, such as information management proposals, while looking away from the truth of Wall Street prosecution failure in the other. This has become so common place in local hearings and legislative testimony it has spawned new phrases into the English language such as “Regulatory Theater” and “Enforcement Fraud”. I support error correction. But error correction only corrects errors, not deceptive practices. A substantive response from the CFPB would… more »

…have addressed Page 27 of the mutli-state lawsuit and advised when homeowners will be able to call their state attorney general or the CFPB to stop a deceptive foreclosure in progress.
« less