Nevada Foreclosure Laws Has Virtually Stopped All Foreclosure?


The new laws in Nevada just got passed only last month and it has miraculous effect already on our rapid foreclosure. New default notices were way down last month in Las Vegas (116 or so) and foreclosure filings in Nevada plunged in October during the first month of a new state law. Only more than 600 default notices were filed against homeowners through Oct. 25 in the state’s two most-populous counties, Las Vegas’s Clark County and Reno’s Washoe County. That was down from 5,360 in September, or an 88% drop, according to data tracked by ForeclosureRadar.com, a real-estate website that tracks such filings.

As you may know, Nevada’s state Assembly passed a measure that took effect on Oct. 1, 2011 designed to crack down on “robo-signing,” where bank employees signed off on huge numbers of legal filings while falsely claiming to have personally reviewed each case. This new law makes it a felony—and threatens to hold people criminally liable—for making false representations concerning real estate title. There are civil penalties of $5,000 for each violation. The good thing is that the new legislation has almost stopped foreclosure.

The bad thing is that the banks would have glut of homes which it cannot dispose off easily. The surplus homes would create problem for everyone including the banks, homeowners, and of course the local economy. The continuous auctioning of these properties were a capitalistic action which should not be stopped for any convenience. Again, if banks are at fault, the homeowners have not done justice with their contracts as well. Many of the delinquencies are deliberate and intentional. These “walks-aways” should be punished. Everyone should be made responsible for their actions or inactions. Furthermore, it may tempt many people to be intentionally delinquent on their homes. They may avoid taking care of these homes because they had no attachment. Possibly, they may not pay the HOA dues. Now, we have homeowners living in these homes, and still not taking care of their property. The problem with delinquency, and dependency (as you may see with immigrants coming from Communist countries, who get government housing, ration, jobs etc) that they do not strive enough to make their justified living when they come to US. Unfortunately, this dependency is taught in USA creating road blocks to the capitalistic system. We are unfortunately heading towards a socialistic economy. We should not forget that we live in a capitalistic society and should not help greedy and needlessly protect greedy and non law-abiding people. Of course, we are creating a massive delinquent homeowners society who had scant regard of their promissory notes, contracts, and ethical agreements. These folks always shift the accusation on someone else. They have not done anything wrong according to them. All the wrongs were done by their lenders, servicers. This is a very bad way to handle the recovery on homes. This would create the height of lack of accountability. Even though we had supported homeowners (and always would do) but the unintended result of this law would have a terrible effect on the banks and the general restoration of our economy.

What should have been done?

A simple solution which of course would not need the congressional approval (as they have the tendency to mess up everything) would be to encourage banks to refinance the mortgage of everyone regardless of the appraisal or the FICO score. Come on! FICO cannot be upright, everyone’s credit had taken too many hits in this struggling economy. It is difficult to keep your heads above water. So the basic solution is following:

1. Give refinance to every homeowner or at least the choice of it on the current interest rate. No one should be denied

2. No penalties, or fines of any kind.

3. Ignore FICO

4. Ignore appraisal. It is gimmick. (May be a drive by appraisal can be used)

4. This refinancing would generate plenty of business for lenders, brokers, loan agents, appraisers, home construction specialists etc. It would rejuvenate our markets. Every one would be busy and make money. This is the only solution towards restoration of our economy. I hope Mr. Obama would be listening. Mr. Obama can also fire his treasury secretary along with housing secretary. They have proven to be nincompoop. I personally think these folks are playing the same role what Dan Quayle had done for George Bush’s (Sr.) in his relection campaign. (he was the biggest hurdle in his reelection)

