San Jose Short Sale Agent: Silicon Valley Foreclosure Prevention Specialists

The San Jose Short Sale Agent  shouted with glee today to celebrate the victorious outcome of a family which was able to successfully fight its battle against foreclosure today, as I was feeling proud and victorious.  The family which had endured the humiliation of being turned down for a loan modification by their bank, feeling they were without recourse, had come to me only two months ago to try a short sale as their last hope.   They felt they were at their wit’s end.   They came beaten and  humiliated.  It was bad enough they had to live through the indignity of unemployment which triggered their horror story, but their bank had refused to modify their loan or otherwise assist them.

But today they were victorious because the same bank which refused their loan modification request, had approved their Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) short sale and were willing to pay them $3,000 to help with their relocation costs and also had going to pay nearly $4,000 to pay off their HOA delinquencies and additional funds to pay off their delinquent property taxes.   Unlike two months ago, now the family felt they were getting vindicated.

That joyous feeling lasted a few hours as I read this  article today describing a different outcome for a person with a similar hardship which is headed towards a different outcome.   I obviously do not know the full details of Darlene’s situation besides what was described in the article below.   However, what I do know is that she was unemployed, suffers from cancer and fell behind in her payments which led to her foreclosure.

Typically three things have to be present to qualify for a short sale approval:  1) hardship (typically economic hardships) ,  2) monthly income short fall (meaning more goes out than coming in)  and 3) insolvency (meaning no assets).   In Darlene’s case, she certainly would have met the hardship (cancer plus unemployment);  the article mentions she is living on pension, social security and unemployment so I would assume she had a monthly short fall and probably did not have much assets set aside.   She certainly sounds like she would have been a good candidate for a short sale.

Additionally, if  this were her only home (primary residence), and as she was obviously delinquent on her mortgage payments and her unemployment and other income sources would probably have resulted in her paying more than 31% of her monthly income, there is a good chance she would have qualified for a HAFA short sale as well as Wells Fargo participates in that program.   If she qualified for a HAFA short sale, then she would have received $3,000 relocation assistance and up to $6,000 to pay off her second loan, if she had one.   Rather than being evicted with nothing to  her name or perhaps a small stipend – otherwise known as cash for keys – to get her out, Darlene could have saved herself the humiliation of being evicted from her home of 41 years and walked away knowing that she would have settled her debts with Wells Fargo and other lien holders.   She could have walked away selling her home with the bank’s blessing plus money in her pocket, rather than having the bank evict her and her neighbors of 41 years watching this happen.

The unfortunate aspect of this tragic story is that Darlene probably did not know that the HAFA option was available to her.   People in Darlene’s demographics do not often have the benefit of being able to research alternative options to foreclosures on the internet and take advantage of those solutions and the accompanying benefits like my clients did when they reached out to me two months ago.  Both of these people had similar hardships – unemployment (but Darlene’s case was worse because she also has cancer which was probably rapidly draining her bank account) – yet the outcomes will be dramatically different and each of these families will be celebrating the Holiday Season this year  in different states of minds.   It did not have to end this way for Darlene except that she was unaware and regretfully no one around her had given her the requisite  information.

If you are reading this blog entry, please share what you have read, so that people like Darlene do not have to suffer through foreclosures due to lack of knowledge regarding alternative options.   Please tell your grandparents, parents, neighbors or others who may be unable to surf the net for answers that there are alternative options to foreclosures; they don’t have to endure the humiliation of an eviction.  Please share with them that there is a Federal Government designed program to help out people facing foreclosures by offering them different alternatives.

 
San Jose Foreclosure Case is Both Tragic and Complicated

I get upset when people don’t try their best.  I realize everyone is different and has different personalities, but we, as Realtors, are all in the business of representing the best interests of our clients.  As Realtors, we have a fiduciary duty to our clients: this means we are to put client’s interest ahead of our own.  We must do our best for our clients.  I’ve heard too many Realtors cave into the lenders without putting up much of a fight.

With the economy still in its anemic state and unemployment level still hovering near historic high of 10% (11.5% here in Silicon Valley), the prospect of depleting the inventory of distressed properties in the immediate future does not seem feasible.  The high level of unemployment and implementation of HAFA with the support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac means the next few years will be busy years for short sale.

