Sherwin Law Firm Succeeds in FHA Foreclosure Defense Case

Last week, I had a successful outcome in a FHA foreclosure defense case.  My client was facing a post-foreclosure eviction and I raised a successful defense regarding the lender’s non-compliance with the foreclosure requirements for these types of loans.

FHA Foreclosure

A Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) loan is a loan guaranteed by the federal government and designed to help home buyers who would not meet the traditional lending requirements for purchasing a home.  Because the federal government insures these loans, lenders are more willing to offer loans to potential buyers who might otherwise be considered a high risk for lending.

FHA foreclosures require lenders to comply with many more requirements than those associated with a standard mortgage agreement.  Lenders of FHA loans must review borrowers for loan modifications and other loss mitigation opportunities and, in most circumstances, have a “face-to-face” meeting with the borrower prior to foreclosure.

Strict Compliance Is Required for FHA Foreclosures 

Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state, which allows lenders to foreclose without bringing a court case against the borrower.  This is in contrast to states like New York and Vermont, where a lender needs to file a lawsuit against a borrower to foreclose.  Here in Massachusetts, a lender must strictly comply with the applicable foreclosure requirements.  Failure to do so will make the foreclosure void.

The Appeals Court has extended this strict compliance requirement to FHA foreclosures.  A lender’s failure to comply with the “face-to-face” requirement will be fatal to a foreclosure’s validity.

While I am aware of no case on this, I believe that this type of foreclosure defense would equally extend to the other FHA foreclosure requirements, including reviewing a borrower for a loan modification.

For this reason, borrowers who are facing FHA foreclosures often have viable defenses in these cases.

Outcome of Case

In this case, the lender alleged to have performed the required “face-to-face” meeting, but only after it accelerated the mortgage loan (where the lender demands the entire loan balance prior to foreclosing).  Because this meeting came after, and not before, the loan acceleration, the lender failed to comply with this foreclosure requirement, making the foreclosure void.

While it is sometimes obvious that the lender made an error with the foreclosure requirements, such mistakes are not always clear.  Here, this foreclosure defense required a strong understanding of the non-judicial foreclosure process and these FHA requirements.

Conclusion

The benefits of having an experience foreclosure defense attorney is essential in dealing with one of these cases.  If you need assistance in defending against an FHA foreclosure, contact me for a consultation.

Do I Need A Foreclosure Attorney?

Homeowners facing foreclosure in Massachusetts often ask themselves: do I need a foreclosure attorney?  As an attorney who has helped hundreds of Massachusetts homeowners facing foreclosure, let me discuss some of the ways that a lawyer can assist with the foreclosure process.

Applying for a Loan Modification or Short Sale

A lawyer is not always needed for a loan modification or short sale application.  If a homeowner is comfortable completing the required paperwork and staying on top of the process, a homeowner can do this on their own.

However, many homeowners find these applications to be overwhelming, which often require extensive paperwork and communication with the loan servicer.  For many homeowners, a lawyer (or reputable loan modification professional) can be a huge help with this process.

Stopping a Foreclosure Sale

If a homeowner is facing a scheduled foreclosure sale, a foreclosure attorney is generally needed.  While a homeowner can attempt to represent themselves in court, the process for doing so is especially overwhelming and complicated for a non-lawyer.  I’ve rarely seen a self-represented litigant succeed in fighting a foreclosure.  Massachusetts foreclosure law is complicated, and a foreclosure attorney is generally necessary for developing an effective foreclosure defense strategy.

Facing a Post-Foreclosure Eviction 

After a foreclosure sale in Massachusetts, the bank (or the third-party buyer of the foreclosed property) is required to evict the occupants of the home.  Per Massachusetts law, a homeowner is allowed to challenge the foreclosure’s legality as an eviction defense.  If a homeowner wishes to pursue such a defense, having a foreclosure attorney is critical.  An experienced foreclosure attorney will know what defenses to raise, the information that is needed to pursue such a defense, and how best to present such a case before a judge or jury.

As I have written before,  even if the homeowner does not want to stay in the home, a foreclosure attorney can still be helpful.  A foreclosure attorney can help the homeowner obtain the time they need to leave the property and avoid any potential liability from the foreclosure sale.