More Foreclosure in Nevada and Continuous Robo-Signature Controversy


We have been stressing throughout this foreclosure ordeal in Nevada that there is something more messier then what is visible on the face (prima facie). WE are witnessing more bad news as JPMorgan Chase halted 56,000 foreclosures amid doubts that it had correctly followed laws on the foreclosure process. This news came soon after the announcement from GMAC Mortgage when suspended an undisclosed number of foreclosures to gain time to check its legal procedures. Now, Bank of America has announced similar measures. No one cared for this before the bubble as that was the notorious days for “no doc”, “low-doc” loans. Unfortunately, same spirit was shown in creating rapid foreclosures by mass production of these forged signatures, and foreclosure default notices and avoidance of states notice laws. After the bubble, banks, mostly large banks had consistently applied all kinds of tactics to frustrate federal government help in denying loan modifications of all sorts by either straight denial, or by hiring incompetent people, not supporting enough telephone lines or asking too much and needless paperwork. Now we learn that foreclosures, the end of the mortgage pipeline, have also been handled with a disregard for rules and standards. Here, we can see nothing but a continuous pattern of ineptness and incompetence. At issue now are affidavits that a foreclosing lender must file in many states’ courts. The person signing the affidavits attests to having knowledge of important facts, like the lender’s legal standing to foreclose and the amount owed. But in a rush to process hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, it turns out that the signers at Chase and GMAC processed 10,000 or more documents a month — “robo-signing” in industry parlance — without personal knowledge of the facts. They were like signature machines affixing their signatures on thousands of documents without testing its reliability or authenticity.

We can not satisfy ourselves that hundreds and thousands of families have lost their homes while legal process was denied to them by these rob signature machine production of documents. Now, most of these crooked banks had stopped this process but what about people whose homes has already been foreclosed and their credit tarnished for the rest of their lives. Let us hope that banks learn some lesson. Some 700 or more of them had already closed, and some of them are still teetering on the brink of a disaster, but of course they never learn. To the extent the suspensions ensure a process that is legal and fair, they are to the good. But delays feed uncertainty, and that could be bad for the economy. Will they result in fewer foreclosures, helping to prop up prices? Or will they create a backlog of foreclosed homes that will push prices down when they come to market?

As we know that the central weakness in the administration’s antiforeclosure efforts is that participation by lenders has been voluntary. Banks should be advised to have their participation mandatory. The robo-signing scandal is yet another reminder that it is folly to rely on banks that got us into this mess to get us out. The Obama administration needs to revise its ways to help people. It would be good to fire Treasury secretary at this time. That would revive some of the lost expectations of Obama administration. 18 months is too long to have some teeth in the administration hands to curb this rising trends of foreclosure in Nevada. A recent article published in NY Times indicates how bad the economy is in Nevada at this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/us/03vegas.html?hp

Even TV covering the foreclosure crisis


Economic crisis is deepening in our everyday life, and even the big celebrities of TV are showing the signs of this omnipresent depression. The sitcom depicts and discusses this crisis often and celebrities are taking part-time jobs. Here is an interesting article just published. As usual the law office of Malik Ahmad www.fastbankruptcynevada.com is willing to help its clients and offer them free bankruptcy consultation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/arts/television/12plot.html?_r=1

How to handle lawsuits filed by lenders for second trust deed in Nevada?


This is a complex topic and should only be left to seasoned attorneys. Our law office, Law Office of Malik W. Ahmad is well situated to handle these kinds of lawsuits and we have successfully settled, or litigated to an acceptable levels all such lawsuits.

Guarantors of a purchase-money loan on real property in Nevada should now be entitled to the anti-deficiency protections afforded under NRS 40.455 through 40.459, w which statutes limit the amount of any deficiency judgment to the lesser of either:

1. The amount by which the amount of the indebtedness which was secured exceeds the fair market value of the property sold at the time of the sale, with interest from the date of the sale, or

2. The amount which is the difference between the amount for which the property was actually sold and the amount of the indebtedness which was secured, with interest from the date of sale.

The Nevada legislature has recently enacted Nevada Assembly Bill 273, which provides a third subsection with applicability in situations where a foreclosing lender “acquired the right to obtain the judgment from a person who previously held that right”, such as where an originating lender sell a note to a third party lender. In such a situation, the deficiency amount is limited (beyond the amounts described in NRS 40.459(1) and (2), described above), to also include the further limitation to any available deficiency that: “If the person seeking the judgment acquired the right to obtain the judgment from a person who previously held that right, the amount [of deficiency recoverable is limited by the amount] by which the amount of the consideration paid for that right exceeds the fair market value of the property sold at the time of sale or the amount for which the property was actually sold, whichever is greater, with interest from the date of sale and reasonable costs, whichever is the lesser amount.” The intent of the Nevada legislature was clearly to provide certain protections to guarantors.

