12/01/2011
Saxon Mortgage Lost a Class Action Lawsuit in CA
Look at their defense: "Saxon again moved to dismiss arguing that the trial plan only required Saxon to evaluate the borrower's eligibility for a modification, and did not require Saxon to offer a modification."
So if people are still thinking that the bank is helping, hopefully Saxon's statement above clearly shows that lenders a) do not give free loan mods, instead they charge the home owner (usually far more than 3 months) to be "reviewed" for eligibility, and b) they charged the Government (using your tax dollars) too.
If that doesn't show you why people come to Tila Solutions for real help, I don't know what does.
The Complete Excerpt:
Federal Court in California Denies Motion to Dismiss Loan Modification Putative Class Action, Based on Expanded Interpretation of Lenders' Obligations under Trial Modification Plans. On November 17, a federal judge in California denied a servicer's motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the servicer wrongly rejected the borrower's mortgage modification application and improperly initiated foreclosure proceedings. The borrower identified as named plaintiff in Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services., Inc., No. 11-1663 RS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011) contends that a trial modification plan provided to her by Saxon constituted a binding contract that required Saxon to evaluate plaintiff under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and, if all conditions of the trial plan were satisfied, offer the borrower a permanent modification. In her original complaint, the borrower failed to aver that all conditions of the trial plan had been met, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The borrower filed an amended complaint to correct the deficiency, but Saxon again moved to dismiss arguing that the trial plan only required Saxon to evaluate the borrower's eligibility for a modification, and did not require Saxon to offer a modification. In its decision on the instant motion to dismiss, the court held that the express language of the trial plan does not limit Saxon's obligation to only evaluating the borrower's eligibility. Instead, once Saxon provided the executed trial plan to the borrower, a permanent modification was contingent only on plaintiff satisfying the conditions of that plan. Finding that the borrower's amended complaint sufficiently pleads facts regarding satisfaction of the trial plan, the court denied Saxon's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In doing so, the court also distinguished Wright v. Bank of America, N.A., 2010 WL 2889117 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2010) and other such cases in which borrowers' claims were dismissed because HAMP does not allow borrowers to assert a third-party beneficiary claim for breach of contract under HAMP. Here, the court held the borrower is not arguing that Saxon breached its obligations under HAMP, but rather is properly alleging breach of contract under the trial plan entered into between the borrower and the lender