Conclusion 

If you are facing foreclosure in Massachusetts, it is worthwhile to speak with an experienced foreclosure attorney.  If you are in need of such help, contact me for a consultation.

Sherwin Law Firm Files Brief for Lost Promissory Note Appeal

Last week, I filed a brief for a pending appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a lost promissory note.  This appeal concerns a critical issue of Massachusetts foreclosure law: the need for a lender to have a borrower’s promissory note to foreclose.

Overview of a Promissory Note 

A promissory note is a legal term for a written promise to pay a definite sum of money.  Often referred to as simply a “note”, this is a legal contract that a party signs, promising to repay a sum of money.  In the context of real estate, a promissory note is signed by a lender and a home buyer, where the home buyer agrees to repay the money borrowed to purchase the home.  While it is common for homeowner to refer to “paying my mortgage” when making payments on a home loan, a homeowner is actually making payments towards the promissory note (a mortgage, in contrast, is a security agreement, allowing a lender to foreclose if the debt is not repaid).

Most promissory notes for home loans are negotiable instruments, a legal document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money at a set time.  The critical importance of this is negotiability: the right of a mortgage lender to sell the promissory note.  Mortgage lenders generally want to sell a mortgage loan as quickly as possible, for the purpose of maximizing their return on investment.

“Hold the Note” Requirement for Massachusetts Foreclosure Law 

Massachusetts law requires a foreclosing entity to “hold the note” at the time of foreclosure.  This comes from Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, a landmark Massachusetts case that made this a requirement for the foreclosure process.  A foreclosing entity does not need to have physical possession of the note; it is permissible for an agent (such as the loan servicer) to hold it on the note owner’s behalf.

A home owner who wishes to see their promissory note can generally request it from their lender through a qualified written request.  Moreover, Massachusetts law requires a loan servicer to certify in writing to the borrower that they own the loan.  A foreclosing entity must also record an affidavit in the land records certifying that they own the note.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that a  foreclosing entity must show the actual, physical note to the borrower prior to foreclosure.

What Happens When a Promissory Note is Lost?

If a promissory note is lost, the lender has the option of doing a lost note affidavit.  The law for this, G.L. c. 106, § 3-309, only allows such an affidavit if the lender (among other things) previously had possession of the note and cannot obtain the note through a diligent search.

However, even with the the lost note affidavit law, a missing promissory note is a headache for a lender attempting to foreclose.  For example, a 2017 Land Court decision held that a lender could not foreclose on the basis of a lost note affidavit due to problems arising from the change of the servicer for the loan.

In my appeal, I challenged whether the foreclosing entity made an adequate showing for each requirement of the lost note affidavit law.  This is an area of law that continues to evolve and be relevant to matters of foreclosure defense.  Stay tuned . . .

Conclusion 

If you need help avoiding foreclosure, contact me for a consultation.  The benefits of having an experienced attorney on your side can make all the difference in getting you the outcome you need.

 

Sherwin Law Firm Wins Foreclosure Appeal

foreclosure appeal

I’m pleased to announce that I, along with appellate attorney Joseph Schneiderman, won a foreclosure appeal this week in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.  The case, Nationstar v. Culhane (included below) concerns an important topic for appealing an eviction (“summary process”) case in Massachusetts: the importance of timely filing a notice of appeal.

Overview of Case

It would take much, much more than a single blog post to give the background on this case, or even the procedural history of this matter.  Here’s a quick synopsis.  The homeowner went through a foreclosure sale and faced a post-foreclosure eviction case by the foreclosing lender.  In such a case, the homeowner has a right to defend against the eviction by alleging that the foreclosure was not lawful.  Here, my client had a strong defense based on the lender’s failure to comply with paragraph 22 of her mortgage.

Case History

My client won her case at the District Court, where the foreclosing lender filed this eviction case.  Following my client’s win, the foreclosing lender appealed this case to the District Court Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division is a part of the District Court and hears appeals of most civil cases from the District Court.

The Appellate Division reversed the District Court’s decision, and ruled that the foreclosing lender should have won the eviction case.  I then appealed the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which hears appeals decided by the Appellate Division.

Outcome of Foreclosure Appeal

The Appeals Court ruled in my client’s favor based on a critical argument we raised for my client: the foreclosing lender’s failure to timely file this foreclosure appeal.

