Yesterday's efforts via my Facebook status: 

Last Friday when I sat down at my computer I was greeted by my own face looking back at me from a Yahoo News article about distressed homeowners. Since the article had already garnered several hundred comments (some quite vicious) from people who knew nothing of my circumstances, I decided that I might as well go ahead and tell my story, so I created a blog.

Today I received a letter from my lender (technically they are just the servicer), Bank of America, saying that after 18 months of my pleadings, myriad paperwork submissions, and literally hundreds of phone calls, they would not be offering me a mortgage modification. The letter of denial was written one day, and on a Saturday no less, after the Yahoo article started trending. The timing might just be a coincidence, and of course it also may not, but I'd definitely like them to know that I won't allow them to foreclose on my home without a fight. That's where you all come in- please take a moment to review my blog at http://distressedhomeownersusa.blogspot.com/    and consider following the blog. (I've also posted it in the Yahoo article comment section)  Maybe, just maybe, they will take notice, and give pause. Pride and privacy being both taken already (yes, I did agree to the photograph, but I thought it was just to promote the Homeowner Bill of Rights being voted on at the state capitol), this is all I got left.

A special note to those who are located in the state of California:

The California state legislature passed the Homeowner Bill of Rights this month.  I was present for the vote on both the Assembly and Senate floors, and could not help but participate in the banned applause which erupted from the viewing balcony after the vote was counted. This legislation does not fix many serious issues borrowers face in attempting to negotiate a modification with their lenders, but it will make the mortgage modification/foreclosure process more fair and transparent, which anyone who has ever tried to seek any cooperation from their lenders in the past can attest, has been sorely lacking.

Unfortunately, the legislature did not insert an urgency clause before taking the bills to vote, so the protections don't go into effect until January 1, 2013. There are a few groups of activists who are requesting the governor declare a foreclosure moratorium until January 1^st to allow those currently in the foreclosure process an opportunity to seek relief under the legislation. Occupy Sacramento's Foreclosure Committee is planning to hold a vigil at the Governor's residence beginning in August when the legislative session reconvenes.

I know this comes as too little/too late for thousands of homeowners who have already lost their homes, of questionable value to those in foreclosure now, and seemingly of no help to those living in other states, but it isn’t as if the lender’s internal procedures are likely to be differentiated by the location of the property, and I’d think they would begin implementing procedures now in order to be in compliance come January.  I'd like to believe there will be consequential benefits to groups not technically covered by the legislation. 

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, is thanked by homeowner DeAun Tollefson, after he helped get homeowner protection legislation approved by the Legislature at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, July 2, 2012. The legislation would require large lenders to provide a single point of contact for homeowners who want to discuss loan modifications, prohibit lenders from foreclosing while the lenders consider homeowners' request for alternatives to foreclosure and let California homeowners sue lenders to stop foreclosures or seek monetary damages if the lenders violate state law. Tollefson's is facing the loss of her Sacramento home due to foreclosure.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

My lender won't take my payments and intends to foreclose on me in September.
Looks like I'll be marching again soon!





http://www.independentmail.com/photos/2012/jul/12/133317/?enlarge=1

My communication with Bank of America:

I received today the 7/28/12 letter of denial for our modification request. The letter specifically states that we were reviewed for eligibility in the "new" principal forgiveness modification program. The types of relief programs available are confusing at best, but first let me be clear that my request was not just for a new "recently introduced" program as a result of the U.S. Department of Justice and State Attorneys General global settlement, nor is my request for consideration under the governments HAMP or HOPE programs. My request was for consideration under whatever guidelines would be specific to my investor, BNY Mellon.


Because the denial was based on investor disallowance, in accordance with California Civil Code 2923.6, I would like to be provided with the specific section of the underwriting guidelines used in the review of my "In-House" modification request which states that no consideration will be given to any loans wherein the first mortgage housing ratio does not exceed 38%. To reiterate, I am speaking here not of the HAMP guidelines, as those are readily available online, I am referring to the guidelines used under the investor's program. 

Additionally, because my loan was originated during the period included in California's Civil Code 2923.6 as originally signed back in 2008, which states that <It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority>, I would ask for proof that the anticipated recovery under the foreclosure does not exceed the anticipated recovery under a loan modification. It is my belief that denying a mortgage modification which does not pass this test for recovery because the DTI is too low would be inconsistent with your obligation to maximize net present value of your pooling and servicing agreements.  

Finally, in accordance with paragraph I.A. of the settlement  reached between Bank of America and the U.S. Department of Justice, please consider this email as my formal request to have sent to me the following:

1. A copy of the Note for our debt (including all endorsements)

2. A copy of all assignments of the Deed of Trust

3. A statement of the amount necessary to cure any default as 

of the date of the petition.

Should this email not be considered adequate delivery of this request, I ask that you please notify me of such immediately. 

Thank You,

De Aun Tollefson

I received a letter today stating that my request for modification was being denied. What I am posting today are my responses.

July 30, 2012

Mr. Patrick Tadie

Bank of New York Mellon

Dear Mr. Tadie:

In your white paper Rebuilding the Mortgage Market-Loan by Loan you state that investors must become  more of “an activist in their examination of the underlying loans” down to the performance of “specific borrowers”.  Perhaps you only intended that to mean at the time of origination, or even securitization, but given what has happened to the housing market, I find it plausible that retention might very well be as critical as origination. 

Underwriting guidelines are quite specific under the government’s HAMP program. Given that it is a government program those guidelines are naturally flawed, but at least they are published. The dissemination of that information allows a thriving industry of professionals to engage in the modification process to assist homeowners in retaining their homes, and lenders to realize a recapture of those loans which would otherwise have proceeded to foreclosure.  I am one such borrower, and the purpose of my communication today is to seek your assistance in connecting me with the appropriate individual at BNY Mellon with whom I might discuss the denial of my request for a mortgage modification as submitted by Bank of America. 

