I do taxes. One of the areas I specialize in is income property issues. That you feel the calculations are not intense, more power to you. I spent way more time than deserved (Because of the casual nature on the forum.) on the case as I like to learn. I had a problem following along with the calculations. Then again, I'm the guy a guy like you would come to to make sure the bank's calculation is correct and I wanted to make sure I understood the court's calculations. In other words, I'm pretty good at this kind of stuff, your thing is pretty much in my ballpark, and I felt the calculations intense. Of course it would be easier with all the facts, including amortization schedules. But, either you are a super brain or I am missing something.
This doesn't require a super brain and of course you are missing the amortization schedule and other figures whereas I'm not. The entire case basically reiterates that the HPA is fairly cut and dry on the issues:
PMI automatically terminates when the LTV reaches 78% (in my case, 78% of the appraised value since I actually refinanced and there is purchase price) through natural amortization. Let's pretend my home appraised at 200,000. $200,000 x 78% = $156,000. All one has to do is look at the amortization schedule provided and look at the date the principle balance is scheduled to reach $156,000 and that is the date the HPA says the PMI automatically terminates. Yes, it really is that simple.
This is of no issue unless you are going to get involved with a class action. The meaning of the case has nothing to do with the players.
This is an issue because it means that it's 99.9% likely, the plaintiff in the referenced case has the same identical modification agreement as I do, same verbiage with only the names and amounts changed.
This is a valid point. Odds are the calculation is much as in the case.
I disagree. There is nothing about a letter being sent. Since I believe that may be relevant, the facts of the case would probably have included it. I do agree an amortization schedule is key. Without that, you have no idea about potential damages.
What I meant when I said "I bet" was that I was guessing the plaintiff probably got the annual notice. All of us losers paying PMI get them every year.
HPA requires that the lenders/servicers send them. If
you were paying monthly PMI and you got the letter referencing your automatic right to PMI termination, would you toss the letter in the trash? Or would you, having had your loan modified and having had no new amortization schedule with this information listed (remember all home purchases and refis are required to tell you) would you not request an amortization schedule so that you could look the date up to see when to your PMI was scheduled to terminate? Again, it was merely speculation as to what prompted Rice to file suit and doesn't matter. What does matter is that the amortization schedule sent to me Dec. 2013 clearly showed my PMI was scheduled to terminate 9/2013. Because my modification, like Rices, is a step rate loan defined by HPA, we would have to look at the modification then in affect. That would actually mean that my loan reached 78% LTV in 3/2013. Because the rate changed again on 5/2015 and therefore created a new amortization schedule. I just didn't get a copy of the new schedule, just a couple pages referencing the rate change and new interest and principle payment amounts. My PMI should have cancelled 5/2015.
This is one reason why an attorney is imperative. I think, at the very least, the issue is complex and a pro per is not going to get compensation according to the time required. I mean, really, how much were you hurt? At the most? If you REFINANCED then you have nothing. Not a little tiny baby thing. The case has no relevance. You have no real argument. From now on, I suggest you use the term "modified" from now on. Just saying.
The fact that I refinanced ONLY means that in regards to HPA, you have to use the appraisal instead of the purchase price. See: 5
�Original value� is defined as the lesser of the sales price of the secured property as reflected in the purchase contract or, the appraised value at the time of loan consummation. In the case of a refinancing, the term means the appraised value relied upon by the lender to approve the refinance transaction. Page 2 here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/caletters/2004/0405/CA04-5Attach1.pdf. Just to be clear, I refinanced in 2008 and HAMP mod in 2010. Sorry for the confusion.
Your statement is legally untrue. See above for at least one of the reasons. I don't have the facts so the reality may be different. But, if you took from that case from another than your (Or, any at that level.) jurisdiction as controlling, you would be making a mistake. Then, you also have the "refi" jargon. If that is the case rather than a "modification", you have a problem. Stop saying silly things. Get with the program. Making things all "legal like" depends on words and theory. If you want to fight this thing the other party is not really going to give in to because you stand akimbo and speak deeply, is not going to happen. If you want to win, you will need to sue and win.
What????
We'll see. That is still in play. That is one of the most powerful things the other party knows. Argument alone hurts you more than them. If they lose to you, no one goes home with less steaks in the freezer. What is it you claim? What do you think, specifically, are your damages?
I believe I know if I had a HAMP modification or not, I have the HAMP modification agreement to prove it. My damages: Total of all unearned premiums paid plus interest (PMI was supposed to terminated per HPA a year ago.) Statutory damages up to $2000 provided in HPA, filing fees, time spent away from work writing letters to these morons. There maybe other Georgia statues that they violated that I have not looked at yet.