If, you therefore, choose to make a living helping distressed homeowners fight foreclosures, then by all means go out and fight for them because they need all the assistance you can provide.  This often time means pushing on even when the lenders say no or put up road blocks in your path.  The negotiators working for lenders are not highly compensated and are often over-worked, so they simply do not care and are often willing to send homeowners into foreclosure because of minor technicalities.   Some will help out homeowners by going out of their way to help your clients, most will not.  It’s the nature of the bureaucratic systems in which they work.  It doesn’t mean they are bad people, it just means there is little or no incentive for them to go out beyond what is expected of them.  After all, they work for organizations that engage in semi-deceptive practices like dual track foreclosures.  So it is up to us, the Realtors to step up and earn our commissions.

As a San Jose Short Sale Agent, I recently received a call from an attorney friend of mine who wanted me to help his client because the East Coast lender/servicer denied their loan modification request and would not agree to extend a trustee sale which was scheduled some three weeks out.   He got tired of dealing with this lender and wanted to know if I could get the sale date extended and complete a short sale.  Three weeks to stop a foreclosure was a tall order, but I thought I could help.

Getting a bona fide buyer took longer than I anticipated and we had only one week left before the scheduled trustee sale.  I immediately contacted the lender to advise them we had a solid offer and that I had just submitted a short sale packet.  The curt response I got was that their investor had a policy not to extend Trustee sales unless the short sale packets were submitted at least 10 days prior to the sale date: I was three days too late. She would not even consider looking at the offer or the packet. 

I had worked too hard during the past two weeks to simply be told that due to some arbitrary deadline; my clients were going to be thrown out in the street when we had a perfectly good buyer wanting to purchase their home.   I escalated the matter to the negotiator’s supervisor.  She simply reiterated their investor’s policy and told me there was nothing she could do.  I wasn’t going to be stopped by these bureaucrats who didn’t want to lift a finger.  I searched the internet and found the Corporate Communication Director’s contact information.  This time, I was going to use my ace card: my client’s hardship was his wife’s cancer. While she was receiving treatment, she eventually lost her job and the second income which was required to meet their mortgage obligations.

By the time I got the number and the email address (they are in the East Coast), the office was closed, but I left a voicemail and sent an email explaining my situation and that I would contact the local media and explain that the big East Coast lender, because of an arbitrary deadline and because it was inconvenient, would rather throw a cancer victim out into the street, even where there is a willing bona fide buyer, because we missed an arbitrary deadline by three days!   I was not going to let my clients get thrown out into the streets when we had a willing buyer.

The following afternoon, I got a call from the executive office.   They were more receptive and cooperative then the loss mitigation department employees.  The helpful woman said she would get in touch with the appropriate person at the loss mitigation department and do everything she could to get an extension on the sale date.

The next day, I got a call from someone who was a VP at loss mitigation, she began to tell me that the sale date could not be extended because it was the investor’s policy and therefore, they could not deviate from it and began to tell me all the reasons why her hands were tied.  This was a completely different response than the woman from the executive office.

I wasn’t going to simply accept her explanation, I simply would not accept that they had zero influence in extending the trustee sale; I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.  I called the executive office and again threatened to call the local consumer affairs reporter.  This time the helpful lady told me to disregard what I was told by the loss mitigation employee because she was going to pull strings and get it done.  She asked me to trust her and to call the attorney service the next day and confirm for myself that the extension was granted.  I had no choice as we were down to four days before the sale date.  I called the attorney service the next morning and got the news I was waiting for: we received a 60 days extension.

Between the attorney friend and myself, we were told on four different occasions that the trustee sale could not be extended.  They were simply refusing to lift their fingers to help out the borrower.  I had no choice but to refuse to accept their answers because doing so  would mean that my clients would literally be thrown out into the street when we had a willing buyer to take their home.   I was not proud of exploiting my client’s cancer condition, but I had to protect their interest by any means necessary.  In the end we persevered because I refused to listen to them when they told me no.   I guess I am hard headed in that way; but my clients are thankful and that is good enough for me.