The Nevada Supreme Court has expressly held that guarantors are entitled to the benefits of Nevada’s anti-deficiency legislation, stating that without such protection, the court “would thereby detach lenders from the deficiency standard imposed by the legislature and subject guarantors to the vagaries of a lender’s scruples in every transaction.” First Interstate Bank of Nevada v. Shields, 102 Nev. 616, 619, 730 P.2d 429 (1986) (emphasis supplied). The Ninth Circuit, applying the Shields decision, has similarly held that guarantors are entitled to the benefits and protections of Nevada’s anti-deficiency legislation. FBW Enterprises v. The Victorio Company, 821 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Nevada legislature has recently enacted new legislation aimed at avoiding the scenario of a lender suing a guarantor without first foreclosing. Under Nevada Assembly Bill 273, signed by the Nevada Governor on June 10, 2011, the following language was added to NRS 40.495:

(4) If, before a foreclosure sale of real property, the obligee commences an action against a guarantor, surety or other obligor, other than the mortgagor or grantor of a deed of trust, to enforce an obligation to pay, satisfy, or purchase all or part of an indebtedness or obligation secured by a mortgage or lien upon the real property:

(a) The court must hold a hearing and take evidence presented by either party concerning the fair market value of the property as of the date of the commencement of the action. Notice of such hearing must be served upon all defendants who have appeared in the action and against whom a judgment is sought, or upon their attorneys of record, at least 15 days before the date set for the hearing.

(b) After the hearing, if the court awards a money judgment against the debtor, guarantor or surety who is personally liable for the debt, the court must not render judgment for more than:

(1) The amount by which the amount of the indebtedness exceeds the fair market value of the property as of the date of the commencement of the action; or

(2) If a foreclosure sale is concluded before a judgment is entered, the amount that is the difference between the amount for which the property was actually sold and the amount of the indebtedness which was secured, whichever is the lesser amount.

Deficiency Judgments
The lender has the right to sue the borrower for the deficiency within six months after the date of the foreclosure sale, unless all of the following conditions are met:
• The mortgage lender is a financial institution.
• The property securing the mortgage is a single-family dwelling.
• The borrower was the owner of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale.
• The borrower used the proceeds of the mortgage to purchase the property.
• The property was the borrower’s primary residence continuously after the borrower took out the mortgage.
• The borrower did not refinance the mortgage.

If all of these conditions are met, the homeowner is not liable to the lender for any deficiency remaining after the foreclosure sale. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.455.
The amount of the deficiency is limited to the lesser of these two amounts:
• The difference between the amount of the outstanding mortgage debt and the property’s fair market value at the time of the foreclosure sale, or
• The difference between the amount of the outstanding mortgage debt and the foreclosure sale price. Nev. Rev. Stat. §40.459.

Summary of NV Laws Nonjudicial Not if all of the following conditions are met: (a) lender is a financial institution; (b) mortgage loan originated on or after October 1, 2009; (c) property securing mortgage is a single-family dwelling owned by borrower at the time of the foreclosure sale; (d) mortgage debt was used to purchase the property; (e) property was borrower’s primary residence continuously from the time mortgage was executed; and (f) borrower did not refinance the mortgage. Allowed in all other foreclosures, but amount that may be recovered is limited to lesser of (a) the difference between the outstanding debt and the fair market value, or (b) the difference between the outstanding debt and the foreclosure sale price.

Nevada Laws about foreclosure: NRS 40.455 Deficiency Judgment


CHAPTER 40 – ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARTICULAR CASES CONCERNING PROPERTY
NRS 40.455 Deficiency judgment: Award to judgment creditor or beneficiary of deed of trust; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, upon application of the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust within 6 months after the date of the foreclosure sale or the trustee’s sale held pursuant to NRS 107.080, respectively, and after the required hearing, the court shall award a deficiency judgment to the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust if it appears from the sheriff’s return or the recital of consideration in the trustee’s deed that there is a deficiency of the proceeds of the sale and a balance remaining due to the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust, respectively.

Note: The time period has been changed to six months by an application or award to a judgment creditors after the sale of the foreclosure sale.

2. If the indebtedness is secured by more than one parcel of real property, more than one interest in the real property or more than one mortgage or deed of trust, the 6-month period begins to run after the date of the foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale of the last parcel or other interest in the real property securing the indebtedness, but in no event may the application be filed more than 2 years after the initial foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale.

Note: this six-month period would run after the date of the foreclosure or trustee’s sale of the last parcel or other interest in the real estate property securing the indebtedness.