Massachusetts eviction law has a short deadline for pursuing an eviction appeal: ten days.  As we argued to the court, previous decisions on this law hold that a failure to meet this deadline, for seemingly any reason, are grounds for dismissing the appeal.  Here, the foreclosing lender filed its notice of appeal after the ten-day deadline, which the Appeals Court agreed was grounds for dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion

This case has some really important lessons not just for a foreclosure appeal, but any appeal of an eviction case.  The deadline for such an appeal must be timely filed.  Often, the failure to timely appeal a civil case is not always fatal to one’s case; appeal courts have discretion to allow a untimely appeal for good cause.  Not so with eviction cases.  This case, along with many prior cases on this matter (discussed in the court’s decision below) suggest that there are few grounds for filing an eviction appeal late.

For this reason, I always recommend that lawyers and parties representing themselves in an eviction appeal err on the side of caution when preserving a right to appeal.   File the notice of appeal as soon as possible and make sure you have proof that the court and opposing party receive this notice.  Take no chances on this.  I have been known to jump in my car on the last day of the deadline to appeal and make a special trip to court if I have any reason to believe the notice of appeal was not timely received by the court.

This case also demonstrates the importance of working with an experienced appellate attorney on one of these matters.  The arguments in this case were highly technical and required a deep understanding of Massachusetts eviction law and appellate procedure.  If you find yourself involved in a similar foreclosure appeal, contact me to see if I can help.

 

16P1723

Preserving a “Pinti” Defense – Paragraph 22 of the Standard Mortgage

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision this week on preserving a “Pinti” defense under paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage.  In US Bank v. Milan, the Appeals Court ruled that a homeowner failed to preserve this foreclosure defense and was precluded from raising it in his foreclosure case (a full copy of this decision is below).

Overview of Paragraph 22 of the Standard Mortgage

Paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage (used for most residential home purchases) requires that a default notice be sent to a homeowner containing a number of required disclosures before a foreclosure sale can proceed.  In Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a lender must strictly comply with this mortgage requirement.  Failure to do so makes any subsequent foreclosure sale void.

Pinti, importantly, limited the homeowners who were entitled to this defense.  Initially, the decision only applied to those paragraph 22 notices sent after July 17, 2015 (the date of Pinti).  The Appeals Court subsequently extended the benefit of Pinti to those homeowners who had a pending appeal on the paragraph 22 issue, and later, to any homeowner who raised it as a defense in a pending trial court case.  In this present appeal, the Appeals Court needed to determine what counts to preserve this defense in a pending foreclosure case.

How Does a Homeowner Preserve a Paragraph 22 Defense? 

In this case, the homeowner was in a post-foreclosure eviction case, where the bank alleged to have foreclosed the home.  The homeowner was entitled to defend against the eviction by arguing that the foreclosure was void, precluding the bank from obtaining possession of the home.

Here, the homeowner appears to have answered the bank’s eviction lawsuit by using a printed answer form, which allows claimants to raise defenses and counterclaims by checking a box.  This homeowner made a general allegation that the foreclosure was void.  In response to the bank’s inquiry on the basis of this defense, the homeowner alleged that there was forgery in his case, and did not mention a failure to comply with paragraph 22 of his mortgage.  While this case was ongoing, the Supreme Judicial Court issued Pinti.  The trial judge ruled that Pinti applied because the homeowner preserved a Pinti defense in this case, and found the overall foreclosure to be void.

The Appeals Court disagreed, ruling that the homeowner listed forgery, and not a paragraph 22 defect, as the asserted grounds for the homeowner’s foreclosure defense.  In other words, the Court was not willing to let the homeowner “change horses midstream” and get the benefit of Pinti after stating a prior, separate basis for his foreclosure defense.

Conclusion 

Recent court cases have been favorable to foreclosed homeowners with a paragraph 22 defect.  Milan suggests that there are limits to who can get the benefit of Pinti  in their case, and that a failure to expressly raise this matter can be fatal to one’s defense.  This decision, however, really only applies to homeowners with a pending foreclosure case who received a defective paragraph 22 notice before July 17, 2015.  Homeowners who received a defective notice after this date will likely have much more leeway in raising a Pinti defense.