After quite literally hundreds of hours working with my servicer over the course of the last 18 months, I was informed today that I would not be eligible for a modification because my loan did not fit the underwriting guidelines. Specifically, I was told this was because we were deemed to not be in need of assistance due to a low DTI. When I inquired about what the underwriting guidelines were for determining that DTI I was told that they were using both the government guidelines for the HAMP program and also those under what was called the “Global Settlement” for private investors.  Furthermore, I was told that the ratio isn’t really so much a true DTI as it is a first mortgage only housing ratio (ie it does not take other verifiable debts into consideration). I have been a mortgage underwriter, and this strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. If other verifiable debts or expenses are considered at the time of originating a loan, why would they be excluded at the time of a request for modification?  I would like to have an opportunity to review those guidelines for myself. Surely that isn’t too much to ask of somebody who is about to lose their family home.

Bank of America’s only advice to me at this time is to seek out a realtor who can assist me with a short sale.  I don’t want that. I suspect you don’t want that either.  Let’s see if we can’t work together on this. We fell on hard times due to a two year employment gap, and the gap came at a very heavy cost to us, but we have done our level best to meet our financial obligation with BNY Mellon. As a matter of fact the only reason we are so far behind in our payments now is because Bank of America stopped accepting them. They’d rather go to foreclosure. I can't help but wonder if you genuinely feel that serves BNY Mellon's interest. It doesn't seem like Good Housekeeping to me.

Sincerely,
De Aun Tollefson
P.S. You can read more about our personal circumstances in my blog post “How the American Dream turned into a National Nightmare” at  http://distressedhomeownersusa.blogspot.com/

http://www.bnymellon.com/foresight/pdf/rebuildingmortgage.pdf

Wait, that's me your talking about!!!

I sat down at the computer this morning and found my face staring back at me from my Facebook NewsFeed. Yahoo News was inquiring about homes that were underwater.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/tell-yahoo-news-mortgage-under-water-124852299.html

Since my picture is already up there, I might as well tell my story.
Here goes........

First, let me start by saying "that's me". Not just that's my same story, that's literally me in the picture, so I obviously have a few things to say here. The question being posed is important, but it is only a portion of the story, for myself, and for many others.  For most Americans the purchase of our homes represents the biggest financial investment we’ll ever make.  Those homes quite literally become the foundation of our lives.  They are where we eat, sleep, and raise our children, but until the time of the real estate collapse they were also a big part of our financial security. Part of the American dream has been about building ourselves a little nest egg by buying a house, paying our mortgages, and pouring our own sweat equity into the property.  We become part of neighborhoods where we look after each other. We become a part of that proverbial village. But what happens when we find that we owe a significant amount of money more than the property is worth? Does it still make sound financial sense to continue making payments on a bad investment simply because we are emotionally connected to our homes, or are we at some point just burying ourselves into a much deeper financial hole?

That’s the inquiry here, but it’s not the end of my story.   Aside from the question of “should” we continue to make payments on a now defunct financial investment, there is the question of “can” we.  See we didn’t buy at the top of the market, or take out a crazy loan. We were well positioned to make our payments when we bought the house, and we did make them.  We made them every month, on-time for over seven years. So why am I pictured here as a troubled homeowner? That’s part II. I wasn’t prepared to tell my story today. I only decided to speak up when I saw my face on Yahoo. So you’ll have to give me a few minutes to compose myself.

Wait, that's me you're talking about!!  Part II

We purchased our home back in 2003. It was the second home we’ve owned in this same wonderful, older neighborhood in Sacramento, CA, and the second home we’d been fortunate enough to purchase as only the second homeowners on a home built in the 1930’s. It lacks adequate storage for today’s lifestyles, and needs updating, but where it is short in amenities, it is deep in character.  At the time we purchased our home my husband had been with the same high-tech employer for almost 20 years.  The company expected a lot of their employees, but they treated them reasonably well.  It was his intention to retire with them, and he was getting pretty close.  His father grew up knowing all too well the struggle for financial security, and proudly called his oldest son a “company man.” Then one day his entire division was sold off to another company. Suddenly, quite unexpectedly, he was working for somebody else. He wasn’t particularly fond of the transfer, but the contract with the new company disallowed the employees in the acquisition to return to their employ for at least two years. So he stuck it out. He acquired the office space they would need to open up a new location. He arranged for the equipment they would need, and he hired employees.  His diligent efforts were recognized, and he received excellent reviews by the new company. Then, one day, from out of the blue, he was laid off.  They called it a workforce reduction.

We immediately contacted our lender, Bank of America. We explained that we had suddenly encountered some unexpected challenges, and would likely be experiencing some difficulty in making our payments until my husband could regain employment. That was January of 2009. It took two years to the day for him to find new employment. The gap came at a heavy cost. We sold stock so we could pay our mortgage. We took early retirement distributions so we could afford to pay our mortgage. We fell a bit behind in our payments, but continued as best we could to pay our mortgage, right up until the bank decided they would no longer accept payment from us beginning in March of this year. The bank had apparently decided they would rather foreclose on the property. They set a sale date of July 13^th (ironically it was a Friday). I have continued in my pursuit to seek some relief from our lender. Although we have been barraged with offers to help us do a short sale or Deed in Lieu (some of those offers even being arranged through our lender), we’ve always maintained that it is our desire to keep the home, and to resume making our payments. I’ve logged a ridiculous number of hours contacting our lender. I’ve sent, and resent, and sent again, the papers they request. Bank of America did agree to push out the sale date until August 13^th because we do have an open request for modification. We’re still waiting. On pins and needles.