3. If the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust is a financial institution, the court may not award a deficiency judgment to the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust, even if there is a deficiency of the proceeds of the sale and a balance remaining due the judgment creditor or beneficiary of the deed of trust, if:
(a) The real property is a single-family dwelling and the debtor or grantor was the owner of the real property at the time of the foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale;
(b) The debtor or grantor used the amount for which the real property was secured by the mortgage or deed of trust to purchase the real property;
(c) The debtor or grantor continuously occupied the real property as the debtor’s or grantor’s principal residence after securing the mortgage or deed of trust; and
(d) The debtor or grantor did not refinance the mortgage or deed of trust after securing it.
4. As used in this section, “financial institution” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 363A.050.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 573; A 1979, 450; 1985, 371; 1987, 1345; 2009, 1330)

What is the difference between a mortgage and a trust deed?


Difference between Mortgage and Deed of Trust
We hear these terms in almost synonymous terms as people understand them in similar terms but they are two diverse concepts, terms, and entails different legal procedure. Notable difference between them is that they are two different types of security interests.

A mortgage is a two-party transaction. The lender, known as the mortgagee, places a lien on your house. It accepts the mortgage from you, the mortgagor, in exchange for loaning money to purchase your home. If you default, the lender can do a non-judicial foreclosure in which his/her senior interests are superior to anyone else under the purchase money mortgage terms, and supersedes any interests of a junior trust deed.

Deed of Trust is a three-party transaction with three parties:

The three parties are the
(1) beneficiary,
(2) trustor, and the
(3) trustee.

The lender is called the beneficiary because it benefits from the transaction by collecting interest. You are the trustor because you are “trusted” with the money. The final party is the trustee, who holds title for the benefit of the beneficiary. The trustee’s sole function is to initiate the foreclosure at the behest of the lender. Deed of Trust foreclosure does not require a Lawsuit. If you default, the trustee follows procedures agreed to in the Deed of Trust pursuant to the power of sale clause which does not involve the court also known as a Non-Judicial Foreclosure.

Lender can sue you for deficiency after foreclosure
The lender to sue you for any money still owed to it if the auction does not bring enough money to pay off the loan. However, Nevada has adopted antideficiency laws where the deficiency is waived, restricted or time barred.

Nevada Antideficiency laws?
Nevada Revised Statutes 40.451 deals with deficiency. (We are publishing more articles on Nevada antideficiency laws in our additional articles here) Nevada is a deficiency state where the lender may sue a homeowner after foreclosure for the amount the house sold that was less than what was owed. The homeowner will then have to pay the lender any amount that was due on the loan that was not paid off at sale.
However, there is time limit to file the deficiency lawsuit and in Nevada, it must be filed within six (6) months after the foreclosure sale, and the amount of the deficiency judgment is determined by a statutory formula. An appraisal is obtained to determine the actual fair market value on the date of sale. The homeowner is given a credit for the appraised value, or the sales price, whichever is greater.

Nevada garnishment and how to handle it.


