State identifies companies authorized to modify loans

Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2009 | 4:18 p.m.

The Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending today released a list of 28 companies authorized to work with consumers in modifying home loans.

On Monday, the agency said it was canceling the authorization to work for about 30 loan modification companies that failed to obtain a minimum $75,000 surety bond.

In addition to passing FBI and other background checks, a credit check, and meeting specific educational requirements, the state requires loan modification providers to post the bonds. The bonds are a provision to protect consumers who may be harmed by loan modification providers.

Homeowners may view a list of companies that remain authorized to provide loan modification and other covered services, via a link on the home page of the Mortgage Lending Division’s Web site. The list will be updated as needed to add or delete the names of those companies, the agency said.

Companies whose authorization to conduct loan modification and other covered services has been canceled have 10 days to close down and cancel their contracts with homeowners. They must also make refunds as provided for in their contracts or transfer the homeowners’ contracts and funds to approved companies or counselors.

"We will not allow those companies who have not met their legal obligations to operate," agency Commissioner Joseph Waltuch said in a statement. "If consumers are going to pay for loan modification assistance, they must be able to trust that there’s recourse if they’ve been harmed in some way."

Waltuch advised homeowners who have been working through such companies that they may need to contact their lenders and revoke any authorizations given to the lenders to discuss their loans with such companies.

For more information about the Division of Mortgage Lending, visit mld.nv.gov/index.htm.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By KillerB

11/3/09 at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

"The bonds are a provision to protect consumers who may be harmed by loan modification providers..... We will not allow those companies who have not met their legal obligations to operate..."

Such hypocrisy -- the state would rather be part of the problem than the solution.

Evidently the state takes the banks and their parasites, the institutions who must agree to the loan modifications, at face value to have the legal right to the properties. They're the real culprits here. Why are they not being forced to first prove they still hold a legal interest in the property? Not talking about MERS here -- Judge Riegle was right!! -- it MUST be the actual note holder.

Evidently, for all their fuss and fanfare passing these new laws to "protect" stressed homeowners, it's still left up to them to take the prudent and necessary step to qualify the "lender" is still the note holder (Professor Porter has estimated about 40% don't). Otherwise all the loan mod does is create a new note with a pretender lender.

What's wrong with this picture??
By wizardofOz

11/3/09 at 6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending did the right thing.

"Shift and shaft" businesses that are in business to skim, scam, and flim-flam, should be

OUT OF BUSINESS.

The U.S. has a long history of exposing corrupt industries (i.e. muckraking) and protecting citizens from the physical and financial dangers facilitated by corrupt activity that preys on trust.

Keep up the good work.
By KillerB

11/3/09 at 7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

wizard -- I like how you put that, "Shift and shaft"

Sounds better than "shell game." You're looking at the wrong side of this issue, though. The biggest frauds are from the pretender lenders. If they don't have the actual, physical note the homeowner signed in their files, they're not owed anything and it's absolute fraud for them to pretend they can modify anything.
By elgato

11/3/09 at 7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

KillerB:

Again, your logic is that the home occupier should just be given the house free and clear if the note cannot be produced by the party to whom the mortgage had been paid up until this point...and just think, I paid cash for my houses, paid my bills have no outstanding debt, a credit rating of 820, and I could have gotten a house for free! I never heard about that deal...I guess my admin misplaced that memo...

Oh, well...I can sleep at night knowing I did the right thing...I pay my bills honestly and forthrightly...I don't expect anything for free and I don't whine when I lose my bets, er, investments in the stock market...and what do you mean I don't have any more money in the bank!!! I still have checks in the checkbook!!!

Entitlement seems to be the premise here...oh, well...the flavor's been chewed out of this gum, so I'm going to give it a rest...

Good luck with your effort, and if I can buy anyone else a house, let me know...I kick myself to think I could have a Mercedes, a house in the Ridges, some elbow jewelry with 34DDD, and all for FREE...somebody owes me that just, well, just because...

Wow...well, just wow...
By KillerB

11/3/09 at 10:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

elgato -- right, my logic -- backed up by judges and other credible sources from around the country, one of them downtown here, waking up and actually doing their jobs.

It's evident you're more interested in mocking than in the proof you challenged me for on the other thread. So now you have a problem with my posts about why foreclosers should be required to prove their right to the properties as part of the process.

It's also evident you have received all the consideration from me you're going to get. If In re Hwang didn't give you solid proof of the real nature of this massive fraud, and it's simple cure, there's nothing more to be served by taking your bait here. Good night, sir.
By elgato

11/4/09 at 2:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

KillerB:

Didn't mean for this to be a personal affront...my apologies.

I'm trying to express the point that I made yesterday regarding stare decisis and the well ingrained law that your premise is based upon. Laws will change, as necessary, and especially considering the absurdity of the consequence of the application of this current law with the current facts. Chaos would ensue and this would prevent any judge from interpreting the law according to today's environment.

No harm no foul...I like your tenacity and your thoroughness in the research you've done. In the end, even though we're not a common law country, common sense, I believe, will prevail.

My point basically comes down to the fact that, under your scenario, NO ONE will be able to produce the note...the lender, the home occupier, etc...therefore ownership is ________.
By perry161492

11/4/09 at 4:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

hey my friend doing modification with a company that not on list it been over 6 plus month so far
By KillerB

11/4/09 at 7:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

elgato -- nothing personal taken. Thanks for the kind words -- don't get much of that here.

perry161492 -- you didn't say how it's going with that company. Please enlighten us -- I'm interested in how well you've been treated, whether they're competent, all that.

All together now "Nanny State!" Then the lyrics from Pink Floyd's "Mother" -- "mother won't let anyone dirty with you / mother will make all your nightmares come true..."