While the Court did not address this issue, Milan touches upon the problems of using forms in answering or bringing a lawsuit.  Such forms allowed a claimant to raise a defense or claim merely by “checking a box” and without providing any supporting facts or detail.  I have long believed that these forms are problematic and not proper under the requirements for raising a legal claimMilan suggests that Massachusetts appeal courts may be inclined to take a closer look at this issue in the future.  Regardless, this is a reason why the benefits of finding an experienced foreclosure defense attorney cannot be overstated.

US Bank v. Milan

Foreclosure Help

Foreclosure Help

Foreclosure help is available for homeowners in danger of losing their homes, or homeowners who have already gone through a foreclosure sale.  While saving a home from foreclosure is never a guarantee, foreclosure help may be an option in your case depending upon the circumstances.

Before a Foreclosure 

Foreclosure help for homeowners pre-foreclosure largely consists of attempting to obtain a loan modification or similar means of paying the outstanding loan debt.  Despite the best efforts of homeowners to properly apply for this assistance with their lenders, it is not uncommon for lenders to make a mess out of reviewing loan modification applications, by claiming to “lose” paperwork and deny such applications for absurd reasons.  In such a case, an attorney can provide foreclosure help through a lawsuit against a lender’s repeated refusal to properly review of these applications.

An attorney can similarly help a homeowner defend against foreclosure by determining whether a mortgage lender complied with the requirements for starting a foreclosure sale.  Errors in the notice requirements and pre-foreclosure laws can all be effective defenses against a foreclosure sale.

After a Foreclosure

Foreclosure help is also available after a foreclosure has occurred.  Massachusetts is a “non-judicial foreclosure” state, and a mortgage lender is not required to file a court case to foreclose a home.  A mortgage lender, however, must strictly comply with the applicable laws and mortgage terms to conduct a lawful foreclosure.  The failure to do so can be grounds for defending against a foreclosure sale and getting a home back.

In addition to errors in the foreclosure requirements, a homeowner can also pursue equitable challenges to a foreclosure’s validity.  Such claims are circumstances where the lender complied with the basic foreclosure requirements, but otherwise acted in a manner that justifies the foreclosure being void.

Avoid Foreclosure Defense Scams 

A critical reminder for seeking foreclosure help is to avoid foreclosure scams.  There are many con artists who try and take advantage of struggling homeowners by promising them services that are unrealistic or not otherwise legitimate.  Avoid anyone who promises you a free home, guaranteed loan modification, or something else that seems “too good to be true.”  The Attorney General’s Office provides helpful resources for homeowners who have been victims to these scams.

Speak to An Experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorney 

Needless to say, the importance of speaking to an experienced foreclosure defense attorney cannot be overstated.  Foreclosure help may be available to you, but such assistance generally requires the knowledge of someone familiar with this area of law and the options available for saving  a home.

Appeals Court Issues Decision on Legal Rights Following a Loan Modification

 

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision last week concerning a homeowner’s legal rights following a loan modification.  In Barrasso v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, the Appeals Court held that a homeowner was unable to raise prior claims related to their mortgage loan after accepting a modification of that loan (a copy of the decision is below).

Background

In Barrasso, the homeowner entered into a loan modification with their lender, for the purpose of making the loan payments more affordable.  Years later, the homeowner brought a lawsuit against the lender, challenging several of the mortgage loan assignments and whether the present holder of the mortgage was the proper holder of the loan.

Legal Decision

Barrasso held that the homeowner was estopped from challenging the transfer of his mortgage due to the homeowner’s signing of this loan modification.  Estoppel is a legal defense that prevents a party from making an allegation or defense that contradicts a prior representation.  The loan modification in Barrasso, like most loan modification agreements, required the homeowner to agree to several factual representations about the mortgage loan, namely, who held the mortgage.  The Court reasoned that, because the homeowner benefited from this loan modification agreement, it could not then deny one of the prior statements in this agreement that it had agreed to: who the owner of the mortgage was.

Implications to Homeowners

Barrasso follows a line of reasoning that I have often taken with loan modifications: the signing of one of these agreements generally waives any prior legal claims associated with the loan.  A loan modification, in essence, is a new loan, with new terms and conditions.  If a homeowner had legal claims arising from the original loan (such as predatory lending), the homeowner probably won’t be able to raise them following a loan modification.  As explained by Barrasso, if a homeowner gets the benefits of a loan modification, it can’t then go back and raise matters that arose before the modification.