Garnishment is not something which cannot happen to you: its signs must be visible for quite some time. You can see them from a distance.
– You may get notices, which you ignore and you are burying your head into sand.
– You do not open your mail,
– Ignore the phone call, or just can’t see writing on the wall.
– It is a last-ditch effort at debt collection and hits at your paycheck. Of course it hits it hard and draws your quick attention. Now, you are awake and don’t know what to do.
– However, if you move with some lightning speed, you can be helped. Time again is the essence.
– When facing credit card debt that can’t readily be paid, the best plan of action is to act early reach some sort of payment arrangement and stick to a repayment plan.
– The court intervenes when everything else fails. Now, the question is can you move fast and stop this financial bleeding?
Garnishment is a legal and judicial remedy: It is authorized by a court either after full hearing or pursuant to a default judgment against you. It should be considered a collection tool of last resort. It is mostly a judicial action authorizing the judgment creditor, or the constable to go and levy your wages. It is a direction from the constable office (In Nevada) to your payroll to start deducting a certain and defined amount from your wages in every pay period until satisfied.
Not all garnishment are court initiated:
It is true that most of the garnishment is court authorized but there are some limited exceptions to it. In every case, it is best to go to your payroll and ask them a copy of the garnishment execution papers.
Exceptions to Court Sanctioned Garnishment:
There is no need to go to court for garnishment in at least the following situations:
a. Student Loan
b. Spousal Support
c. IRS taxes.
d. Certain specified lien.
You Should Stop the Evil In the Bud:
As we stated before you can see the signs of garnishment and many cases they are predictable. In our office, we hear all kinds of stories. They levied my bank account and took all the money, or I did not know anything about legal lawsuit against me. Come on guys, you were ignoring all the letters send to you. You just did not open any judicial mail sent to your address. Well, if you changed your address, you still are bound to receive your mail. Why? Because it is your job to go to the post office and change your address. Clients are often embarrassed when faced with garnishment because now their paycheck is involved, which means their employer is aware of their financial situation. Employers are typically required to tell workers about the withheld amount. Also, you should remember that it is against the law for an employer to fire an employee whose wages are garnished, but embarrassment is noted and it does not paint a good picture especially if you are working in a financial environment.
Still No Bid Deal:
Here, the garnishment papers had been served on you and you also got a notification from your payroll. But, still something can be done.
1. Come and meet us at the Law Office of Malik W. Ahmad (702) 270-9100, make an appointment. Of course, we listen to you patiently. The Judgment Creditor is still shaky though he had reached you and can grab a part of your paycheck. But what is the guarantee that he would continuously receive the garnished amount. If you leave the job, they have to start this process all over again, and it is complicated and expensive process.
2. You can start the bankruptcy process. Of course, we are here to help you.
3. If you do not like to file bankruptcy, definitely we can settle with you creditors if you have some financial capacity or make one time settlement. Of course Law Office of Malik Ahmad had helped many debtors in this regard. Desperation cannot resolve anything: only strong determination can resolve your financial matters.
4. The only recourse for a consumer after a judgment has been rendered is to ask the court to adjust the amount of the garnishment if the reduction in pay severely impacts the consumer’s ability to support himself and any dependents.
5. If a judgment is rendered in a state where the garnishment law differs from federal law, the law requires the court to adjust the garnishment to the lesser amount.
Don’t bury your head in the sand:
No need to be ostriches and bury your head into the sand, you can be helped in very short period of time. No need to stay miserable. If you wanted to be helped, you can be helped.
Laws on garnishing
While the garnishment laws vary from state to state and bank to bank but here we are only discussing wage garnishment as applicable in the state of Nevada. Again, state and federal law regulate the amount of money that may be garnished from a consumer’s wages or bank account. In Nevada, it is 25% of the total wages. Again, it is hefty amount regardless and can upset your budget and limited income. Also, it is like a bolt from the blue for which you or your family is not ready. This garnishment can be on top of other debts and liabilities. A garnishment is a serious encroachment into your financial matters; it also leaves a very heavy derogatory impact on your credit report
No need to be scared, as help available to you. Just call the law office of Malik W. Ahmad at (702) 270-9100.

What are the limitations on deficiency judgment in Nevada?


Nevada Statute NRS 40.458 deals with Deficiency judgment as this placed many limitations and propitiation Award to judgment creditor or beneficiary of deed of trust under certain circumstances.

Financial Institution: 1. If the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust who applies for a deficiency judgment is a banking or other financial institution, the court may not award a deficiency judgment to the judgment creditor or the beneficiary of the deed of trust if:
Single Family Dwelling: (a) The real property is a single-family dwelling and the debtor or the grantor of the deed of trust was the owner of the real property at the time of the sale in lieu of a foreclosure sale;
Bought a Property: (b) The debtor or grantor used the amount for which the real property was secured by the mortgage or deed of trust to purchase the real property;
Continuous Occupation: (c) The debtor or grantor continuously occupied the real property as the debtor’s or grantor’s principal residence after securing the mortgage or deed of trust;
Sale to a third party for lesser amount: (d) The debtor or grantor and the banking or other financial institution entered into an agreement to sell the real property secured by the mortgage or deed of trust to a third party for an amount less than the indebtedness secured thereby; and
(e) The agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph (d):
(1) Does not state the amount of money still owed to the banking or other financial institution by the debtor or grantor or does not authorize the banking or other financial institution to recover that amount from the debtor or grantor; and
(2) Contains a conspicuous statement that has been acknowledged by the signature of the debtor or grantor which provides that the banking or other financial institution has waived its right to recover the amount owed by the debtor or grantor and which sets forth the amount of recovery that is being waived.
2. As used in this section:

What is the definition of a financial Institution?
(a) “Banking or other financial institution” means any bank, savings and loan association, savings bank, thrift company, credit union or other financial institution that is licensed, registered or otherwise authorized to do business in this State.
(b) “Sale in lieu of a foreclosure sale” means a sale of real property pursuant to an agreement between a person to whom an obligation secured by a mortgage or other lien on real property is owed and the debtor of that obligation in which the sales price of the real property is insufficient to pay the full outstanding balance of the obligation and the costs of the sale. The term includes, without limitation, a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
(Added to NRS by 2011, 2051)

What is the Limitations on the Amount of Money Judgment?

