In Fine Print, Banks Require Struggling Homeowners to Waive Rights

[The Straight Story]

In Fine Print, Banks Require Struggling Homeowners to Waive Rights

A few months ago, Bank of America offered Sergio Cortez of Staten Island, N.Y., the help he desperately needed to stay in his home: a break on his mortgage. Like millions of others, he was facing foreclosure. But there was a catch buried in the fine print. Cortez had to waive any possibility of ever suing the bank for anything relating to the loan.

Cortez isn't alone. While regulators have banned the practice, some banks and others who handle mortgages have still been forcing homeowners into a corner: You want a chance at saving your home? Then you'll have to waive your rights.

"It's just unfair," said Jane Azia, director of consumer protection for the New York State Banking Department. "It puts borrowers in a very vulnerable situation."

We identified eight banks and other mortgage servicers who offer help that limits homeowners' ability to sue or fight foreclosure. When we contacted them, they offered a variety of responses. Some said the inclusion of the waivers had been a mistake and would stop. Some argued that language that seemed to waive the homeowner's rights didn't actually do so. One argued that a loophole in a rule barring the practice meant their inclusion in certain agreements was proper.

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-fine-print-banks-require-struggling-homeowners-to-waive-rights

[nenagh]

1. Hope this is not OT...A Canadian Bank has just taken over the house next door..

and have hired a company to do upkeep on the property.

Lawns will be mowed weekly, the garden beds maintained, garage was cleared out, and, because a huge storm blew many shingles off the roof... they are taking bids now to replace the shingles..

I'm just north of the St. Lawrence River, in Ontario...

The men doing the upkeep said there are four such companies in quite a large area, doing maintenance on these bankruptcy homes, now bank owned...

which also provides jobs in this rather job depressed area...

[NutmegYankee]

2. Those bastards know they are liable.

And yet they walk free.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I don't think that courts will recognize a provision whereby a party

absolutely gives up its right to a tribunal. You can limit your right by opting for arbitration instead of litigation, but giving it up altogether is unconscionable and probably unenforceable.

[JHB]

4. The expense to challenge it ...

...for homeowners who already have money problems will be enforcement enough.