McDonnell Property Analytics (“MPA”) recommends that new clients begin with a Case Opening Review before entering into a more formal engagement. This is an introductory, flat-fee service that allows us to understand your mortgage-related problems so that we can help you find solutions.
There are four stages to this process during which we: 1) interview the client; 2) gather documentation from the client; 3) perform research and analyze all available documentary evidence; and 4) conduct a Case Opening Review conference to report our findings, answer questions, and make recommendations.
Our ability to assist our clients depends upon the completeness of the documentation we gather from our clients and collect through our independent research.
Often, there is one document or piece of information we discover that can make all the difference.
CASE STUDY – Bait and Switch Scheme
MPA’s California Client provided us with a preliminary Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement and a copy of his Adjustable Rate Note memorializing a complex negative amortization mortgage loan in the amount of $635,000.00. When we compared the two documents, we found that the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement understated the Finance Charge by $1,466,317.30. Essentially, we were able to show the Judge that there was a bait and switch in the loan terms at closing. Having established these facts to a mathematical certainty, the Judge declared the Note and Deed of Trust to be unenforceable.
CASE STUDY – Wrongful Foreclosure
MPA’s Arizona Clients contacted us after their property had been foreclosed upon by Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Trust 2005-10. Our Clients felt the foreclosure was wrongful and wanted to see if they could overturn the Trustee’s Sale. We discovered that their mortgage loan had been securitized into the Lehman XS Trust, Series 2005-10, and that the wrong entity instituted the nonjudicial foreclosure action. Our discovery provided sufficient grounds to vacate the foreclosure, but a Judge found that because the Borrowers had entered into a settlement agreement with Wilmington Trust —albeit as Trustee of a different Trust— they had no recourse.
CASE STUDY – Void Foreclosure
MPA’s Massachusetts Clients contacted us recently in a last-ditch effort to prevent a post-foreclosure eviction from their home. We sent out Requests for Information and in response to our request for the servicing file, we received two pre-acceleration Notices of Default that did not comply strictly with the language of paragraph 22 of the Mortgage (“Paragraph 22 Notice”).
In a virtually identical case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared the lender’s foreclosure was void because the Paragraph 22 Notice failed to inform the Borrower that she had “the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense…to acceleration and sale.”. (See Pinti v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 33 N.E.3d 1213, 472 Mass. 226 (Mass., 2015)).
In addition to this fatal defect, we conducted a Financial Forensics Examination and found that the foreclosing lender’s Notices are inaccurate and exceed the amount required to cure the default by at least $15,156.44. Thus, we have established sufficient grounds to prove that the Court should dismiss the eviction action and void the underlying foreclosure.
CONCLUSION
MPA’s Case Opening Review concludes with a recorded video or telephone conference during which we explain our findings and recommend next steps. We welcome all stakeholders to participate in the conference including attorneys, relatives, advisors, etc.
Although there is no written report associated with this service, we deliver any documents and data collected during our research session.