NRS 40.459 Limitations on amount of money judgment.
1. After the hearing, the court shall award a money judgment against the debtor, guarantor or surety who is personally liable for the debt. The court shall not render judgment for more than:
(a) The amount by which the amount of the indebtedness which was secured exceeds the fair market value of the property sold at the time of the sale, with interest from the date of the sale;
(b) The amount which is the difference between the amount for which the property was actually sold and the amount of the indebtedness which was secured, with interest from the date of sale; or
(c) If the person seeking the judgment acquired the right to obtain the judgment from a person who previously held that right, the amount by which the amount of the consideration paid for that right exceeds the fair market value of the property sold at the time of sale or the amount for which the property was actually sold, whichever is greater, with interest from the date of sale and reasonable costs,
 whichever is the lesser amount.
2. For the purposes of this section, the “amount of the indebtedness” does not include any amount received by, or payable to, the judgment creditor or beneficiary of the deed of trust pursuant to an insurance policy to compensate the judgment creditor or beneficiary for any losses incurred with respect to the property or the default on the debt.

How the distribution of proceeds of foreclosure sale is done in Nevada?


Section NRS 40.462 deals with the Distribution of proceeds of foreclosure sale in Nevada.
1. The proceeds of a foreclosure sale must be distributed in the following order of priority:
(a) Payment of the reasonable expenses of taking possession, maintaining, protecting and leasing the property, the costs and fees of the foreclosure sale, including reasonable trustee’s fees, applicable taxes and the cost of title insurance and, to the extent provided in the legally enforceable terms of the mortgage or lien, any advances, reasonable attorney’s fees and other legal expenses incurred by the foreclosing creditor and the person conducting the foreclosure sale.

(b) Satisfaction of the obligation being enforced by the foreclosure sale.

(c) Satisfaction of obligations secured by any junior mortgages or liens on the property, in their order of priority.

(d) Payment of the balance of the proceeds, if any, to the debtor or the debtor’s successor in interest.

 If there are conflicting claims to any portion of the proceeds, the person conducting the foreclosure sale is not required to distribute that portion of the proceeds until the validity of the conflicting claims is determined through interpleader or otherwise to the person’s satisfaction.
3. A person who claims a right to receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 2 must, upon the written demand of the person conducting the foreclosure sale, provide:
(a) Proof of the obligation upon which the claimant claims a right to the proceeds; and
(b) Proof of the claimant’s interest in the mortgage or lien, unless that proof appears in the official records of a county in which the property is located.
 Such a demand is effective upon personal delivery or upon mailing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the claimant. Failure of a claimant to provide the required proof within 15 days after the effective date of the demand waives the claimant’s right to receive those proceeds.
4. As used in this section, “foreclosure sale” means the sale of real property to enforce an obligation secured by a mortgage or lien on the property, including the exercise of a trustee’s power of sale pursuant to NRS 107.080.

New Settlement Expected on Home Loans Abuses


NY Times have the latest news about a new settlement which is expected between government regulators and representatives of 14 big bank. This could be worth

$10 billion settlement with 14 banks that would end the government’s efforts to hold lenders responsible for foreclosures abuses for faulty paperwork and excessive fees that may have led to evictions, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

“Under the settlement, a significant amount of the money, $3.75 billion, would go to people who have already lost their homes, making it potentially more generous to former homeowners than a broad-reaching pact in February between state attorneys general and five large banks. That set aside $1.5 billion in cash relief for Americans.

Most of the relief in both agreements is meant for people who are struggling to stay in their homes and need the banks to reduce their payments or lower the amount of principal they owe.”

The $10 billion pact would be the latest in a series of settlements that regulators and law enforcement officials have reached with banks to hold them accountable for their role in the 2008 financial crisis that sent the housing market into the deepest slump.  As of early 2012, four million Americans had been foreclosed upon since the beginning of 2007, and a huge amount of abandoned homes swamped many states, including California, Florida and Arizona.