Net Present value Analysis and Loan Audits
Some of the cases we've worked on in the past 12 months involved the following issues:
Standards of Care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff-Borrower sued both lender and mortgage broker for approving a loan for which Plaintiff was clearly not qualified and which ended in default.
Fraud (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff lent money to a friend for a down payment on a home purchase, to be repaid in 3 years. The lender required it to be a gift and not a loan, and Plaintiff agreed to sign a bank form to that effect. Defendant relied on that form in refusing to pay back the loan.
Fraud (for Defendant): Lenders evaluation of income shown on loan application in stated income loans, where income documentation is not required. Is the income shown on the application the projected income for the coming year, or must it reflect last year’s income?
Standards of care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff purchased a home using the services of a realtor, who referred Plaintiff to a mortgage broker to arrange for a mortgage. After the closing, Plaintiff discovered that the terms of the loan had been misrepresented, and that mortgage broker and realtor failed to disclose that mortgage broker was an employee of the realtor.
Standards of care/Fraud (for Defendant): Defendant (mortgage broker) used the same appraiser for many of his loans. Plaintiff (lender) claimed that it was the Defendants duty to personally inspect the comps used by the appraiser in arriving at his valuations, and confirm their validity.
Standards of care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff purchased a home with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Five years later, Defendant (lender) notified Plaintiff that her loan would revert to an adjustable loan since the fixed period was for five years only. Lender could not document the reasons for using the wrong trust deed forms.
We have earned a reputation as a highly-respected litigation consulting firm, assisting loan modification attorneys in the preparation and management of mortgage modification files. We provide the tools that help them close the deal: Net Present Value analysis (the same tool that banks are required by the FDIC to use in negotiating a modification) and audits. By using the NPV analysis, the attorney is no longer at the mercy of the lender or the servicer, as he now has advance look at what the bank's offer will be.
Firm's Profile
Firm's Profile
Some of the cases we've worked on in the past 12 months involved the following issues:
Mortgages and real estate finance; Real Estate industry standards and practices; Lenders/Borrowers standards and practices; Plaintiff and Defense strategies concerning breach of contract and/or fraud; Mortgage fraud litigation; Credit underwriting (commercial & residential loans); mortgage brokers' malpractice issues; conflicts of interest; commission compensation issues; Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac credit score & automated underwriting issues.
Sample Cases:
Standards of Care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff-Borrower sued both lender and mortgage broker for approving a loan for which Plaintiff was clearly not qualified and which ended in default.
Fraud (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff lent money to a friend for a down payment on a home purchase, to be repaid in 3 years. The lender required it to be a gift and not a loan, and Plaintiff agreed to sign a bank form to that effect. Defendant relied on that form in refusing to pay back the loan.
Fraud (for Defendant): Lenders evaluation of income shown on loan application in stated income loans, where income documentation is not required. Is the income shown on the application the projected income for the coming year, or must it reflect last year’s income?
Standards of care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff purchased a home using the services of a realtor, who referred Plaintiff to a mortgage broker to arrange for a mortgage. After the closing, Plaintiff discovered that the terms of the loan had been misrepresented, and that mortgage broker and realtor failed to disclose that mortgage broker was an employee of the realtor.
Standards of care/Fraud (for Defendant): Defendant (mortgage broker) used the same appraiser for many of his loans. Plaintiff (lender) claimed that it was the Defendants duty to personally inspect the comps used by the appraiser in arriving at his valuations, and confirm their validity.
Standards of care (for Plaintiff): Plaintiff purchased a home with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. Five years later, Defendant (lender) notified Plaintiff that her loan would revert to an adjustable loan since the fixed period was for five years only. Lender could not document the reasons for using the wrong trust deed forms.
Forster Realty Advisors
Los Angeles: 310-474-6265
New York City: 646-462-3784
New York City: 646-462-3784
Toll free: 888-XPRT-989 (888-977-8989)
424-203-2038 (fax)
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA. 90064