Some loan modification agreements, such as those coming from the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), do not require a homeowner to waive any legal rights against a lender.  Barrasso makes clear, however, that  a loan modification has strong implications for one’s legal rights following one of these agreements.  Homeowners should keep this in mind when considering accepting a loan modification: homeowners generally won’t be able to raise claims arising out of the prior loan.

Barrasso should not scare homeowners away from accepting a loan modification.  Loan modifications are the best means of avoiding foreclosure, and a homeowner should absolutely accept a modification with an affordable loan payment.  The key is to make sure that such a modification is right for the homeowner.  If you find yourself in such a scenario, contact me for a consultation.

Barrasso v. New Century

Foreclosure Judgment

A common inquiry about foreclosures in Massachusetts is regarding a foreclosure judgment.  What does a bank get from a homeowner after it forecloses?

In judicial foreclosure states, where a bank needs to go to court to foreclose, a foreclosure judgement is a court order allowing the bank to do a foreclosure sale.  Massachusetts, in contrast, is a non-judicial foreclosure state, where a bank doesn’t need a court order.  A foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts, therefore, generally refers to what a bank can get after foreclosure: possession of the property and a deficiency judgment.

Even if a bank performs a lawful foreclosure, it must still bring an eviction (“summary process”) case to get possession of the property.  A foreclosure only changes title to the subject property; a eviction is required to get the former homeowners out of the home.  A post-foreclosure eviction case generally occurs several months after the foreclosure sale, and is usually brought in District or Housing Court.  If a bank is successful in one of these cases, it is entitled to an execution for possession, allowing the sheriff or constable to physically remove the occupants and their possessions from the property.  In one of these eviction cases, a bank can also obtain a judgment for use-and-occupancy against the former owners, which amounts to  rent for the time that the former owner resided in the home after the foreclosure sale.  While banks generally request use-and-occupancy in post-foreclosure eviction cases, it is rare for a bank to pursue this claim for money; the bank generally just wants possession of the home.

Another foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts is a claim for any deficiency judgment that exists following the foreclosure sale.  This is the difference between the amount that the homeowner owes on the mortgage loan and the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale.  For example, if the homeowner owes $400,000 on the mortgage loan, and the bank obtains $300,000 at the foreclosure sale, the homeowner is potentially liable for the difference: $100,000.  Claims for deficiency judgments are not frequently pursued.  Generally, most former homeowners do not have sufficient assets to make one of these claims worth pursuing.  Additionally, a bank has a two-year deadline (“statue of limitations”) from the foreclosure sale to bring one of these claims, which many banks fail to do.  A homeowner can also usually file a bankruptcy to get rid of this type of debt.

Each type of foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts is an important consideration for homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who have been foreclosed.  If you find yourself in either situation, contact me for a consultation.

MA SJC Issues Important Decision on Consumer Protection Demand Letters

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision on consumer protection demand letters last week, that is of particular importance to Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  The case, Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC,  is an interpretation of the consumer protection demand letters that are required for Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (a full copy of the decision is below).

Overview of Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law

Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (commonly known as “Chapter 93A”) prohibits “unfair and deceptive” practices by businesses.  The scope of this law is broad, and has been used successfully for a variety of consumer protection claims.  For foreclosure defense, Chapter 93A claims have been effective for loan modification denial claims; courts have increasingly allowed these lawsuits based on a loan servicer’s repeated refusal to properly review a loan modification application.

To bring a Chapter 93A claim against a business, a consumer is required to send the business a demand letter and provide them thirty days to make a settlement offer.  These consumer protection demand letters are an essential requirement of this law; courts have thrown out Chapter 93A claims for a claimant’s failure to send one of these letters (or to send a letter that makes a proper demand to the business).

Exceptions to the Demand Letter Requirement

A consumer does not need to send a demand letter if “if the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business or does not keep assets within the commonwealth.”  The question in Moronta was whether one or both of these two exemptions are needed to avoid sending the demand letter.  As the Court explained: “if the defendant keeps assets in the Commonwealth, but does not maintain a place of business here, must the plaintiff serve a demand letter?”  The Court answered no: either one of these exceptions (no assets or no place of business in the Commonwealth) is an exception to the consumer protection demand letters under Chaper 93A.

