Loan Modification Law - California State Senate passes Bill 94

The California State Senate has passed Senate Bill 94firms offering that such services, have helped tens of
(”SB 94?), legislation proposed by Sen. Ron S.thousands of California homeowners get their
Calderon (D-Montebello), Chairman of the Banking,mortgages modified. With the number of foreclosures
Finance & Insurance Committee. The senatecontinuing to increase each month, it would seem clear
passed the bill on May 21, 2009, by a vote of 21 to 14. Itthat the state’s homeowners would not benefit
is now in the state assembly where it has been readfrom any legitimate avenue being overlooked or
once and “held at desk,” which means thatunfairly maligned.
it’s awaiting referral to a committee.3. Defrauding a homeowner has always been against
Senate Bill 94 is intended to protect CaliforniaCalifornia law, so in that sense, SB 94 is redundant.
homeowners from scam loan modification companies.When you consider that “scammers” who did in
In my view, the problems with SB 94, as writtenfact defraud consumers in conjunction with the
include:promise of a loan modification, did so in violation of
1. It was created to protect consumers from loanexisting law, it would seem that a new law making it
modification “scammers” who charge distressedillegal to charge an advance fee when offering to
homeowners up front fees and deliver nothing in return,assist a homeowner with a loan modification would be
but it was written without the benefit of accurate dataunlikely to prevent future scammers from attempting
on the contribution being made by the legitimate loanto do the same.
modification industry in California. Without knowing how4. Legitimate firms offering to assist troubled
many homeowners the private sector loanhomeowners could be regulated and monitored,
modification firms save each month, or thewithout requiring these firms to operate at a financial
sustainability of the modifications obtained by thedisadvantage by disallowing advance fees. The
private sector, it would not be possible to design aprocess of obtaining a loan modification is not similar to
solution in the best interests of homeowners and theother real estate transactions in several key ways:
state’s economy.A. The process can take six weeks, or six months…
2. The SB 94 bill, as written, is based on a fundamentaland in some cases even longer. The lenders and
misconception. As stated in the in bill’s narrative:servicers are not consistent in how loan modifications
“It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrangeare handled or on what basis they are granted.
for a loan modification or other form of forbearanceB. There is no escrow, or objective standard for
from your mortgage lender or servicer. You may call“satisfaction,” in conjunction with a loan
your lender directly to ask for a change in your loanmodification transaction, and therefore there is no
terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies also offerassurance that a company would receive payment
these and other forms of borrower assistance free offrom the homeowner once the mortgage has been
charge.”modified.
While both of these statements are technically true,These are just a few of the issues with SB 94. The
this language ignores the fact that there are alsolaw is attempting to protect homeowners, but is
reputable private sector firms that homeowners mayactually protecting the lender guaranteeing that
choose to hire to help them negotiate with their bankshomeowners will not be adequately represented when
when seeking a modification of their mortgages.dealing with the lender. The lenders will take advantage
Private sector firms, including those licensed by theof this and will offer homeowners loan modifications
state’s Department of Real Estate and/or lawthat do not help their situation.