How Does Moronta Affect Massachusetts Foreclosure Defense?

Moronta is of particular importance for Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  Because Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state (where a bank does not need to go to court to do a foreclosure), homeowners often need to go on “the offense” in avoiding foreclosure, through a civil action.  The demand letter requirement under Chapter 93A can be a burden for borrowers who have less than thirty days before a scheduled foreclosure to pursue a legal action.  Moronta will be a help for homeowners with cases against national banks and loan servicers, many of which do not have offices in Massachusetts, and would trigger the exception to the demand letter requirement.

Despite the benefit of Moronta for consumers, I caution consumers (especially homeowners with foreclosure defense claims) from pursuing Chapter 93A claims without the benefit of legal counsel.  Chapter 93A may be intended to help consumers, but consumer protection claims are often still too complicated for a non-lawyer to take on.  Consult an attorney if you believe you have a viable cause of action.

12042

 

How Long Does a Foreclosure Take?

download

One of the most common questions I get from homeowners facing foreclosure is, how long does a foreclosure take?  The quick answer is: a while.  Compared to other states that have expedited the foreclosure process, foreclosures in Massachusetts generally take a long time to perform, from default of the loan to the foreclosure sale date.  While earlier is always better for attempting to avoid foreclosure, this lengthy period of time works to a homeowner’s benefit in trying to resolve these matters.

While every foreclosure is different, the following are the typical steps in the process, which helps answer how long does a foreclosure take.

  • Default of Loan (6 – 12 months):  The first stage of the foreclosure process is when the homeowner defaults on the loan.  While a lender can technically begin a foreclosure after the first missed payment, I have typically found that lenders wait 6-12 months after the initial default before moving ahead with the next steps towards foreclosure.
  • Right to Cure/Request a Modified Loan (3-5 months):  The next stage of the foreclosure process is the right to cure/right to request a modified loan period.  Massachusetts law requires lenders to offer borrowers an opportunity to cure their loan default prior to foreclosure, as well as the opportunity to pursue a loan modification.  Depending on the circumstances, a homeowner will either have 90 or 150 days for these options.
  • Servicemember’s Case (4 months):  Following the right to cure/request a modified loan, the next step in the foreclosure process is a Servicemembers’ Case, usually brought in the Massachusetts Land Court.  A servicemembers’ case is solely to determine whether the homeowner is in the military and entitled to a postponement of the foreclosure.  Unless a homeowner or their family member is in the military, the homeowner generally doesn’t have a defense in one of these cases.  However, the lender will usually wait until it gets a default judgment against the homeowner and court order before commencing a foreclosure sale.
  • Foreclosure Sale (1 – 3 months):  Following the Servicemembers’ Case, the bank then begins the foreclosure sale process itself.  This requires notice to the homeowner thirty days before the scheduled sale, as well as publication of three notices in the local newspaper.  Sometimes, foreclosure sales may get postponed, for a number of different reasons.
  • Post-Foreclosure Eviction Case (1 – 6 months):  Following a foreclosure sale, the lender or the party who brought the property at the foreclosure sale needs to obtain possession of the property, through a post-foreclosure eviction.  The eviction case generally begins 3-5 months after the foreclosure sale (through a notice to quit served upon the homeowner).  The time period of the eviction case generally depends on whether the homeowner fights it: if the matter is uncontested, the lender will generally be able to evict in one month.  If the homeowner raises a defense or counterclaim, the eviction can take up to six months (and sometimes even longer).

In answering how long does a foreclosure take, bear in mind that there are many factors that will delay the listed stages above.  A loan modification application, for example, generally delays a foreclosure, while the lender considers whether the homeowner is eligible for loss mitigation assistance.  A bankruptcy will also delay foreclosure: a lender generally can’t foreclose until its gets permission from the bankruptcy court.  Finally, there is often delay in going from one step to the other: the ongoing foreclosure crisis continues to create a backlog of cases, which delays how quickly foreclosures go from start to finish.

Nonetheless, this summary provides a rough estimate of the stages of the foreclosure process and how long to expect each part of the process to take.  If you find yourself in any part of the foreclosure process, contact me to see if I can be of assistance.